Ganymede progression

Brick wrote: What did you find so weird about it that made you decline the lesson?

The only thing I think that's weird about it is the name. The rest of it seems pretty standard, I mean half the IP is basically 'write about your thought and feelings on *insert topic here*' :laugh:

I especially want to know the origin of the name and the deeper intent behind that. The other thing I did not like was the fact I found out there are like 30 to 40 terms in the lesson and I was given only 10. I didnt like that fact I could not choose and that others had judged me in such a way as to just decide I needed those. This came from someone who had NO interaction with me previously and I felt it was an unfair assessment.

Beyond that it seems like a bit of busy work. I would much rather approach those things organically as they appear in my life and then evaluate vs having to force feed myself information with a goal of artificial regurgitation. It lacks context in that form and I find it ineffective.

I haven't completed any of these officially yet, but it is my understanding that what makes the Ganymede Progression different than the IP lessons is that the responses are not only written, but also intended to be discussed with a Teacher and regularly revisited. As we encounter different emotions and experiences in our lives, we can go back to these lessons and see how our perception of each concept has changed, progressed, etc. We can also discuss which areas we need more understanding of when we find ourselves failing at something consistently. I think the actual discussion taking place one on one about the responses would be the most valuable part, but this needs to take place inside of the trusted Teacher/Mentor partnership and will likely never be seen or acknowledged by anyone else. The written work may appear to be lacking on the surface, but the deeper conversations behind them may be much more valuable.

I do agree with you, Kyrin, that we need to be careful as teachers about assuming which lessons in the GP are more appropriate than others for our students. We can make suggestions, but ultimately I believe the student should engage in some real self reflection and decide which lessons are most applicable to their current situation. I'd be happy to go through these with you as our time permits and compare our responses. We could probably help each other see things we may be missing when we try to scrutinize ourselves.

I don't believe the terms in the progression were meant to be [strictly] picked by the teacher. They are all meant to be open and available to whoever is working on them to do in pretty much any order depending on their current relevancy in one's life.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: The other thing I did not like was the fact I found out there are like 30 to 40 terms in the lesson and I was given only 10. I didnt like that fact I could not choose and that others had judged me in such a way as to just decide I needed those. This came from someone who had NO interaction with me previously and I felt it was an unfair assessment.

I am perhaps approaching this from a different perspective, so I hope I don't sound like I am discounting your feelings on this. They're your feelings; you have every right (and perhaps even a biological imperative) to feel them.

Within the confines of this forum, "someone who had NO interaction with me previously" is an illusory concept for me. This isn't a verbal conversation at a dinner party, where words come out of folks' mouths, their vibrations fade, and thereafter the words live only within the memories of the listeners. I have "interacted" with people who were long gone from here before I ever arrived, in the sense that I have read the thoughts they chose to share and allowed their inferences and statements to resonate with me (or not). I have shared my own thoughts, feelings, arguments, fallacies, mythologies, experiences here over the years; barring the complete destruction of the site (and the Wayback Machine snapshots of it) or a breakdown in contemporary society as we know it, I will therefore "interact" in this way with people whom I will never know.

So maybe I am missing the purpose of labeling an assessment as "unfair" on that basis. But really, what harm does feedback of this kind do in any event? For example, let's say Knight X were to suggest to me that I could perhaps benefit from the Ganymede lesson on "resentment." Leaving aside the question of whether I actually have a personal issue with resentment -- and spoiler alert, yes I do, at times -- at the very least I should probably consider the question of what I am putting out there in my posts or messages that could be received in that way. After all, it's not just what we say, it's the manner in which we say it, yeah? Worst case scenario, I get an additional perspective on how my communications are coming across.

Arisaig wrote: Well yeah, stuff like that is in the IP... but I've been against such things in the AP and beyond for a while now. I dunno, just feels way too low level for knights and knights-in-training.

For clarity, I wasn't necessarily saying that I supported stuff like that being in either the IP or AP, I was just arguing that since that stuff is in the IP then it shouldn't be a weird new concept to people . As it happens, I agree with your thoughts about 'stuff like that' Ari.

As Atticus rightly says:

This is by no means IP level stuff. Unless one's responses to it are IP level. But that's not baked into the program.

Kyrin wrote: The other thing I did not like was the fact I found out there are like 30 to 40 terms in the lesson and I was given only 10. I didnt like that fact I could not choose and that others had judged me in such a way as to just decide I needed those. This came from someone who had NO interaction with me previously and I felt it was an unfair assessment.

I can understand you're frustration there. The version of the Lesson Maitre gave me was for me to pick 10 from the full list that I thought were most relevant to me. Surely if it was an AP lesson it should've been set by your TM?

As Senan correctly said, it is supposed to be heavily discussed and reviewed with your TM. As I do that for pretty much every lesson Maitre sets me, I kind of took that as a given. Sorry for not being clearer.




N.B.

Ari wrote: I guess. I just see people working through these lessons and their responses aren't really what I'd consider good enough

I hope you're not talking about me

Thanks for your thoughts Atticus. I might need to clarify a few points I made. By interaction I mean no two way interaction. maybe they do know me as you say, but I don't know them and therefore I don't trust them because trust is something earned. This is the very reason I'm such an advocate for the senior staff being more involved in daily threads. If they are not involved I don't know them and I don't trust them. Because I have no way to INTERACT with them. I can read a 100 Steven King books but it tells me nothing about what kind of person he really is.

And so "unfair" may not be a proper term, more "uninformed". Its really strange to me that no one knows the origin of this term of its meaning. Why Ganymede? What are we progressing? I know Alex has seen this thread because he has thanked others and my understanding is he produced the lesson. So why the silence?? What is the big secret? Once again this failure to answer just smells like... well you know.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: I know Alex has seen this thread because he has thanked others and my understanding is he produced the lesson. So why the silence?? What is the big secret? Once again this failure to answer just smells like... well you know.

Perhaps finding the answers to your questions is part of the lessons? Or put another way, would Daniel have properly received the lessons of "wax-on, wax-off" if his sensei told him up front why he was making him do them?

EDIT: Transparency is by and large a desirable thing, but sometimes you gotta retain a little mystery.

Brick wrote:

Ari wrote: I guess. I just see people working through these lessons and their responses aren't really what I'd consider good enough

I hope you're not talking about me

Of course not, you're great.

Arisaig wrote:

Brick wrote: What did you find so weird about it that made you decline the lesson?

The only thing I think that's weird about it is the name. The rest of it seems pretty standard, I mean half the IP is basically 'write about your thought and feelings on *insert topic here*' :laugh:

Well yeah, stuff like that is in the IP... but I've been against such things in the AP and beyond for a while now. I dunno, just feels way too low level for knights and knights-in-training.

I've done stuff like it in my apprenticeship, with the chakras, but it isn't just my "thoughts and feeling about x topic", but a in depth analysing of my emotions, stresses, ect ect. That seems more on par of the higher standard that should be set beyond the IP. To regress down into IP level stuff after the IP just feels... meh.

Continued and repeated self reflection to me anyway is a very important and critical part of the path no matter where you are in it, up all the way and including master. We should always be checking ourselves to see if we have gone too far astray or have gotten blinded by many other distractions. It's also a too way to compare against previously done versions to see how we have evolved or devolved as well. It doesn't stop even after training is over.

The myth of Ganymede has nothing to do with paedophilia ... Besides, that practice in ancient Greek society was not like unto what is seen as child molestation (or sex with a minor) today. It was an honourable practice with some pretty strict terms attached to it.

Nevertheless, the rationale for why the lesson is called the Ganymede Progression does indeed have much to do with the myth. First, the "most beautiful of mortals" was a humble shepherd. Not a prince, not a rich Athenian -- just a shepherd boy. Zeus became enamoured by him and came to carry him up to Olympus. There, he became a favourite of all the gods - being the "cup bearer" ("cups" being a symbol of the heart, or our feeling/intuitive nature). Feeling precedes thought in all matters ; the rational (logic) is founded on the non-rational (feeling). The beauty of humility in service to divinity (review Campbell for that one -- or explore Eliade, and /or Buber ...)

Ganymede was the only one of Zeus' lovers to be immortalised. This invokes (and perhaps evokes -- but that is not clear, since the question is being posed) transcendence beyond the physical -- gaining favour with the "gods" (the giving of oneself to something greater than an individual is as an isolated being) thus transcending the limited identity of just being a "hot guy".

You will notice that none of those concepts/notions which the GP explores are very sophisticated abstractions from analytical philosophy : they are all relatively simple terms that we all think we know something about just through common sense (the worst kind of sense, when one thinks about it), but when we have to intro-outro-reintro-spect on them, we find their scope just a little out of our grasp. Hence, the dialogue with the TM is indispensable -- or a clergy person -- or just your dog/cat/goldfish sometimes.

Of course, I also have personal reasons for dedicating that lesson to Ganymede, but that has only to do with how the myth strikes me in my own experience of life with another's experience of life.

Note : Hera was furious....