Addicted to inspiration? Read this....

This is for all those courageous enough to question their belief in James Edward Parkinson the 3rd......

The nature of cult mind control

'Mind Control' (aka 'Brainwashing' or 'Thought Reform') is a shorthand term for a complex process of mental and psychological manipulation, which occurs within a cult. It is a means of exercising undue influence over a person.

The most effective mind-control is the kind that isn't recognised by the victim as any kind of manipulation. You don't feel it, you think you are in control.

Briefly, this is how it works. A cult promotes its cultish belief system, and then believers control their own minds, as they train their minds and reform their personalities, in accordance with the tenets of their cultish new belief system.

Understanding the disorientating, drug-like nature of a cult belief system and worldview is the key to understanding cult mind control.

Cults promote a belief system which is utopian and idealistic, and also dualistic and bi-polar in nature. Dualistic, in the sense that they tend to see the world in terms of two opposite poles, such as pure good and evil, the saved and the fallen, the enlightened and the ignorant, etc.

Cult belief systems are also bi-polar in psychological terms, rather like Bi-polar disorder or manic-depression. Cults promote a vision of an ideal 'new life' or 'new self' ('the true individual' in FWBO terms), which members believe they can attain by following the cult teachings. E.g.:

'The central teaching of the Buddha is that we can change our lives. Buddhism offers clear and practical guidelines as to how men and women can realise their full potential for understanding and kindness. Meditation is a direct way of working on ourselves, to bring about positive change in our lives. We teach two simple and complementary meditations. One helps us develop a calm, clear, focused mind; the other transforms our emotional life, enabling us to enjoy greater self-confidence and positivity towards others.' 

Cult belief systems are bi-polar because they encourage the aspirant to identify with this imagined ideal new self, and then, from the perspective of this new self, to see their old self as comparatively inferior and flawed. E.g:

'Bodhi [Enlightenment] is a state of insight, of wisdom, of awareness - to begin with, insight into one's own self. It consists in taking a very deep, clear, profound look into oneself, and seeing how, on all the different levels of one's being, one is conditioned, governed by the reactive mind, reacting mechanically, automatically, on account of past psychological conditionings of which only too often one is largely unconscious. It is seeing, moreover, the extent to which one is dominated, even against one's will, - often without ones knowledge, by the negative emotions.' 

An inner tension or conflict is set up, between the 'positive' new self (the 'Stepford' personality), and the 'negative' old self. In effect, a split personality is created, with pride and hubris for the idealised new self, and shame and guilt for the unreformed old self.

All cults seem to be motivated by this bipolar mixture of hubris and guilt. Exactly what is considered 'positive' or 'negative', virtuous or sinful, may vary considerably, depending on the tenets of the particular belief system in question, but cult belief systems generally seem to have this same underlying hubris/guilt dynamic.

Cult members are entranced by the cult's beguiling 'fantasy of heroic virtue', which both inspires and traps them. As they try to practice the cult teachings for themselves, they tend to alternate between seeing themselves as fairly heroic in their efforts to achieve an ideal personality and to help bring about a ideal new world, or feeling guilty over their failure to overcome their recalcitrant old self, with all its supposed negativity and reactivity and sinfulness.

The hubris can either be a personal hubris, in the case of the cult's top hierarchy, or more usually, for rank and file members, it is a kind of projected hubris, or hubris-by-proxy - the hope and expectation that in due course, after diligent practice, they will attain the ideal for themselves, or at least make definite progress towards the ideal. This expectation can sometimes lead to a sort of collective hubris among established cult members. They see themselves as part of an elite, and tend to look down rather sniffily upon the mores and values of mainstream society.

To varying degrees, believers can experience a sort of refined mania of inspiration, almost like a drug high, when they are in the hubris phase, identifying with their imaginary idealised new self, with its enhanced understanding and kindness, etc. This inspiration is pleasant and even intoxicating in itself, and it may also be interpreted as a sign of spiritual progress, as a glimpse of a higher reality, or as evidence of the truth of the belief system. This is all part of the circular, solipsistic, self-validating nature of a cult belief system.

Besides tending to believe in the objective truth of the belief system, believers can also become psychologically addicted to the inspired state.This combination of faith and addiction can make a person very loyal to their group, and to the teachers and leaders who inspire and guide the group. In effect, they become dependent on the group and its leadership to guide their 'spiritual growth'. Of course, cult leaders can exploit this dependency in various ways.

If members fall out of favour, even temporarily, with the group's leadership, or if they begin to doubt if they can achieve the group's ideals, they may experience a sort of religious depression, in the form of anxiety or guilt over their seeming inability to free themselves from their negative 'old self', with all its bad habits and reactivity and lack of faith. This guilt or depression tends to reinforce their desire to return to the inspired state, and to reinforce their addiction to the inspiring vision of the cult belief system, so there can be a cumulative feedback process operating too - the more they cling to their inspiration, the more they are prone to depression once the inspiration wears off. And the more they experience depression, the more they crave inspiration. And so on.

At an extreme, believers fear they will become ill or fall into hell if they leave the group.

All this goes on within a cult members mind. A cult does not really control its members by using external coercion. It is the belief system/worldview itself which is the primary active agent in cult mind control. The actual controlling of mind is done by the person themselves, as they attempt to discipline their mind and reform their personality, in accordance with the tenets of their new belief system. Effectively, a cult, via its belief system, uses a person's own energy and aspirations against them.

It would be a mistake to assume that only weak-willed people join cults. On the contrary, it is often the more ambitious and strong-willed people who become the most committed cult members.

Of course, ordinary society can be a bit bi-polar as well, with its pressure to be 'successful', with an ideal physique, lifestyle, etc. The pressure is just more focused and sustained within a cult. A cult can play on both a person's anxieties and their aspirations at the same time. They (or rather their belief system) can potentially make a person feel both more guilty about their 'old self' with its normal human weaknesses, and simultaneously inspire them with an imaginary idealised vision of a wonderful new self and a new life. Very bi-polar.

In general, when you talk to a cult member, it can be helpful to understand which self, either the old self with its old set of beliefs, or the new self with its new set of cult beliefs, is more dominant at any particular time.

If you criticise a cult member, this may just encourage their tendency to see themselves (their old self) as flawed, and may push them further into the cult. If you criticise their church or group, the cult-member will go into cult-self mode and will see your criticisms as tending to confirm the cult's warnings about the outside world and its negative effects. A better approach may be to acknowledge and encourage a cult member's old self, without criticising or threatening the new cult self. If a cult member feels valued in themselves, and their old self does not feel devalued, then this weakens the cult's attraction for them.

---

Why do people join cults?

Obviously, no-one is forced to join a cult. No-one is forced to adopt a new belief system. Equally, however, no-one can really make an informed assessment of a group or its belief system in advance, without having first had some personal experience of it. You can't knock it if you haven't tried it.

The ideals and goals of a cult's belief system are such as to give the cult an inherent psychological advantage over its critics and doubters, because on the one hand the cult's ideals are attractive and inspiring, while on the other hand they are non-falsifiable - they can never be shown to be false or deluded, and indeed it can seem negative and reactionary even to question them.

In general, it can be difficult to know in advance whether it would be beneficial or not to follow the study and training opportunities offered by a particular group or organisation. The benefits, if any, of group involvement can only really be evaluated after a suitable period of time spent with the group. How long a suitable period of time might be, depends on the individual, and cannot be determined in advance. In other words, it can be very difficult to know from the outside whether a group is a cult or not, unless you are forewarned and have enough knowledge about cults to be able to spot the telltale signs.

The danger for someone who may unwittingly become involved with a cult is that they will be exposed to the cult belief system, which is psychoactive, like a drug. It can be addictive and disorientating, and dangerous even to experiment with. Once involved, it may not be all that easy for someone to escape from a cult belief system.

Cults will do their best to ensure initial apparent benefits for new members. A cult is rather like a card sharp, who will let a newcomer win the first few games, in order to take all their money in the long run. There is no problem, so long as a member is happy to continue their involvement with the group. However, should a member at some stage become unhappy with their involvement, or develop serious doubts about the belief system or the integrity of the group's leadership, then the process of disentanglement may not be all that straightforward.

---

Leaving a cult.

Rejecting the belief system in its entirety may not be easy, or even desirable. Even after physical contact with the group has ceased, elements of the cult belief system are likely to linger in the mind of an ex-member for some time, depending how deeply and for how long they were involved. They may experience feelings of anxiety and disorientation as they try to rid themselves of the unwanted remnants of the cult belief system and worldview, while simultaneously trying to regain some confidence either in their old, pre-cult belief system and ways of relating to the world, or alternatively, in some new, post-cult belief system.

In trying to rid their minds of the unwanted remnants of the cult belief system, an ex-member is effectively trying to use their own thought processes to disentangle their own thought processes. This is quite a difficult task, rather like trying to lift yourself up by your own shoelaces.

For a while, an ex-member may exist in a sort of limbo between the cult world and the outside world, unsure which to believe in. To the extent that the cult belief system retains any degree of respect or credibility within an ex-member's mind, then to that extent leaving the group will seem like abandoning the ideals and aspirations of the group's belief system, and therefore like a failure.

On the other hand, to the extent that the cult belief system fails to retain credibility and is eschewed, to that extent an ex-member will tend to feel shame at their foolishness and gullibility in having once adopted beliefs and aspired to ideals which they now regard as unrealistic.

So either they are a failure, or a gullible fool. Either way their self-confidence takes a knock, and they may find it difficult to have any faith in their own judgement, or in their ability to make sensible decisions. For a while, they may not know what to believe, or who to trust.

While an ex-member is in this process of disentangling themselves from the cult belief system and ways of thinking, it can be helpful to talk to other ex-members from various different cults, who have gone through a similar process of disentanglement. Additionally, there are professional 'exit-counselors', often former cult members themselves, who may be able to help unravel any psychological disorientation or damage resulting from cult involvement.

However, some caution is also necessary, because some so-called cult awareness networks are, ironically, actually run by cults, and some supposedly independent academic researchers are in effect cult apologists, whose research is sometimes indirectly funded by cults seeking a positive report for their own marketing and public relations purposes.

---

How do cults get away with it?

Mind control is an intangible thing. It is a complex psychological process which leaves no physical trace or evidence behind. Therefore it is virtually impossible to prove that mind control has occurred in any particular case, or even that it exists at all. 

Mind control occurs as a result of an individual becoming involved with a cult and its belief system. Unfortunately, the workings of cult mind control are not widely understood by the general public. Consequently, cults are almost never held responsible for the beliefs they promote, or for the changes in an individual's behaviour that those beliefs may cause. The individual is held responsible for acting on those beliefs, but the cult is rarely if ever held responsible for promoting those beliefs in the first place.

No criticisms of the allegedly harmful effect that a cult's belief system may have had upon a member's mind or behaviour can ever be proved objectively, because the whole subject of personal belief is by nature largely subjective and intangible, and therefore unprovable either way.

Victims are left with the near-impossible task of proving the unprovable. A cult can simply say that its critics are motivated by personal resentment and negativity, or that they had hidden psychological problems before they became involved with the group. So long as the burden of proof remains with the critic, a cult can never lose. A cult can be a complete scam, and damaging to those who become involved, but nobody can actually prove it.

Therefore it is very difficult to expose a cult, or to prevent it from continuing to expand and to attract new recruits

Read More

Compared to a psychopath....

1. Glibness/superficial charm. [James' chief feature is his overwhelmingly likeable character, he uses it to bait and reel]
2. Grandiose sense of self-worth. [Implies he has 'higher' consciousness than others, has had visions of Jesus and God has actually spoken to him]
3. Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom [seeks thrills in the form of affairs, fast cars, travelling, games and gadgets]
4. Pathological lying [will absolutely lie and deny to save his own ass and projects if confronted, discredits those viciously who have left or criticised him ]
5. Conning/manipulative [uses your personal information against you, uses a divide and conquer strategy and many other highly manipulative tactics]
6. Lack of remorse or guilt [can do things, like have affairs, with complete conviction that he is 'doing the work of God'!]
7. Shallow affect [Fake emotions, sounds deeply profound, but it's a charade, fake, mimicry]
8. Callous/lack of empathy [can hurt/abuse people and shadow projects if you confront him]
9. Parasitic lifestyle [his house, car and all his travelling expenses are paid for by his 'people', they pay him 10% and have done for 20 years. He's sitting on a small fortune]
10. Poor behavioral controls [temper tantrums, hangs up, childish games, swears abusively]
11. Promiscuous sexual behavior [will hit on anything in a skirt and has had a multitude of women before and during his marriage]
12. Early behavior problems [trouble maker, child-abuse victim, sexual juvenile deliquency]
13. Lack of realistic, long-term plans [lives in the NOW, which is something typical of psychopaths, ironically also a spiritual concept which he has integrated into his system ]
14. Impulsivity [does what he pleases]
15. Irresponsibility [see 14, takes no responsibility for anything and says what he does is "God's will"]
16. Failure to accept responsibility for own actions [won't be accountable for his actions and uses spiritual rhetoric to defend himself]
17. Many short-term marital relationships [had been married 3 or 4 times, has had frequent (countless!) partners before and during his marriage]
18. Juvenile delinquency [stealing, lying, conning, sexual deviancy]

[Robert Hare's checklist on psychopathy]

(Narcissism also a characteristic of psychopathy)It must be remembered that even the most severely and obviously disabled psychopath presents a technical appearance of sanity, in James' case he has mastered an aspect of religion and spirituality (mimicry and imitation) and uses it to charm his victims often very convincingly, often with high intellectual capacities and not infrequently succeeds in business activities.

Read More

Narcissism I

The "modesty" displayed by Narcissists is false. It is mostly and merely verbal. It is couched in flourishing phrases, emphasized to the point of absurdity, repeated unnecessarily - usually to the point of causing gross inconvenience to the listener. Its real aim and its subtext are exactly the opposite of common modesty. It intends either to aggrandize the Narcissist or to protect his grandiosity from scrutiny and possible erosion. Such modest outbursts precede inflated, grandiosity laden statements made by the Narcissist and pertaining to fields of human knowledge and activity in which he is sorely lacking. Devoid of systematic and methodical education, the Narcissist tries to make do with pompous mannerisms, bombastic announcements, and the unnecessary and wrong usage of professional jargon.

He attempts to dazzle his surroundings with apparent "brilliance". Beneath all this he is shallow, devoid of real knowledge, improvising, and fearful of being discovered as deceitful. The Narcissist is a conjurer of verbosity, using sleight of mouth rather than sleight of hand. He is ever possessed of the inner sensation that he is really a petty crook about to be exposed and reviled by society.

This is a horrible feeling to endure and a taxing, onerous way to live. The Narcissist has to protect himself from his own intimation, internal ongoing trial, guilt feeling and anxiety. One of the more efficacious defense and protection mechanisms is false modesty. The Narcissist will declare and reveal himself as unfit, unworthy, lacking, not trained and not (formally) schooled, not objective, cognizant of his own shortcomings and vain. This way, if (to him, when) exposed he could always say: "But I told you so in advance, didn't I?". False modesty is, thus, a hedge mechanism. The Narcissist "insures his bets" by placing a side bet on his own fallibility, weakness, deficiencies and proneness to err.

Yet another function is to extract Narcissistic supply from the listener. By contrasting a belittling and reducing statement about himself with a brilliant, dazzling display of ingenuity, wit, intellect, knowledge, or beauty - the Narcissist intends to secure an adoring, admiring, approving, or applauding protestation from the listener. The person to whom the falsely modest statement is directed is expected to vehemently deny the Narcissist's claims: "But, really, you know much more than you pretend to know", or "Why did you say that you are unable to do (this or that)? Truly, you are very gifted at it!". The Narcissist then will shrug his shoulders, smirk, blush and move uncomfortably from side to side. This was not his intention, he would assure his correspondent. He did not mean to fish for compliments (exactly what he did mean to do). He really does not deserve the praise. But the aim has, thus, been achieved: the Narcissistic supply has been granted and avidly consumed. Despite the Narcissist's protestations, he feels much better now.

The Narcissist is a dilettante and a charlatan. He glosses over complicated subjects and situations in life. He sails through them powered by shallow acquaintance with rapidly acquired verbal and behavioral vocabularies (which he then proceeds to forget). False modesty is only one of a series of false behavior patterns. The Narcissist is a pathological liar, either implicitly or explicitly. His whole existence is a derivative of a False Self, a deceitful invention and its reflections. With false modesty he seeks to implicate others in his little games, to co-opt them, to force them to collaborate making ultimate use of social conventions of conduct. The Narcissist, above all, is a shrewd manipulator of human characters and fault lines. He will never admit to this. In this sense he is verily modest.

Read More

ONE RING TO BILL THEM ALL

This is the big daddy. This is their sacred cow. This is the beating heart of their evil empire. The crown jewel. The Death Star. The one ring to bill them all. The pot of gold. Their matrix (into which they want to plug you). Their Wizard of Oz. Their magic spell. Their special power. Their secret recipe with the eleven herbs and spices. Their Golden Goose. The very air upon which they breathe! Question this doctrine and watch these money hungry pastors bare their fangs. This is a teaching that they will bear no compromise on.

Tithing, or at least their own version of tithing, is their one true love.

Here are some bullet points about tithing that these money hungry pastors don’t want you to know:

• The New Testament Church did not tithe.
• The New Testament does not teach tithing for Christians.
• Their favorite Malachi verses cannot be used for Christians since Christians are not under the law of Moses.
• Abraham’s one off tithe of his war booty did not set up a precedent for Christians to regularly tithe their income.
• The version of tithing they teach cannot be found in Scripture (see below).
• The “Storehouse” in Malachi cannot be equated to your local church organization.
• There are plenty of rich (money wise) Christians who do not tithe. This would be impossible if their version of tithing was true.
• The New Testament teaching is that you decide how much to give, and there are no rules about where it goes. You cannot be compelled to give.

It may come as a surprise to learn that their tithing doctrine is a combination of twisted scriptures and wishful thinking, as opposed to solid Biblical exegesis reflecting a central thrust of New Testament teaching.

Here is their tithing doctrine stated in a nutshell:

“Christians must give ten percent of their gross income only to their church organization. If they do, then God will bless them for any offerings they make to the church organization beyond this ten percent. But if they do not give ten percent gross, then they are stealing from God and God will curse them.”

There are variations of this teaching, and sometimes it is called a “principle”, but the above definition contains the core essence of this doctrine.

Tithing was part of the old law (of Moses) which was fulfilled (completed) by Jesus.

What is more, this tithing doctrine they teach isn’t found in either the New or Old Testament. Tithing in the old testament does not match what these pastors preach – this unique tithe teaching is of their own invention.

James Parkinson practices this exact same anti-doctrine. The difference is that he doesn't ask for it up front (though he has been known to pass a hat around) he guilts people by telling them "nothing is for free", "you will pay eventually for what I give freely(?)", "people don't understand the principle of giving, they think they can take what I have for free". The fact is, real spiritual teachers believe in the saviour of humanity and their life is dedicated to real spiritual freedom and they take nothing from their disciples because the true reward lies in the furthering along of mankind to oneness.

Read More

The Jekyl and Hyde phenomenon

The Jekyll and Hyde phenomenon is named after Robert Louis Stevenson's archetypal tale of a man who is taken over by his dark side, and become in that way an entrenched metaphor of the shadow.

I use this term here in a much more restricted sense, to refer to a phenomenon I have observed across the board. I have seen it not just among certain Sai Baba and to a lesser extent  Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet devotees, but also in the case of a Marxist I corresponded with. The similarities between the religious cultist and the supposedly secular Marxist made me realise that this is a common pattern of behavior; rather than being unique to guruist cultists, it seems to be entrenched in human nature. It applies in the case of spurned lovers, friends who fall out and become enemies, and so on. It is, as I said, universal.

But the Jekyll and Hyde phenomenon is particularly obvious in cultic, religious, and polemical groups, probably because of the huge degree of ego-idealisation andshadow projection that these groups engage in.

How it works is this. If you seen to be sympathetic to, agreeing with, or even simply interested in a detached sort of way, then the person with a cause will be very happy because here is someone else, a fellow traveller, a comrade in arms, someone who understands what they are saying, and what is so extremely important to them, and will therefore project their ego/anima/animus-ideal on you, and see you in a very positive way, be very friendly to you, and so on. This phenomenon works regardless of gender, although when gender is involved pother things come into it too.

So everything goes hunky dory. But if you ever start seriously questioning their ideology, religion, or belief, and again this is the same regarding whether they are secular ideologues, religionists, or full on cultists, there is a very dramatic change, and a huge amount of hostility, shadow projection and even paranoia comes into play. It is fascinating to observe this similar pattern of behaviour in these different areas. This seems to indicate that perhaps these different phenomena of human identification are not so distinct after all. Cults and cultic worship of abusive gurus merge into philosophies like Integral theory and Marxism, so that there is the same pattern of defensiveness and emotionalism once criticisms are raised. It is as if all these people cannot stand to be criticised; their egos are so insecure and so bound up in their belief-system, so that an attack on their belief-system becomes an attack on them. It is this sudden dramatic "flip", how they go from being friend to enemy almost instantaneously, because you dare to look critically at what they believe in, that constitutes The Jekyll and Hyde phenomenon.

He then are some common themes:

• There is always some absolutist cause, some ideal, some guru or ideology or crusade with which the person identifies, or a narcissistic ego if it is only all about them or their revelation or their claims. So they are convinced what they have is the absolute truth
• The person will generally approach you (fishing for converts to their cause)
• If you are initially positive or receptive they will be quite friendly, or even very friendly
• If you then engage in rational discussion with them, question what they are saying (but not too strongly!), they will be most enthusiastic to debate with you. They may even write pages and pages, happy to answer your questions; not as an equal to equal mind you, but as an instructor with superior knowledge enlightening you. They are in the role of teacher, and you are the student. This greatly feeds both their ego (by making them think they are important: look, they are the one spreading the word of their great teacher!) and their affective/emotional nature (what Sri Aurobindo calls the "vital") by getting them all excited and happy through doing this.
• But, if you start questioning instead in a more serious manner, a threshold is quickly reached (the tolerance will most likely vary according to the psychological state and degree of affective intensity and defensiveness of the JekyllandHyder). Astonishingly, after formerly being so nice, they will get suddenly quite aggressive and straight away launch into a very dysfunctional shadow projection mode, accusing you of everything that they really are. This is the radical transformation that lends the phenomenon its name. Watching this in action can be quite unsettling. It is as if they are looking at a mirror reflection of all their negative nature, and everything they see they associate with you (or with whoever their critic is)
• If you at this point or perhaps at any time afterwards try to engage in rational discussion and argument, they are incapable of seeing your point of view. And you realise that in fact they cannot see any point of view apart from their own, and never could. This shows they have a great deal of narcissism, which may be unconscious, but still very powerful for all that.
• They however still claim to be or present themselves as scholars or researchers or investigators of the truth, and claim that what they are saying is objective truth, scientific, legal, spiritual whatever. But always there is something lacking in their reasoning, the ability to think in a truly rational and critical manner
• Likewise, and because of their excessive narcissism, they are incapable of looking at themselves honestly
• As soon as they shadow project, there is no love, no heart consciousness, to be seen, none at all. None. Only antagonism and hostility, even (in the worst cases) hatred. Yet in spite of this they still consider themselves the most loving people, and claim that all this antagonism comes from you alone. (This is in keeping with the power of the projection of the shadow)

In short, these people are incapable of rational discussion. It is this reason that makes them flip in the first place. Quite likely they are sitting on an insecurity, which they cannot admit, even to themselves. Especially not to themselves. So at the slightest excuse they will project everything negative in them, all their ugliness, onto whoever dares criticise the total validity of what they are saying.

Read More

The truth about negative emotions..

The truth is that James has truly misinterpreted the concept of negative emotions and uses this term to make sure no one can express any criticism. If you do, you are negative, if you defend that, you are self-justifiying. In truth, there is no way to win except by submitting completely to his will. If you contradict, you become enemy number one, if you submit, you are enlightened. 

The notion of "Avoiding the Expression of Negative Emotions" has been misconstrued in many expositions of the work and in many people's practice. The problem comes about with the semantics of the term "Negative Emotion." What is a "Negative Emotion?" Most people who read about this Work idea assume that a negative emotion is a "bad" emotion such as anger or hurt or sadness. They assume that a negative emotion is any emotion that seems to make one lose control, one that might make a person appear weak and reactionary.

When someone interprets negative emotions in this way, they very quickly set up a conceptual hierarchy of "good" feelings versus "bad" feelings. They tend to suppress the "bad" feelings and associate right conduct with the expression of "good" feelings. Their idea of proper work with the emotional center is only to express "approved" emotions. "Approved" emotions are only the ones that express a so-called proper relationship between oneself and the Work. When groups engage in the practice of this particular interpretation of "negative emotions," the results are the often comical if sad manifestations of 4th Way groupies: self-seriousness, the fierce need to set people straight about the correct interpretation of the words of Gurdjieff or Ouspensky, the tendency to see Types rather than people, a work-ethic verging on self-flagellation, etc. These manifestations are all examples of wrong work on the emotional center. They are best understood as "Emotional Constipation."

A clearer understanding of the idea of not expressing negative emotions begins with the distinction between negative emotions and positive emotions. A positive emotion is a feeling or emotion that arises spontaneously in response to the immediate moment. The emotional center responds to the Universe with feelings. Whatever the particular feeling, if it arises genuinely in response to the immediate state of the Universe, it is positive. A negative emotion is a feeling or emotion that arises in response to a thought, a memory, an analysis of past events. It is a feeling that arises in response to the activity of False Personality, (or as referred to in our own school, the Android). It has no genuine connection with what is happening in the moment; it is a reflected emotion, generated by automatic or mechanical, as opposed to natural, organic processes; it is an artificial emotion. Hence the term, "negative." Gurdjieff has described the mis-wiring of centers, how the energy of one center can interfere with the activity of another center, etc. Negative emotions are the means by which the Android, or False Personality, is able to use the intellectual center to manipulate the energy of the emotional center.

Now this can understandably be confusing to an inexperienced student encountering this idea. For example, suppose you are engaged in a business deal. You might be satisfied with the negotiations at the moment and even pleased with the deal. Later on, as you begin to think about what happened, you may decide that you "left money on the table." You may start to feel manipulated and angry at the situation. In this case, the sense of satisfaction could well have been a positive emotion, while the anger later on is definitely negative. In another example, you may be in an emotional argument with your significant other. Your significant other might say something hurtful. Rather than show this hurt, you start telling yourself that the other person didn't really mean it. Eventually you calm yourself down to the point that you think the comment was even a little amusing. In this case, the feeling of hurt is the positive emotion and the feeling of calm amusement is the negative emotion.

Positive emotions are the domain of Essence and negative emotions are the domain of the Android. It takes a great deal of practice and a heightened sense of discernment to recognize in one's self the distinction between positive and negative emotions. So many of our buffers exist to shield our awareness from our own positive emotions. Most of us begin this work awash in negative emotions. We do not know how we really feel. Our feelings are entirely mediated by the Android. In a school setting, the practice of not expressing negative emotions is intended to break this cycle and permit us to begin to gather data on our positive emotions through Self-Observation. As generally formulated, however, this practice is incomplete. A better formulation would be: "make efforts to express positive emotions and not to express negative emotions."

Let us first examine the notion of not expressing negative emotions. Emotions and feelings are sources of energy in our organism. The expression of emotion represents the channeling of this energy throughout our organism. The part of ourselves that is responsible for channeling this energy gets turned on or brought to the fore. Any broadcasting of emotions from our organism engenders a reciprocal response from the Universe in the form of feedback. This feedback, whether from another person or from life situations themselves, is received by that part of ourselves that has been brought to the fore in our manifestation. This feedback then forms an impression that feeds the part of ourselves that was responsible for the manifestation. When we express a negative emotion, the energy we broadcast to the Universe is directed by the Android. The reciprocal impression that we receive back from the Universe becomes food for the Android and allows it to grow. Growth of the Android means the creation of more I's and the deepening of mechanical behavior.

When we express a positive emotion, we bring Essence to the fore, and the energy we broadcast to the Universe is directed by our Essence. The reciprocal impression that we receive back from the Universe in this instance becomes food for the Essence and allows it to grow. Growth of Essence means the maturing of our true Selves and the deepening of Being. The challenge we face in a school environment with the expression of positive emotions is that this process will always seem to the Android as if we are losing control. It was to deal with this very danger of emotional vulnerability that we originally created the Android. The Android can be very crafty in coming up with ways to prevent us from expressing positive emotions. The misunderstanding of the practice of non-expression of negative emotions described in the beginning of this article is perhaps one of the craftiest. In a school situation, real results come only when one is willing to "stick one's neck out." Sticking one's neck out means expressing positive emotions. As Gurdjieff said, "essence learns by demonstration." Even in a school, we can only learn by being willing to expose our young, immature Essence, through the expression of positive emotions, to the demonstrations of mature Essence that a only a genuine teacher can provide.

The practice of non-expression of negative emotions is very different from simply repressing negative emotions. To the best of one's ability, one attempts to observe fully the flow of such mechanical emotion in relation to the inner dialog of the Android. One attempts to observe and acknowledge the proceeding internal manifestation without giving any outward indication of this process. The benefit of this practice is that the emotional energy that would ordinarily have served only to feed the Android can now be used to feed one's efforts at Self-Observation. In this transformation, one's Observer is strengthened and one's capacity for discernment deepened. When one merely supresses negative emotions, not only do they not go away, the energy required to maintain this suppression strengthens and makes more persistent these aspects of the Android. The negative emotion also then generally leaks out in other ways of which one may be completely unaware. Similarly, when one represses positive emotions, one also does so through the agency of the Android. The energy of these emotions becomes "stuck" and as mentioned above, one becomes emotionally constipated. The emotional center becomes distorted and dull.

To summarize, proper work with emotions involves the effort not only to practice the non-expression of negative emotions but also to express genuine positive emotions. Both are necessary for proper Essence transformation. These are extremely powerful methods that are best conducted in the context of a school with a guide(s) who can help one cultivate one's ability to discern the difference between positive versus negative emotion. The superficial treatment that the "non-expression of negative emotions" gets in most public material on the Work is the worst form of wiseacring. It can easily lead to a severe distortion of the emotional center. If by some miracle one manages to still retain some wherewithal to continue in the Work after having practiced this pseudo-technique, then one will require a correspondingly larger kick in the pants to move forward than will someone lucky enough to be starting their Work uncluttered by such a history.

We wish ex-members of James' Cult much luck with REAL work and we are sorry to hear that you have been robbed of your inner strength to transform.

Read More

STOCKHOLM SYNDROME LITE

According to the psychoanalytic view of the syndrome, this tendency to empathize or defend a captor, might be the result of employing the strategy evolved by newborn babies to form an emotional attachment to the nearest powerful adult in order to maximize the probability that this adult will enable—at the very least—the survival of the child, if not also prove to be a good parental figure. This syndrome is considered a prime example for the defense mechanism of identification.

But, don't identify, alright?
Too late.

Read More