jump to navigation

The Trolls and the Delta December 3, 2010

Posted by ekarlpierson in 07) The Trolls and the Delta.
add a comment

Let’s take a look at the picture of man. We have a load of ideologies and trolls running around that have taken over the “what is and values” department—the awareness. That is, they have taken over the awareness function, and are running things in our name. It is as if they are forging our signature on the messages that are being sent to Delta. Delta doesn’t realize that there has been a gradual takeover in the “what is and values” department because these clever little trolls disguise themselves as us and, in fact, have convinced us that they are I. I am, in a very real sense, nothing more than a function, but I have identified with them and have come to believe that they and I are one and the same. It’s necessary that we’re very clear on this or there is no use in moving further on in this discourse.

We must start over and become detached from these trolls to do weeding. I said that we would talk more about weeding. I present the postulate that to do any weeding on the trolls and the master troll, the black area in our picture, it’s necessary to become detached from these ideologies.

Do you remember going to see thriller movies when you were a child? Do you remember how excited you got? Do you remember having your heart pound and having a lump in your throat? You’re nerves were activated, muscles tense, stomach upside down, glands and the stress hormones working on overtime. What do you think happened? What was it that started all of this?

PARTICIPANT: We became part of the movie!

WW. Correct! We identified with the characters in the movie. What we essentially said was, “The character in the movie and I are one and the same.” Therefore, whatever happened to the character in the movie was perceived as happening to us. We sent messages to Delta, with feeling, that there was imminent danger, and since we are the eyes and ears of Delta, Delta did what Delta does, activating the necessary physiology, the nervous and chemical reactions in the body that are appropriate for our perception. The trouble here, as we may see, is that our perception was false. We sent a stream of false data to headquarters. A general needs accurate intelligence to direct his army. How can that possibly happen when we send false information to the general?

Now, as it looks to me that everyone in this room has come of age, what has happened that we can go to see a similar movie today and not have these kinds of reactions, not experience the emotions?

PARTICIPANT: We stopped being part of the movie.

WW: Correct. Right, right, right. This is a very simple but significant observation. At some point, as we became older, we were able to step in and say, “I am not the same as the characters in the movie.” We changed our perception and we changed our frame of reference to that of an observer on the sidelines. This deserves a ditto: An observer on the sidelines—a non-participant in the soap opera activity of the movie.

Let’s look again at our picture of man. We can see the three segments of the awareness function and the ideas and beliefs that these three segments represent. We’ve established that we have said, “I am the same thing as these trolls.” We have identified with these trolls. What would happen if we sent new information to Delta next time these trolls started some trouble? What if we said, or actually perceived and felt, that these trolls are not I? My mentor of many years ago referred to each of these little boogers as a “Not I.” What would happen to these boogers if we reported to Delta that the boogers were not I and were of no value? Remember what we discussed about the only abilities of the awareness function? First, “what is.” Second, “what is the value.”

PARTICIPANT: So you’re saying that we should see ourselves as having a negative value?

WW: If we get going on “shoulda,” “oughta,” then we’ll be tricked by the little boogers by going back into belief. “Shouldas” and “oughtas” and “should nots” are boogers—very tricky boogers that want to drag us back into worshipping the king of boogers, that is, our own wants and desires…the urge to keep disturbance at bay.

Let’s see…there was something else…Oh, yes. You asked if we should see ourselves negatively?

PARTICIPANT: Yes, as a negative value.

WW: We’ve been seeing events as having a positive or negative value since infancy. We’ve already discussed our fragmented habit of seeing events as good or evil. This is a tricky little booger or Not I that has disguised itself with a term, “negative value.” It’s another way of saying, “Should we see ourselves as bad or evil?” Those little boogers can be pretty damned sneaky, can’t they?

(Participant chuckle, inaudible comments)

WW: Right. The trolls get themselves all fixed up with different types of costumes and use modern sounding, well accepted terminology that sounds so right.

The awareness function can’t be an awareness function unless it has something to be aware of, right? What would be the point of having an intelligence-gathering arm of the military if there were no intelligence of which to be aware? Don’t we require something to work against to be able to gain strength? What kind of muscle strength would we have if we didn’t have gravity and other forms of resistance to work against? We’re going to talk more about the value of resistance later. It’s one of those things of which we don’t see the value because of our fractured awareness…because of our habit of seeing events fragmentarily, then dropping the ball and moving on to another fragmented view, not realizing that our viewpoint is highly incomplete. What I’m saying is, just because the awareness function is full of self-destructive ideas, it doesn’t mean that it’s negative or bad.

I think that before we go any further on that subject, we would do well to go back and readdress identification with the trolls…the Not I’s and the necessity of dis-identification. This deserves to be readdressed because it is key in this whole mess that we have gotten ourselves into.

We talked about looking at these trolls as Not I and having no value. We’ve placed a great value on these for our entire lives and now we’re talking about going in a different direction. So, what kind of mechanism do you think must take place for the trolls to lose their hold on us? What do you think happened to make them so clever and strong? How is it that they have gotten so much energy? Where did that energy come from?

PARTICIPANT: We gave them the energy.

WW: Very close answer. We saw them as useful, thereby giving them value. We saw them as useful and valuable in eliminating disturbance, now or in the future. I’m sure that if saw a dog viciously attacking a child, I would want to find the energy to viciously attack the dog. By seeing the value in that situation, we send the data and value to Delta. Delta in turn provides us with the energy and the wherewithal and the technical ability to get the job done. So, I can say that the trolls are not entirely without value at all times. The trouble is, this situation with the dog very seldom arises, but we have given the trolls value for years, not realizing the dangers posed by the trolls. When we gave them value, Delta gave them energy, power. I’m going to do the high- octane preacher thing again. When we gave the trolls value, Delta gave them energy, which is power.

Delta can only perform according to the values that we provide. Have you ever noticed that when you have a vital interest in something, that you have a greater energy level in that direction? Have you ever been reading something that captures your attention and you have the energy to stay awake beyond your normal bedtime? Have you ever played softball or some other activity at night when you’re normally taking it easy at home and found that you have an inner intensity…the awareness energy that goes beyond normal? You have the physical energy to go on, even though you put in a full day at work. I would assert that Delta provides that energy according to our values.
What do you suppose would happen if we reported to Delta that we have erred in placing values on these ideologies? What if we genuinely felt that these trolls are not I, and that they really don’t have the value that we have placed on them? We have very strongly felt that these trolls are I, and that’s where the process started that ended up giving them power. Would it make sense—is it possible—that if we saw them as valueless, Delta would remove their power? I’m not talking about sitting here in this room and intellectualizing; that’s what we do when we sit around drinking beer with the guys. We’ve been living with these ideas with strong feelings that are deeply entrenched. There is no way out of this by intellect! It must be done by experimentation and the feeling of assuredness that we’re going in the right direction, like using the pushbutton counter to record our efforts to change “what is” into “what ought to be.” The physical and mental activity that’s required for that trial indicates to Delta that we have re-evaluated things. Can we see how we got into this trouble with the strong feelings of our decisions? Does it make sense to see if we can use the same set of tools to have a way out?
We could run our trial with a paper and pencil instead of the sports counter. Let us suppose that we observe that our particular self likes to be a pleaser to pursue our desires. Let’s suppose that pleasing others is a very active troll or Not I in my particular sphere. What would happen to our skewed value if we pursued it like a private detective on a mission? What if every time we had the urge to please, regardless of whether we acted it out, we were to briefly write down a few details of our urge? I’m not suggesting that you do this because I said so, but rather, I’m questioning what would happen if we were valuing reevaluation enough that Delta would bring about the physical action of writing.

Please forgive me for hammering away at this with such redundancy, but this is an essential point. We must have action in our discovery that our ideas, our philosophies, our methods, have been futile. We have acted on these false ideas for years. It will require another action to defuse them, to make them atrophy. It requires that we fight fire with fire. To have this holiday discussion, then to only intellectualize, won’t cut it.

Do you remember, I stated earlier that we have a difficult situation because the part of us that does the looking is the part that needs to be looked at? This is what we’re trying to work on here: starting up a new point of awareness to begin seeing the self as an object—just a thing—a thing seen from a new frame of reference, not to be self-condemned, not to justify what we see, not to see it as good or evil, and certainly not to eliminate or change it. If it is to be de-clawed or made powerless, that will be up to Delta. We’re only interested in seeing it as a thing.

PARTICIPANT: But nobody wants to be seen as a “thing.” I don’t want to be an object.

WW: Now you’ve got it! If you go to a place of business and you’re seen as an object or a thing, you want to leave, right?

PARTICIPANT: Right. Who wants that?

WW: The many selves, with the goals, the methods of achievement, the trolls, as I’ve called them, don’t like being seen as things. They don’t like being seen as objects. What we’re doing is to objectify them, to degrade them, to see them objectively.

PARTICIPANT: Are we supposed to turn ourselves in to cold pieces of machinery? Are we supposed to turn ourselves into Data from Star Trek?

WW: I don’t think you have to worry about that happening. We’re not interested in stopping all of our feelings. You won’t do that until you die. We’re interested in the inappropriate feelings, the emotions that rise up from false perception. I must admit, I have had a couple of women tell me that I’m cold and heartless, but I don’t believe them.

PARTICIPANT: I have a question similar to her question. Isn’t everything I do a method? Every activity that I’m involved with is somehow a method, isn’t it? If I give up methodology, I have to give up living.

WW: Correct, correct, correct. Look, I probably haven’t made this completely clear. I’m not a man of means. I’m not a man of leisure. I still have to get out there and earn a living, and I use methods to earn a living. The question is, do the methods run me, or do I run the methods? I want to be aware of every method that I can. I want to be an actor. As an actor, I can pick out a method and act on it, knowing that it is an act. I am the actor; the method is the subject. If I’m unaware that it’s just an act, then the act takes over. The method, the troll, then becomes the active, and I become the subject; I become subject to whatever the trolls decide to do. I don’t want to be subject to the trolls; I want the trolls to be subject to me, a dis-identified awareness.

Look, I don’t want to destroy the methods, the ideologies, the trolls. I am interested only in taking away their power to dictate my feelings. If it’s deemed necessary to call up a troll, then I want to act out the role, not have the role take over my being.

Right now, I’m acting the role of a speaker. Yesterday, I was acting the role of a guy that’s earning a living. Last week, I was acting the role of a cowboy with boots and spurs on horseback chasing down a cow in an arena. I am none of those things. It’s an act. If deemed necessary, I may act pleasing or belligerent. I’ll do my best to make it an act.

PARTICIPANT: But, even if you were acting, you were still something or someone. You were still Willard Willis. You were still you.

WW: I was?

PARTICIPANT: Well, if you weren’t you, who were you?

WW: I don’t know.

Advertisements