The code of the Psychopath according to Gurdjieff?

[blindpsychic]

With mental health professionals, psychopathy is not a general label.

I don't know about that. I'm reading Corruption of Reality right now and both the author and a lot of the sources he quotes uses the term interchangeably for any mental illness. Its even right there on the cover. He ends up mostly talking about the other entries in DSM besides sociopathy.

 

[StrangeCaptain]

Just for the sake of clarification, I think a word study of the term "psychopath" might be useful and enlightening. And yes I'm aware that the bulk of this thread happened back in 2008.

Psychopathy means "mental illness". That being the case, any condition that causes us to pathologically think incorrectly or illogically could be termed as a psychopathic condition. Psychopath is a general label.

I might have misunderstood you here. I am thinking maybe you mean to make a distinction between a psychopath and someone who acts like one?

In "Women Who Love Psychopaths," the idea is presented that we do not need to occupy ourselves unneccessarily with trying to diagnose someone. Actually diagnosing someone is a practice of professionals. All we really have to do is identify if someone is demonstrating psychopathic traits. If they are, then that is reason enough to distance yourself. Sometimes we use the word "pathological" in this forum to describe, for example, a behavior or a person or an organization. As I understand it, it is short for "demonstrating psychopathic traits." Although a person could demonstrate psychopathic traits and not be a psychopath, from the practical stand point of those in close proximity to such a person the distinction is not important.

Psychopathy itself may very well be a genetic and uncurable condition. And for a psychopath, it might be inaccurate to consider it a disease. It would be like watching a tiger hunt an antelope and ponder on how we might cure the tiger of the disease of being a tiger. I am not going to stand around and get eaten by a tiger if I can help it, but I also am not going to try to figure out how to make a tiger lose its stripes or become a vegetarian.

The emotional disorders, neuroses, etc most folks have just by merit of existing are not to be confused with psychopathy. They may be reactions to living in pathological environments.

 

[StrangeCaptain]

With mental health professionals, psychopathy is not a general label.

I don't know about that. I'm reading Corruption of Reality right now and both the author and a lot of the sources he quotes uses the term interchangeably for any mental illness. Its even right there on the cover. He ends up mostly talking about the other entries in DSM besides sociopathy.

Well... Geez... I am sorry, but if that is true, that is just a jaw dropping level of ignorance. I mean by the author not you.

 

[go2]

With mental health professionals, psychopathy is not a general label.

I don't know about that. I'm reading Corruption of Reality right now and both the author and a lot of the sources he quotes uses the term interchangeably for any mental illness. Its even right there on the cover. He ends up mostly talking about the other entries in DSM besides sociopathy.

The cover of Corruption of Reality reads psychopathology not psychopathy. Yes, psychopathology would be a general term for pathology of the psyche, however psychopathy is a very specific term, referring to individuals who are incapable of love, lack empathy, etc.; since they do not have the emotional capacity necessary for the human function of relationship of self-other. They are two brained beings in Fourth Way parlance. They look like a real human being, but they only have an intellectual function and an motor-instinctive function. Imagine an intelligent crocodile in human body for affect.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Yes, etymologically, psychopath means "sick soul/mind". That's how Gurdjieff used it, too, to refer to what is now called "psychopathology". However, in the early days of psychiatry, it got tied to a specific form of "mental illness" and it has stuck. So like everyone has pointed out already, it's a specific term that applies to a specific disorder. It may not be the best term, but it's the one that is used by all the researchers.

 

[blindpsychic]

With mental health professionals, psychopathy is not a general label.

I don't know about that. I'm reading Corruption of Reality right now and both the author and a lot of the sources he quotes uses the term interchangeably for any mental illness. Its even right there on the cover. He ends up mostly talking about the other entries in DSM besides sociopathy.

The cover of Corruption of Reality reads psychopathology not psychopathy. Yes, psychopathology would be a general term for pathology of the psyche, however psychopathy is a very specific term, referring to individuals who are incapable of love, lack empathy, etc.; since they do not have the emotional capacity necessary for the human function of relationship of self-other. They are two brained beings in Fourth Way parlance. They look like a real human being, but they only have an intellectual function and an motor-instinctive function. Imagine an intelligent crocodile in human body for affect.

do'h c'est ma faute. My mind just reads the two as the same. What I get for not paying attention.

 

[anart]

Now this idea of the "Hasnamuss" or shite soul I think specifically refers to characteropaths, sociopaths, and/or extreme narcissists.

I would disagree with this. An Essential psychopath is born, not made. Characteropaths, sociopaths and narcissists are made, not born that way. To my understanding, you have it backwards above, since the 'shite soul' as you put it is born, not made, thus I do think it possible that Gurdjieff was referring to the Essential Psychopath when he described that type of person. fwiw.

 

[monksgirl]

Yes, etymologically, psychopath means "sick soul/mind". That's how Gurdjieff used it, too, to refer to what is now called "psychopathology". However, in the early days of psychiatry, it got tied to a specific form of "mental illness" and it has stuck. So like everyone has pointed out already, it's a specific term that applies to a specific disorder. It may not be the best term, but it's the one that is used by all the researchers.

I did not see this thread before today. The arguments reminded me how easily we are caught up in the dramas created by psychopaths, including the one who trolled in early in the discussion. And isn't this what many of them do? Create dissension, division, and generate bad feelings all around. On the voyage to this country, Freud remarked to a companion that we thought he was bringing us a panacea, when he was really bringing us a plague. I am not sure Freud contributed more than debatable distinctions to the challenges faced in dealing with either the mentally ill or the truly evil. Gurdjieff's observations on both are probably more salient, as well as more instructively descriptive to the lay person. We know the tree by the fruit that it bears.

 

[piscea]

Who's the artist!
the one that brings the Psycho out or the one that awakens the heart!
The 2 live in the same house, in all of us.

"he who hath not sinned, cast the first stone!"

Thats what separates a "Human being" from a "Man" be-ing.

 

[The rabbit]

Who's the artist!
the one that brings the Psycho out or the one that awakens the heart!
The 2 live in the same house, in all of us.

"he who hath not sinned, cast the first stone!"

Thats what separates a "Human being" from a "Man" be-ing.

Welcome to our forum.

It is recommend all new members to post an introduction in the Newbies section telling us a bit about themselves, how they found the cass material, and how much of the work here they have read.

You can have a look through that board to see how others have done it.

 

[psychic_spy]

I did not see this thread before today. The arguments reminded me how easily we are caught up in the dramas created by psychopaths, including the one who trolled in early in the discussion. And isn't this what many of them do? Create dissension, division, and generate bad feelings all around. On the voyage to this country, Freud remarked to a companion that we thought he was bringing us a panacea, when he was really bringing us a plague. I am not sure Freud contributed more than debatable distinctions to the challenges faced in dealing with either the mentally ill or the truly evil. Gurdjieff's observations on both are probably more salient, as well as more instructively descriptive to the lay person. We know the tree by the fruit that it bears.

Me either monksgirl but i was very intrigued by one and each reaction here on ''Sigh's'' post who dared to speak on the premise that Gurdjieff might be a psychopath himself.

Why did you attack ''sigh'' since he didn't offend anyone directly but indirectly only his statements were contradicting Gurdjieff's image as you internalized it ? As far as I'm concerned, being sure with all my being that Gurdjieff is not a psychopath i'm detached from any contrary opinion that attempts to question my belief in the Work but i don't devalue someone because his statements seem absurd from my own point of view. I can see value in that opinion but that doesn't move me, provoking me to react as Anart who was ( as i tried to visualise her internally ''red with rage'' at Sight's perceived impertinence, can you deny this Anart ?) aggresive and subjective, not in her evaluation of Sight alone, but on the emotional response elicited by the possibility that one can think of Gurdjieff as Evil. Is that so?

I think you should have given that guy/girl the chance to give further arguments in order to support his idea, even encourage that strange impression given the fact that Sight might have indeed studied thoroughly Beelzebub's . and met some of G's students. and reached an insight, an awkard one for sure that deserves analysis on this board and unbiased feedback.

 

[anart]

Me either monksgirl but i was very intrigued by one and each reaction here on ''Sigh's'' post who dared to speak on the premise that Gurdjieff might be a psychopath himself.

Why did you attack ''sigh'' since he didn't offend anyone directly but indirectly only his statements were contradicting Gurdjieff's image as you internalized it ? As far as I'm concerned, being sure with all my being that Gurdjieff is not a psychopath i'm detached from any contrary opinion that attempts to question my belief in the Work but i don't devalue someone because his statements seem absurd from my own point of view. I can see value in that opinion but that doesn't move me, provoking me to react as Anart who was ( as i tried to visualise her internally ''red with rage'' at Sight's perceived impertinence, can you deny this Anart ?) aggresive and subjective, not in her evaluation of Sight alone, but on the emotional response elicited by the possibility that one can think of Gurdjieff as Evil. Is that so?

I can deny that categorically, psychic_spy. Perhaps it's worth considering the idea that projecting your own emotional states onto others is of little use. I don't get 'red with rage' and even if I did, I certainly wouldn't post in such a state.

I think you should have given that guy/girl the chance to give further arguments in order to support his idea, even encourage that strange impression given the fact that Sight might have indeed studied thoroughly Beelzebub's . and met some of G's students. and reached an insight, an awkard one for sure that deserves analysis on this board and unbiased feedback.

This is a research forum and there are times when so much time and energy has been spent determining what is true and what is not true about a specific subject that to allow the injection of pure noise into the discussion of that specific subject is a disservice not only to the forum but to those trying to learn what is, in fact, true. In other words, there is no need to allow a fool to spout nonsense just to be "polite" when we have more important things to do - the world is on fire, after all.

Speaking of noise, did you notice that the post that got you all 'worked up' is over 4 years old?

 

[psychic_spy]

Now this idea of the "Hasnamuss" or shite soul I think specifically refers to characteropaths, sociopaths, and/or extreme narcissists.

I would disagree with this. An Essential psychopath is born, not made. Characteropaths, sociopaths and narcissists are made, not born that way. To my understanding, you have it backwards above, since the 'shite soul' as you put it is born, not made, thus I do think it possible that Gurdjieff was referring to the Essential Psychopath when he described that type of person. fwiw.

Are you personally sure a psychopath is indeed Born and not Made like this? Many psychological studies can't tell, it's said is 50%-50% actually on average, some naughty genes and not a right education moreover. It is really, very hard to tell and speculate on it, because a psychopath might not disclose the circumstances in his family that made him clearly what it's later depicted as a psychologically flawed individual. He might not identify them because he got used to them in early infancy so abnormality for a socially sane individual is normality and conformity for an abused , alinated individual who had the misfortune to be raised in a toxic, narcissistic environement. The only things many researchers, statisticians, psychologists, ponerologists and so on won't admit, is that people lie and hide the data that would clarify dark aspects about themselves and their upbringing to facilitate a process of understanding of the psychopathy, of it's roots mostly.

 

[anart]

Now this idea of the "Hasnamuss" or shite soul I think specifically refers to characteropaths, sociopaths, and/or extreme narcissists.

I would disagree with this. An Essential psychopath is born, not made. Characteropaths, sociopaths and narcissists are made, not born that way. To my understanding, you have it backwards above, since the 'shite soul' as you put it is born, not made, thus I do think it possible that Gurdjieff was referring to the Essential Psychopath when he described that type of person. fwiw.

Are you personally sure a psychopath is indeed Born and not Made like this? Many psychological studies can't tell, it's said is 50%-50% actually on average, some naughty genes and not a right education moreover. It is really, very hard to tell and speculate on it, because a psychopath might not disclose the circumstances in his family that made him clearly what it's later depicted as a psychologically flawed individual. He might not identify them because he got used to them in early infancy so abnormality for a socially sane individual is normality and conformity for an abused , alinated individual who had the misfortune to be raised in a toxic, narcissistic environement. The only things many researchers, statisticians, psychologists, ponerologists and so on won't admit, is that people lie and hide the data that would clarify dark aspects about themselves and their upbringing to facilitate a process of understanding of the psychopathy, of it's roots mostly.

Please get up to speed on the latest research. Yes, essential psychopaths are born, not made, according to currently available data. Please read the work of Robert Hare and Andrew Lobaczewski to start. There are physical brain differences evident - so if you actually get up to speed on the research, it will help you understand. Added - in fact, if you just read all of the articles available on the SOTT page on psychopathology, you will know more then you currently understand, which would be a big help!

 

[psychic_spy]

I can deny that categorically, psychic_spy. Perhaps it's worth considering the idea that projecting your own emotional states onto others is of little use. I don't get 'red with rage' and even if I did, I certainly wouldn't post in such a state.

But you can, since no one sees you and is no shame to feel rage for someone who makes noice or is perceiced like that, on your effort to bring this forum at a reasonable advancement.

This is a research forum and there are times when so much time and energy has been spent determining what is true and what is not true about a specific subject that to allow the injection of pure noise into the discussion of that specific subject is a disservice not only to the forum but to those trying to learn what is, in fact, true. In other words, there is no need to allow a fool to spout nonsense just to be "polite" when we have more important things to do - the world is on fire, after all.

Speaking of noise, did you notice that the post that got you all 'worked up' is over 4 years old?

No, i missed that but it felt ''fresh'' , it had on me the vivifying effect that ''Truth'' on this forum may become to much of your truth given your colective determination then objective truth. If it was a research forum for experts it should have said so on some rules list and newcomers would have stayed away, this prevents noice from happening.
Maybe this forum has become to crowded for some and you've become too advanced to waste time on explaning the basics to each and everyone.