Useful idea or wishful thinking?

[Buddy]

While catching up on some reading, an idea came to me.
Not wanting to trust my own evaluation, due to possible bias towards my own ideas and a general state of fatigue, I wanted to post it for consideration.

If we consider that souled people are the 'normal people' and mass unconsciousness of who is responsible for the destructions in the world as 'the problem', I was wondering if I have a helpful idea for an additional 'angle of attack' on the problem.

I have been reading two SOTT articles that got me thinking about the possibility of reaching people on a more subtle level in order to plant a seed that they, themselves, will nurture. A seed that might get them to start thinking about 'things' and possibly lead to more investigation. That is to say, a way of connecting that is not 'over the top' to those who currently and automatically 'switch off' in the presence of any information that they mistakenly interpret as mere conspiracy theories.

As a way of helping me explain what I mean, the bolded comments in the quotes below, seem to point to a way to introduce, to the general population, the idea that there could be a 'type' of person very different from 'normal people' (him or herself), and why he or she could understandably overlook or fail to apprehend such a thing.

In a reply connected to:
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/156452-Judaism-and-Christianity-Two-Thousand-Years-of-Lies-60-Years-of-State-Terrorism

Laura said:

That'S The Point By Laura

Mack discusses this problem extensively - how we are controlled by our need to find meaning in the Bible mainly because we are brainwashed to believe, a priori - that there is some truth to be found there! This process is described by Lobaczewski, too!
"In spite of their typical deficits, or even an openly schizoidal declaration, their readers do not realize what the authors’ characters are like; they interpret such works in a manner corresponding to their own nature. The minds of normal people tend toward corrective interpretation thanks to the participation of their own richer, psychological world-view."

In the article:
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/165868-Baby-eyes-are-taking-in-the-world-applying-self-experience-to-other-people

There is:

"One of the most interesting puzzles in child development is how infants and young children come to understand other people's emotions, thoughts and inner feelings. They can see another person's body move, but they can't see into another person's heart and mind. How do babies get from observing body movements to making attributions about internal thoughts and feelings? This research indicates that a key is that they use themselves as a model for understanding others. They assume that what affects them in a certain way, also affects others in that same way. It's a good bet, and it works," added Meltzoff, who holds the Job and Gertrud Tamaki endowed chair.
[...]
..."This illustrates that infants treat others as 'like me'."

This idea that I'm talking about could possibly represent a non-threatening way to introduce the idea of the everyday psychopath, sociopath, narcissist or OP.
It might even be beneficial to create a publication of some kind that includes multiple references or entire articles devoted solely to the theme of "how we may often mistakenly judge others when we apply our own self experience to other people."


I was wondering if anyone knows of any other full length articles or references based on this theme that I'm loosely describing as 'the blind spot of applying self-experience to other people'.
I'm not really referring to the voluminous amount of information on 'projection', as such, but rather a different approach that bypasses existing denial mechanisms or familiar bored-rejection mechanisms that may exist within the target audience.

I guess I'm mainly thinking about a way to get people thinking (seed taking root and beginning to sprout) without triggering any automatic reactions.
Something along the lines of:
In the article:
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/156341-Of-Shoes-and-Ships-and-Sealing-Wax

Laura quotes from her work in The Secret History...

The mind, having received information, transmits it deep into the interior of our consciousness, where the message can change our state of awareness dramatically. A chain reaction of psycho-spiritual events is initiated as the consciousness realigns itself based on the information received. This realignment then affects the entire self, the reality, and all support systems of the consciousness involved. In short, your BEing is determined by your state of awareness which is a function of your knowledge which depends on what "ligands" - or information units - are "bound" to your subconscious, so to say. And just as ligands can produce cascades of cellular events with far reaching effects, so can your state of Being change because increased awareness can initiate major changes in your reality.

...so, having been accepted, the seed takes root and nature takes its course.


I was also wondering if something has already been done along this line, or if this idea is really just too softball of an approach considering the urgency of the situation we find ourselves in.

 

[Ellipse]

I feel very concerned with this point too and I often say to myself "we need tools/techniques to how bring explain the problem".

On the other hand, I think this is dangerously walking on the red line off free will.

The most valuable I had found at this time is to be at the same level as the interlocutor and to wait that some point of interest pop in. It always pop in. Now the difficulty is to recognize it and deal with it step by step. This is what the C's do in fact.


Easy to say, hard to do. To be at the very same level as the interlocutor and staying alert is very hard for me.

 

[Tigersoap]

This idea that I'm talking about could possibly represent a non-threatening way to introduce the idea of the everyday psychopath, sociopath, narcissist or OP.

How can such a burning topic be non-threatening by its very nature ? :D

[quote author=Buddy]I guess I'm mainly thinking about a way to get people thinking (seed taking root and beginning to sprout) without triggering any automatic reactions.
[/quote]

I think you can only spark interest in people who have already started to question the reality of their surroundings.
It's in my experience that speaking about these matters to persons who haven't got a clue about themselves in the first place does not really help.
And there is the Free-will aspect of such idea, to bypass the unconscious blocking some people may have, they may have them for a good reason that it's up to them to resolve or not.
And again there is the problem of "startegic enclosure" as well.

Imho, these subjects are interconnected with the Work itself, just by pointing the finger to psychopathy is only one side of the problem, an important one for sure !!

But yeah, each time someone is open to the idea I'll approach the subject, what else can you do on a personal level ?

Just a few thoughts, I may not be considering the whole perspective.

 

[Buddy]

I agree that freewill is important as well as the other aspects of the Work.

In a one-on-one situation, a conversation about babies could lead to mentioning the article entitled:

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/165868-Baby-eyes-are-taking-in-the-world-applying-self-experience-to-other-people

or something similar...and be left at that. But what about the mass-market? Blogs, newsy websites, personal websites, ebooks for sale or 'premium' giveaways...things of that nature?

How can such a burning topic be non-threatening by its very nature ? :D

Well, the topic itself is a burning issue, but the method of introduction would be the focus. And the method is only mentioned as an adjunct to existing methods and only as a way to attract the interest of those who may be unreachable in more direct ways.

 

[Tigersoap]

In a one-on-one situation, a conversation about babies could lead to mentioning the article entitled:
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/165868-Baby-eyes-are-taking-in-the-world-applying-self-experience-to-other-people
or something similar...and be left at that. But what about the mass-market? Blogs, newsy websites, personal websites, ebooks for sale or 'premium' giveaways...things of that nature?

Ok, but I don't see why that article is more important than many other articles from the SOTT or other sources on psychopathy, narcissism and such ?
If it works for you fine, it may not strike a chord for someone else.
I don't think there is a unique solution to approach everyone at the same time and at that media game it's not like anyone of us as the funds to compete in this direction, if I understand correctly what you want to do.
I have the impression that many people on this forum are spreading the information far and wide already.

Well, the topic itself is a burning issue, but the method of introduction would be the focus. And the method is only mentioned as an adjunct to existing methods and only as a way to attract the interest of those who may be unreachable in more direct ways.

I don't know, I think it's wishful thinking to believe that you can find ways to bypass years of hypnosis just by finding a method which would "plant a seed" in the subconscious.
I think that either you'll get it (even if takes a long time) or you won't.
I mean, STO candidate don't chose for the others ;)
Thus said, if you can find a new way to make these subjects understood in a proper way, then do it, no effort can be lost osit.


Maybe I totally misunderstood your point though.

 

[Buddy]

Maybe I totally misunderstood your point though.

No, I think you got it.
This is probably an issue that I should be focussing on as part of my own work. And if there is anything 'to be done' here, it is for me to do myself...in a way that is consistent with my current level of knowledge.

I think I just needed the viewpoint of someone who is a little more objective about this than me.

Thanks for your input.

 

[Aiming]

This idea that I'm talking about could possibly represent a non-threatening way to introduce the idea of the everyday psychopath, sociopath, narcissist or OP.
It might even be beneficial to create a publication of some kind that includes multiple references or entire articles devoted solely to the theme of "how we may often mistakenly judge others when we apply our own self experience to other people."
<snip>
I'm not really referring to the voluminous amount of information on 'projection', as such, but rather a different approach that bypasses existing denial mechanisms or familiar bored-rejection mechanisms that may exist within the target audience.

I guess I'm mainly thinking about a way to get people thinking (seed taking root and beginning to sprout) without triggering any automatic reactions.
<snip>
I was also wondering if something has already been done along this line, or if this idea is really just too softball of an approach considering the urgency of the situation we find ourselves in.

Just my two cents:
I think it's really hard to not trigger automatic reactions in normal people, especially when you consider how often we (those struggling with the Work) find ourselves reacting automatically so much, and this although we're trying to be conscious of it.
Finding a methodic approach as to how to write something for the mass that's eliciting a curiosity in them for objective reality is sure a challenge and I think an idea to consider.

I mean, eventually, all we can do is offer a glimpse towards objective reality by throwing some carefully considered seeds in a carefully considered way and it's then up to each whether he takes up the seed or not. Even if it's just one that takes up the seed, it is worthwhile, I think. If nobody takes up the seed, well then at least we've tried our best by reaching for even the most improbable.
And maybe that's indeed something that's missing. If we take into account that we here, in our personal lives, have to constantly train ourselves in external considering, there should be a possibility of figuring out how 'to best-externally-considerately' present this 'glimpse of objective reality' to the mass! And the article concerning babies' perception would be a good start.
And maybe a way of doing that is -with the appropriate psychological knowledge- to make use of those automatically triggered reactions, though in a positive, that is free will sustaining way! If that is not contradicting in itself, I'm not sure.

fwiw

 

[Aiming]

Ooops, just noticed that Tigersoap has given some insightful clarification on the whole issue while I was writing my post. Apologies.

 

[Buddy]

And maybe a way of doing that is -with the appropriate psychological knowledge- to make use of those automatically triggered reactions, though in a positive, that is free will sustaining way! If that is not contradicting in itself, I'm not sure.

fwiw

I think you captured the subtlety in the idea...and even went further by drawing a wider context.
In other words, if anything along the idea that I was talking about DID have an 'eye-opening' type of effect, then it would be counter-productive to let someone 'sit-n-spin' in their emotions - with no outlet.

Thanks for reminding me of an important point.

 

[Aiming]

My pleasure! :D :)

 

[mkrnhr]

Hi buddy,

Your post is indeed very interresting. Not directly related to the Work as usually expressed, but as we are trying to help ourselves, we want to help otherselves as well.

Before to continue I would like to point a funny thought. You said that souled people are normal and the others are the problem. IMHO the contrary is also right. Souled persons are "spiritual" beings experiencing an earthly existence. The others are earthly beings experiencing earthly experience. It's they world after all, we (i suppose we have souls, I'm not sure for me and i am struggling everyday to know, and that is disturbing believe me) are foreigners. We are foreigners trying to hide because indigenous are dangerous and want to enslave us. All we can do is to awaken other immigrants discreetly.

All we can do is to recognise the free will to learn, and to provide data. Every time I want to explain to someone what I know, I just remember that I don't know that much, and I remember how I was before to ask for answers, and to seek for them.

IMHO, the main obstacle is beliefs, be it religious or others. Being cynic is what could shake the beliefs of some, and make others hate you. If you are cynic (by ridiculising stupid societal reaction, traditions, beliefs, behaviours... without being cynic towards the persons) some persons will start to doubt about their beliefs. The others will burn you as a heretic/mentally ill or what ever they could accuse you.

When persons ask questions, you might propose some possibilities, but not the answers because you are still looking for them. You cannot give knowledge for those who are not ready for it, they must work and train their brains. You ask for knowledge and it is not knowledge that asks for you. Helping to clean the recipes that receive knowledge, and sharing its own fragments of knowledge is the best one can do to another. But you cannot do it with anybody, not with the autochtones. You have just wait for a lost foreigner asking for the way. And recognising him is also recognising yourself.
OSIT :)
I hope I didn't been to off topic.

Very friendly.

 

[Jacques]

If we consider that souled people are the 'normal people' and mass unconsciousness of who is responsible for the destructions in the world as 'the problem', I was wondering if I have a helpful idea for an additional 'angle of attack' on the problem.

Who are you talking about when you say: "mass unconsciousness of who is responsible for the destructions in the world as 'the problem"

 

[Buddy]

Who are you talking about when you say: "mass unconsciousness of who is responsible for the destructions in the world as 'the problem"

I simply meant the state of the general public not knowing about psychopaths and their connection to the destructive actions of the pathocracy.

 

[Renaissance]

As Tigersoap already mentioned, it's really up to the individual. Someone cannot pass on their understanding to another.

Gurjieff wrote of a relevant meeting in Meetings with Remarkable Men:

'Faith cannot be given to man, Faith arises in a man and he would either swing his arms in rhythm, mark time with increases in its action in him not as the result of automatic his feet or make all kinds of manipulations with his fingers, learning, that is, not from any automatic ascertainment of I once asked him why he was such a fool as not to rest, since
height, breadth, thickness, form and weight, or from the no one would pay him anything for these useless exercises,
perception of anything by sight, hearing, touch, smell or taste, but from understanding.

'Understanding is the essence obtained from information intentionally learned and from all kinds of experiences personally experienced.

'For example, if my own beloved brother were to come to me here at this moment and urgently entreat me to give him merely a tenth part of my understanding, and if I wished with my whole being to do so, yet I could not, in spite of my most ardent desire, give him even the thousandth part of this understanding, as he has neither the knowledge nor the experience which I have quite accidentally acquired and lived through in my life.

'No, Professor, it is a hundred times easier, as it is said in the Gospels, "for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle" than for anyone to give another the understanding formed in him about anything whatsoever.

'I formerly thought as you do and even chose the activity of a missionary in order to teach everyone faith in Christ. I wanted to make everyone as happy as I myself felt from faith in the teachings of Jesus Christ. But to wish to do that by, so to say, grafting faith on by words is like wishing to fill someone with bread merely by looking at him.

'Understanding is acquired, as I have already said, from the totality of information intentionally learned and from personal experiencing; whereas knowledge is only the automatic remembrance of words in a certain sequence.

'Not only is it impossible, even with all one's desire, to give another one's own inner understanding, formed in the course
of life from the said factors, but also, as I recently established with certain other brothers of our monastery, there exists a
law that the quality of what is perceived by anyone when another person tells him something, either for his knowledge or his understanding, depends on the quality of the data formed in the person speaking.'

In Search of the Miraculous has an excerpt explaining the harm in making another conscious. Shocks are powerful things and the PTB know how to utilize them (via the shock doctrine) to control people. I wouldn't say they often use them to make people conscious but rather to change beliefs to meet their goals. However, there are schools such as Landmark and EST that force the disintegration of the personality using some truths. Consciousness seems to be dependent on will and since no will of the individual was involved in their 'growth', these people become dependent on the wills of those who changed their personality. Its also interesting that most all educational institutions are based on one sided development, i.e. they assist in the growth of knowledge but no understanding. The emotional center is completely neglected. So it looks like this is also done on a mass level but in a much more subtle way.

Anyway, here's the ISOTM excerpt:

"If man overcomes unconsciousness, he will possess consciousness; if he overcomes mechanicalness he will produce will. If he understands the nature of powers he can attain, it will be clear to him that they cannot be given; these powers must be developed by effort. If we were made more conscious, we would remain conscious machines. Mr. Gurdjeiff told me that in some schools they could, by some special methods, make a sheep conscious. But it just remained a conscious sheep. I asked him what they did with it, and he said they ate it.

The idea of a conscious sheep is this: suppose a man is made conscious by someone else; he will be an instrument in the hands of others. One's own efforts are necessary, because otherwise, even if a man is made conscious, he will not be able to use it. It is in the very nature of things that consciousness and will cannot be given. If someone could give them to you, it would not be an advantage. This is the reason why one must buy everything, nothing is given free. The most difficult thing is to learn how to pay. But if it could be explained in a few words, there would be no need to go to school. One has to pay not only for consciousness but for everything. Not the smallest idea can become one's own until one has paid for it.

 

[Buddy]

Thanks for the post, Los.

I agree...it IS up to the individual. This thread may simply be an example of taking a small idea and blowing it out of all reasonable proportion. I think these posts have educated me more about the way I think, than I could educate anyone else about 'the way it is', so to speak.

Thanks for everyone's input.