Basarab Nicolescu-Science & Gurdjieff

A

andi

Guest
Basarab Nicolescu, a very intelligent man of science in the field of quantum physics discussing the teachings of Gurdjieff in relation to science, reality and lows.
This is a long read, so read patiently (it is a very informative extract well worth the attention).


[Book]-(Gurdjieff: Essays and Reflections on the Man and His Teachings)

[link]google books extract:
_http://books.google.ca/books?id=3R9vGrR5IEUC&pg=PA37&lpg=PA37&dq=basarab+nicolescu+gurdjieff+nature&source=bl&ots=6_E9Y-NK01&sig=qXyopG0RVgHBp9KlcUzKvMtsFAM&hl=en&ei=05sCTIanC4L-8Aba4eXhDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=basarab%20nicolescu%20gurdjieff%20nature&f=false

--------------
edit: divided in 3 parts
--------------
[Extract]:

Gurdjieff's
Philosophy of
Nature
Basarab Nicolescu

A particle-physicist’s bold,
rigorous exploration of the
relationship between Gurdjieff’s
cosmological mythos and leading
theories in physics and cosmology.

It is becoming very fashionable almost everywhere to find
parallels between modern science and this or that
teaching, this or that philosophical system, this or that
religion. The more or less hidden sociological root of such
a tendency is quite obvious: the contemporary allpowerful
"god" of technoscience is evoked as evidence of
the "seriousness" of another field of knowledge.

Even if the intentions of certain seekers (and I include here
those few who are drawn toward the relationship between
science and the Gurdjieff teaching) are not tied to this
sociological motivation, there is still a huge
misunderstanding. The methodology and perspective of a
teaching, a system of philosophy, or a religion are very
different from the methodology and aim of modern
science. To compare results or ideas judged to be similar
can only lead to the worst illusions, to analogies that are
soft and devoid of meaning, and, in the best of cases, to
resonances that are felt as "poetic."

Nevertheless, the search for a real relationship between
science and such fields of study would, in our opinion, be
worthwhile. Such a relationship could be established if the
teaching, the philosophical system, or the religion in
question derives from a philosophy of nature.1
The fact that Gurdjieff's teaching contains a philosophy of
nature is obvious, and the present study will attempt to
support that affirmation. The hypothesis of a
correspondence between man and nature is formulated
without ambiguity by Gurdjieff:

"It is impossible to study a system of the universe
without studying man. At the same time, it is
impossible to study man without studying the universe.
Man is an image of the world. He was created by the
same laws which created the whole of the world. By
knowing and understanding himself, he will know and
understand the whole world, all the laws that create
and govern the world. And at the same time, by
studying the world and the laws that govern the world,
he will learn and understand the laws which govern
him. . . . The study of the world and the study of man
must therefore run parallel, the one helping the other.''

The comparison between modern science and this type of
philosophy goes beyond an intellectual exercise. In the
first place, some great scientific discoveries have been
guided by ideas from a philosophy of nature. For
example, the role that German Naturphilosophie played in
the discovery of electromagnetism in 1820 by Oersted is
well known. Such cases are rare, but it is their existence,
not their number, that is highly significant. These cases
show that there is an intrinsic relationship, which is not
devoid of meaning, between nature and a "realistic"
philosophy of nature.

A second aspect seems still more important. The absence
of meaning, above all the absence of a value system
guiding technoscience, is perhaps the characteristic trait of
our epoch. It is just in this context that we are going to
examine Gurdjieff's philosophy of nature.

THE PRINCIPLE OF DISCONTINUITY AND
QUANTUM DISCONTINUITY
One of the most surprising aspects of Gurdjieff's
philosophy of nature is the central role which it gives to
discontinuity, with a direct critical reference, moreover, to
contemporary physics.

Indeed, with rare exceptions, continuity is a constant in
human thought. It is probably based on the evidence
provided by our sense organs: continuity of our own
body, continuity of the environment, continuity of
memory. It belongs to the visible domain, to the domain of
constant forms (or forms evolving in a constant way), to
the domain of objects. Death, natural cataclysms,
mutations were, until just recently, considered more as
manifestations of accident, chance, or impenetrable
mystery. Science needs a mathematical apparatus for its
development. Newton and Leibniz discovered such a tool
based on continuity: infinitesimal calculus. For centuries,
scientific thought has been nourished by the idea of
continuity.

Gurdjieff, however, clearly affirms the essential role of
discontinuity in nature:
It is necessary to regard the universe as consisting of
vibrations. These vibrations proceed in all kinds, aspects,
and densities of the matter which constitutes the
universe, from the finest to the coarsest . . . . So that one
of the fundamental propositions of our physics is the
continuity of vibrations, although this has never been
precisely formulated because it has never been
opposed. In certain of the newest theories this
proposition is beginning to be shaken.
In this instance the view of ancient knowledge is
opposed to that of contemporary science, because at the
base of the understanding of vibrations ancient
knowledge places the principle of the discontinuity of
vibrations.

The principle of the discontinuity of vibrations means
the definite and necessary characteristic of all vibrations
in nature, whether ascending or descending, to develop
not uniformly but with periodical accelerations and
retardations.

These considerations of Gurdjieff's were formulated in
about 1915, in front of a St. Petersburg group. The date is
important.
Gurdjieff himself was aware of these scientific discoveries,
or at least one of the numerous intellectuals among his
groups in Moscow and St. Petersburg—Ouspensky in all
likelihood—had informed him of the existence of these
discoveries. The allusion in these texts to "certain most
recent theories" may thus be explained. According to this
hypothesis, Gurdjieff, speaking of "contemporary science,"
would have been referring rather to what we would today
call "classical science." But beyond questions of
vocabulary, what seems important to us is that Gurdjieff
sees the epistemological and philosophical stake of science
in discontinuity.

In evoking this work developed in 1900, Max Planck
writes: "After a few weeks, which were certainly filled by
the most intense work of my life, I had a flash of light in
the darkness in which I was debating with myself, and
unexpected perspectives were opened." This "flash of
light in the darkness" revealed to him a concept—the
elementary quantum of action ("action" is a physical
quantity corresponding to energy multiplied by time)—
which was going to revolutionize all of physics and
profoundly change our vision of the world. This quantum
is expressed by a universal constant (the "Planck
constant") which has a well-determined value and occurs
by integer multiples.

The Planck quantum introduces a discrete, discontinuous
structure of energy. Planck was fully conscious that in
breaking down the old all-powerful concept of continuity,
the very foundation of classical realism was thus being
put in question: "This quantum represented.… something
absolutely new, unsuspected until then, and seemed
destined to revolutionize a theoretical physics based on
continuity, inherent in all causal relations since the
discovery of infinitesimal calculus by Leibniz and
Newton."

It is important to take into account that the "discontinuity"
we are speaking of (whether in regard to quantum theory
or in regard to the cosmology of Gurdjieff) is a pure and
firm discontinuity which has nothing in common with the
popular usage of this word (the fork of a road, for
example). To try to grasp the full strangeness of the idea
of discontinuity, let us imagine a bird jumping from one
branch to another without passing through any
intermediary point: it would be as if the bird were to
suddenly materialize on one branch, then on another.
Evidently, confronting such a possibility, our habitual
imagination is blocked. But mathematics can treat this sort
of situation rigorously.

Quantum discontinuity is an infinitely less rich concept
than discontinuity in the sense in which it is used in the
cosmology of Gurdjieff. There it is presented as the
fundamental aspect of one of the two laws regulating all
worlds (the law of seven). The "obligatory-gap-aspects-ofthe-
unbroken-flowing-of-the-whole" conditions the
interpenetration of the different worlds, one within
another. It is discontinuity which permits unity to exist in
diversity and diversity within unity. It is discontinuity
which permits evolution and involution. It is discontinuity
which permits the coexistence of global causality and local
causality. And, in the end, it is discontinuity which
assures the dignity of man and gives meaning to his life.
We are therefore very far from quantum discontinuity.

MATTER AND DEGREES OF MATERIALITY
Gurdjieff affirms unambiguously the materialistic
character of his teaching: "Everything in the Universe is
material: therefore the Great Knowledge is more materialistic
than materialism." And he adds: "Everything in this
universe can be weighed and measured. The Absolute is
as material, as weighable and measurable, as the moon, or
as man." Here is something to scandalize a good many
spiritualists and devotees of Tradition and something to
placate some scientists (let us forget for the moment the
word "Absolute").

This trenchant affirmation, however, reveals its full
meaning only at the moment Gurdjieff introduces the
distinction between "matter" and "degree of materiality."
Like every man of science, Gurdjieff is convinced that
"matter is everywhere the same.…" But he introduces the
notion of the degree of materiality, linked to energy: "It is
true that matter is the same, but materiality is different.
And different degrees of materiality depend directly upon
the qualities and properties of the energy manifested at a
given point."

For a physicist of the nineteenth century, the idea of
"degrees of materiality" would not have meant very much.
It takes on real substance with the discovery of the
quantum world, where laws are radically different from
those of the macrophysical world. It is the study of the
infinitely small which reveals a degree of materiality
different from that of the macrophysical world.
This is not the place to discuss quantum laws. But allow
us to cite briefly a relevant example.

Classical physics recognizes two kinds of objects that are
quite distinct: corpuscles** and waves. Classical
corpuscles are discrete entities, clearly localized in space
and characterized, from a dynamic point of view, by their
energy and their momentum. Corpuscles could easily be
visualized as billiard-balls traveling continuously in space
and time, and describing a very precise trajectory. As for
waves, they were conceived as occupying all of space, in a
continuum. A wave phenomenon can be described as a
superpositioning of periodic waves characterized by a
spatial period (wave-length) and by a temporal period. In
the same way, a wave can be characterized by its
"frequencies": a "frequency of vibration" (the inverse of the
period of oscillation) and a "wave number" (the inverse of
the wave-length). Waves can thus be readily visualized.
Quantum mechanics brought about the complete
overturning of this view. Quantum particles are
corpuscles and waves at the same time. Their dynamic
characteristics are connected by the formulas of Einstein-
Planck (1900–1905) and de Broglie (1924): the energy is
proportional to the temporal frequency (the Einstein-
Planck formula), and the momentum is proportional to
the wave number (the de Broglie formula). The factor of
proportionality, in both cases, is precisely Planck's
constant.

This representation of a quantum particle defies all
attempts to represent it by forms in space and time, for it
is obviously impossible to represent something mentally
that would be simultaneously corpuscle and wave. At the
same time, the energy is changing in a discontinuous way.
The concepts of continuity and discontinuity are reunited
by nature.

It must be well understood that the quantum particle is a
completely new entity that cannot be reduced to classical
representations; the quantum particle is not a simple
juxtaposition of corpuscle and wave.
We can understand the quantum particle as being a unity
of contradictories. It would be more correct to affirm that
this particle is neither a corpuscle nor a wave. The unity of
contradictories is more than the simple sum of its classical
parts, a summation which is contradictory (from the
classical point of view) and approximate (from the
quantum point of view).

When Gurdjieff affirms, "The world consists of vibrations
and matter, or of matter in a state of vibration, of vibrating
matter," and when we remember the role he gives to the
frequency of vibrations, to energy, to discontinuity, it is
tempting to think of the new quantum entities. Let us be
very clear: we are not affirming that quantum particles
can be identified with the "vibrations" Gurdjieff speaks
about (which would in any case be absurd), but that they
appear to be their materialization in the quantum world.
At the same time, it is indisputable that the discovery of
the quantum world gives rational, scientific sense to the
notion of "degree of materiality." Gurdjieff associates the
fineness of matter with the frequency of vibrations: "The
expression 'density of vibrations' corresponds to
'frequency of vibrations' and is used as the opposite of
'density of matter'.… Therefore the finest matter
corresponds to the greatest 'density of vibrations.'"
Indeed, what conceivable relation is there between a chair
and a neutrino (a particle with no mass and no electrical
charge which penetrates our macrophysical matter
without impediment)? It is clear that it is a question of two
different worlds—of two different levels of reality,
governed by different laws—and that the degree of
fineness of matter is very different when passing from one
level to another.

The existence of different degrees of matter allows us to
see that there are different kinds of matter, defined exactly
in terms of their degree of materiality. Gurdjieff is not the
only contemporary thinker who has conceived of the
existence of several kinds of matter. Stephane Lupasco
(1900–1988), whose philosophy takes quantum mechanics
as its point of departure, deduced, as a consequence of his
logic of energetic antagonism, three types of matterenergy.
With regard to the number of types of matter, Gurdjieff
made two apparently contradictory affirmations. In the
collection of his talks recalled by his students, Views From
the Real World, he says, "Unity consists of three matters,"
whereas in In Search of the Miraculous, he affirms that there
are twelve categories of matter." In fact, there is no
contradiction. When Gurdjieff, like Lupasco, speaks of
three types of matter, he is referring explicitly to the law
of three, which gives structure to all the phenomena of
reality. In this sense, there is no question of a coincidence
between the numbers advanced by Gurdjieff and Lupasco;
to the degree that Lupasco's conclusion is based on a
ternary logic—the included middle—the correspondence
with the law of three is obvious. Finally, considering the
idea of materiality in relation to the structure of the
universe, Gurdjieff, in his cosmology, deduced that there
must necessarily be twelve categories of matter. This will
give scientists work for several centuries.

The existence of two matters—macrophysical matter and
microphysical matter—even if it is not unanimously
accepted (or recognized as such) does not unleash fierce
opposition either. On the other hand, to speak of
"biological matter" or "psychic matter" is enough to bring
to a boil a scientific world still dominated by
reductionism. Likewise, not everyone is ready as yet to
accept the affirmation of Lupasco (who, as we will see, is
close to the ideas of Gurdjieff) that every system includes
an aspect that is, at one and the same time, macrophysical,
biological, and psychic.
For Gurdjieff, there is nothing completely inert in nature;
everything is in movement: "The speed of vibrations of a
matter shows the degree of intelligence of the given
matter. You must remember that there is nothing dead or
inanimate in nature. Everything in its own way is alive,
everything in its own way is intelligent and conscious."
Though this assertion is, at first sight, astonishing, it is in
accord with what we observe at the scale of the infinitely
small. "Inert matter" is an expression of classical science
which has been completely emptied of meaning today.
Microphysical matter is everything but "inert matter." At
the level of the infinitely small, there is a boiling activity,
an infinite number of processes, a perpetual
transformation between energy and matter, a continuous
creation of particles and anti-particles. The stupefying
quantity of information and the increasing density of
energy that one finds in the quantum world show that it is
practically impossible to trace a boundary between the
living and the non-living. It is quite conceivable that a
quantum particle possesses its own subjectivity, its own
intelligence, in complex relations of perpetual combat and
of continual creation and annihilation taking place with all
the other particles.

Gurdjieff often comes back to the problem of the
intelligence of matter: "In addition to its cosmic properties,
every substance also possesses psychic properties, that is,
a certain degree of intelligence." This explains why
certain substances can contribute to the evolution of man,
an evolution which is, after all, at the very heart of the
Gurdjieff teaching.

For Gurdjieff, there is no separation among matters: "The
finer matters permeate the coarser ones." An example of
this is microphysical matter, which penetrates
macrophysical matter. Protons, neutrons, electrons, the
quantum vacuum are in us, even if our behavior is far
from being identical to that of the quantum world.
Gurdjieff goes even further in affirming that all the
matters of the universe are found in man: "We have in us
the matter of all other worlds. Man is, in the full sense of
the term, a 'miniature universe'; in him are all the matters
of which the universe consists;" We can interpret this as
meaning that what is being described is the Gurdjieffian
version of the mystery of the Eucharist.

As we can see, the materialism of the Gurdjieff teaching is
very complex, and we have only touched on the most
superficial fringe of it—its relation to modern science. But
make no mistake about it: Gurdjieff's "matters" have
multiple aspects, most of which totally escape the
methodology of modern science since they concern,
rather, the inner alchemy of man.

THE LAW OF THREE AND THE NECESSITY FOR A
NEW LOGIC
Since the dawn of time, binary thought, that of "yes" and
"no," has dominated man's activity. Aristotelian logic has
reigned for centuries and continues to this day. Certain
traditional teachings (and in particular, Christian
theology) had the potential for a new logic, but the
potential stayed in the hands of a small number of
initiates. Gurdjieff's teaching on the law of three is related
to this new logic, which also manifests itself in quantum
physics.

According to Gurdjieff, the law of three is "the
fundamental law that creates all phenomena in all the
diversity of unity of all universes."
This is the "Law of Three" or the law of the three
principles or the three forces. It consists of the fact that
every phenomenon.… is the result of the combination
or the meeting of three different and opposing forces.
Contemporary thought realizes the existence of two
forces and the necessity of these two forces for the
production of a phenomenon.… No question has ever
been raised as to the third, or if it has been raised it has
scarcely been heard.… The first force may be called
active or positive; the second, passive or negative; the
third, neutralizing. But these are merely names, for in
reality all three forces are equally active and appear as
active, passive, and neutralizing, only at their meeting
points, that is to say, only in relation to one another at a
given moment.

Before discussing the special character of the third
principle, let us, for a moment, emphasize the character of
the opposition (or as Lupasco calls it, the "antagonistic
contradiction") between the three principles, to which
Gurdjieff constantly returns. In Beelzebub's Tales to His
Grandson, he describes the law of three as "a law which
always flows into a consequence and becomes the cause of
subsequent consequences, and always functions by three
independent and quite opposite characteristic
manifestations, latent within it, in properties neither seen
nor sensed." This other aspect is worth mentioning: the
latent character, invisible and ungraspable, of the three
principles. Manifestation can only take place by means of
the interaction between the law of three and the law of
seven.

The opposition between the three principles is a veritable
"contradiction," in the philosophical sense of the term:
something which, far from self-destructing, builds itself
through antagonistic struggle.

It is relatively easy to imagine a contradiction between
two terms, but practically impossible (except by a formal
mathematical construction) to conceive of a contradiction
between three terms. Two of three terms lose, by the
inclusion of a third term, their own identity. In this sense,
we can understand the expression "included middle."
Paradoxically, in the logic of the "included middle,"
notions of "true" and "false," far from losing their value,
are considerably expanded, embracing a number of
phenomena which are much more important than those of
binary logic.

An example taken from quantum physics will illustrate
the preceding points simply.
In an experiment made, quite obviously, in the world of
macrophysics, a quantum particle manifests either as
wave or as corpuscle, that is to say as one of two
contradictory and antagonistic entities. If we want to use
the usual word "complementarity," it is more the
expression "antagonistic complementarity" which
governs, because the properties of waves and corpuscles
are mutually exclusive. Now, at its proper level of reality
in the quantum world, the quantum particle appears as a
third term, neither wave nor corpuscle, but which, at the
macrophysical level, is capable of manifesting as a wave
or a corpuscle. In this sense, it is a reconciling force
between the wave and the corpuscle. But, at the same
time, being neither wave nor corpuscle and manifesting at
another level of reality, it is clearly in contradiction with
the wave or the corpuscle.

It should be noted that Ouspensky—one of the most
famous disciples of Gurdjieff—in his book Tertium
Organum, published in 1912 in Russia, was the first
modern thinker to have affirmed the importance of the
principle of the included middle as the fundamental logic
of the new science. Deeply enamored at the same time by
both science and tradition, Ouspensky wrote other books
inspired by science, of which The Fourth Dimension, which
appeared in 1909 in St. Petersburg, had, among others, a
considerable influence upon Russian futurism, and
Malevitch.

Earlier I gave as an example of the third term the quantum
particle in its own world: the quantum world. But do we
really see this particle? Have we a direct access to the
quantum world? Our ways of measuring are always
macrophysical and we do not really see the quantum
particle. In our accelerators we will reconstruct it, for
example, by its traces. Our own macrophysical
constitution prevents us from traveling freely in the
quantum world and from going to "see" what happens
there.

To understand this third term would require a conceptual
revolution. A relatively recent development in particle
physics throws an unexpected light on the third force. The
unification of all the physical interactions seems to require
a space-time whose number of dimensions goes far
beyond the number of dimensions of our own space-time
(three dimensions of space and one dimension of time). It
doesn't matter that this unification could happen only at
fabulous levels of energy, never achievable in our
accelerators. What matters is that such a large number of
dimensions could be reunited by the coherence of physical
laws. Is the manifestation of the third force this large
space-time? Would this third force be the source of
discontinuity, of nonseparability and of nonlocality?
In relation to this large space-time, we, poor beings living
in four dimensions, are a bit like the two-dimensional
beings of Edward A. Abbott's conceptual universe,
Flatland, in relation to the miraculous beings coming
from a world of three dimensions. But we can understand
this third force precisely if we, as Gurdjieff said, go
beyond the limitations of "the fundamental categories of
our perception of the world of phenomena," that is to say,
if we go beyond our sensation of space and time.
Gurdjieff's insistence, in his philosophy of nature, on the
scientific notions of "dimensions" and "space" and "time"
seems to us neither accidental nor a simple coquettishness
of language. In particular, to distinguish the different
cosmoses by the different number of their dimensions of
space-time is extremely significant.

The "Okidanokh" is a marvelous Gurdjieffian symbol of
the ternary dynamics and of its manifestation. It is
conceived as the "Omnipresent-Active-Element," as the
"'Unique-Active-Element' the particularities of which are
the chief cause of everything existing in the Universe". It
"obtains its prime arising.… from the three Holy sources
of the sacred Theomertmalogos, that is, from the
emanation of the Most Holy Sun Absolute.… [It is] the
fundamental cause of most of the cosmic phenomena."

Directly linked to the three principles of the law of three, it
is thus normal that "no results of any kind normally
obtained from the processes occurring through this
Omnipresent World-substance can ever be perceived by
beings or sensed by them." But how to reconcile the
ungraspable character of the three principles of the law of
three with the fact that the Okidanokh is, all the same, a
substance capable of penetrating all cosmic formations?
Indeed, "immediately on entering as a whole into any
cosmic unit, there immediately occurs in it what is called
'Djartklom,' that is to say, it is dispersed into the three
fundamental sources from which it obtained its prime
arising." The three principles are thus universally
present. But what is it that confers on the Okidanokh the
character of substance? It is certainly not the three
principles. So Gurdjieff invents a symbol of etherokrilno,
"that prime-source substance with which the whole
Universe is filled, and.… is the basis for the arising and
maintenance of everything existing". It is exactly this
fourth element of Okidanokh which confers on it the
character of substance "the proportion of the pure—that is,
absolutely unblended—Etherokrilno, which unfailingly
enters into all cosmic formations and there serves, as it
were, for connecting all the active elements of these
formations; and afterwards when its three fundamental
parts reblend then the said proportion of Etherokrilno is
re-established."
The symbol of Okidanokh, let it be said in passing, creates
an interesting relationship between the "three" and the
"four": the "three" represents the latent invisible and
ungraspable characteristic of the three principles, whereas
the "four" represents the manifestation of the three
principles on the plane of matter-energy.

A phonetic resemblance can make us think of a possible
relation between "etherokrilno" and "ether," especially as
Gurdjieff speaks of "the prime-source substance with
which the whole Universe is filled." But there is no such
true relationship. Ether is a sort of reference absolute,
unmovable, a universal system of reference. Etherokrilno,
in its relation with Okidanokh, is linked to movement, to
transformation, to energetic transmission.
We can imagine Okidanokh as a field filling all the
cosmoses and whose vibrations will transmute the law of
three in material manifestations. If the "natural" man
seems sensitive to duality, the universe, as far as it is
concerned, certainly needs the three.
 
continued..
NATURE: UNITY IN DIVERSITY
For Gurdjieff, God was constrained to create the world:
There came to our Creator All-Maintainer the forced
need to create our present existing Megalocosmos, i.e.,
our World.… Our Creator Omnipotent once ascertained
that this same Sun Absolute.… was, although almost
imperceptibly yet nevertheless gradually, diminishing
in volume.… [The] cause of this gradual diminishing of
the volume of the Sun Absolute was merely the
Heropass, that is, the flow of time itself.

Such an assertion might appear, at first glance, a
manifestation of Gurdjieff's celebrated humor. But the role
attributed to time is intriguing and makes us think of a
similar idea which appeared in the cosmology of Jakob
Boehme (1575–1624). With Boehme, God also created the
universe by constraint—that of his imperious desire to
know himself. Thus, he dies to himself in order to be born,
by submitting himself to the cycle of time. The "birth of
God" is a fundamental aspect of Boehme's doctrine.

A number of important resemblances can be found
between the philosophy of Gurdjieff and that of Boehme:
the law of three and the law of seven as the basis of their
cosmologies, the role of discontinuity, the universal
exchange of substances, living nature. With Gurdjieff, as
with Boehme, there are two meanings of the word
"nature": a "creaturely nature" and a "divine nature". The
idea of nature—which encompasses both divine nature
and creaturely nature—refers to the interaction among all
levels of reality. So, with Gurdjieff as with Boehme,
materialism and spiritualism are two faces of one and the
same reality.

It is striking that, from among the innumerable books and
studies dedicated to the teaching of Gurdjieff, no one has
studied these resemblances between Boehme's and
Gurdjieff's ideas. This is not to suggest that Gurdjieff took
the work of Boehme as his source of inspiration. Their
philosophies of nature are clearly different and there are
even differences in their similarities (for example, in the
dynamic functioning of the law of three and the law of
seven.) But what is clear is the persistence across the
centuries of certain fundamental ideas in the different
philosophies of nature, a fact which seems to us to be most
important to note today, to the degree that the world is in
search of a new philosophy of nature, in harmony with
the discoveries of modern science.

At any rate, to return to Gurdjieff's view of Creation: it
was necessary to save the divine world from the action of
time. Thus, the universe was created, an unending chain
of systems bound by universal interdependence, which
escapes the action of time in this way. Gurdjieff calls this
universal interdependence "the Most Great cosmic
Trogoautoegocrat.… the true Savior from the lawconformable
action of the merciless Heropass," or "the
Trogoautoegocratic process.… in order that.… "the
exchange of substances" or the "Reciprocal feeding" of
everything that exists, might proceed in the Universe and
thereby that the merciless "Heropass" might not have its
maleficent effect on the Sun Absolute."36
The Trogoautoegocratic Process and Bootstrap: The
principle of universal interdependence is certainly not
found only in the teaching of Gurdjieff. It appears in many
traditional teachings. But his convincing exposition of it is
indisputably original.

A generalized nonseparability characterizes the universe
of Gurdjieff: "Everything is dependent on everything else,
everything is connected, nothing is separate."
Systems on different scales have their own autonomy, for
according to the terminology of Gurdjieff, the Absolute
only intervenes directly at the creation of the first cosmos.
The other cosmoses formed themselves freely by selforganizing
principles—always, however, in submission to
the law of three and the law of seven. In this way the
diversity of the universe is assured. On the other hand, the
interaction of the different cosmoses by means of the
universal exchange of energy-substances assures unity in
diversity. Life itself appears not as an accident, but as a
necessity in this universe of universal interdependence. In
Gurdjieff's account, a "learned being" named Atarnakh
put forward the following hypothesis: "In all probability,
there exists in the World some law of the reciprocal
maintenance of everything existing. Obviously our lives
serve also for maintaining something great or small in the
World."

Gurdjieff's universe is not a static universe, but a universe
in perpetual movement and change, not only on the
physical plane, but also on the biological and psychic
planes. Evolution and involution are always at work in the
different worlds. And when we consider the important
number of different matters characterized by different
degrees of materiality, we can understand the essential
role of the universal exchange of substances in evolution
and involution:
Thanks just to these processes of "evolution" and
"involution" inherent in the sacred
Heptaparaparshinokh, there also began to be
crystallized and decrystallized in the presences of all
the greatest and smallest cosmic concentrations, all
kinds of definite cosmic substances with their own
inherent subjective properties, and which objective
science calls "active elements." And all the results of the
"evolution" and "involution" of these active elements,
actualizing the Trogoautoegocratic principle of
existence of everything existing in the Universe by
means of reciprocal feeding and maintaining each
other's existence, produce the said common-cosmic
process "Iraniranumange", or, as I have already said,
what objective science calls "common-cosmic-exchangeof-
substances."

The trogoautoegocratic process of Gurdjieff presents a
remarkable correspondence to the "bootstrap" principle
formulated in physics around 1960 by the American
physicist, Geoffrey Chew. This word "bootstrap" also
implies "to pull yourself up by your own bootstraps." The
closest equivalent in the scientific context would be "selfconsistency."
The bootstrap theory appeared as a natural reaction to
classical realism and to the idea closely associated with it
of the necessity for motion equations in space-time. In
proposing the radical renunciation of all motion
equations, bootstrap theory implies the absence of all
fundamental "building blocks" of physical reality.
According to bootstrap, the quantum particle has three
different roles: (1) a role as constituent of compound
wholes, (2) a role as mediator of the force responsible for
the cohesion of the compound whole, and (3) a role as the
compound system.

So, in the bootstrap theory, the part appears at the same
time as the whole. What is put in question in bootstrap
theory is the very notion of a particle's identity: it
substitutes instead the notion of the relationship between
"events." It is the relations between events which are
responsible for the appearance of what we call a particle.
There is no object in itself, possessing its own identity, that
we could define in a separate or distinct manner from the
other particles. A particle is what it is because all the other
particles exist at the same time: the attributes of a
determined physical entity are the results of interactions
with all the other particles. According to bootstrap, there
really is a "law of reciprocal maintenance" of all quantum
particles. Also, as in the trogoautoegocratic process, a
system is what it is because all the other systems exist at
the same time. The role of self-consistency in the
construction of reality should be emphasized—a selfconsistency
which assures the coherence of the All.

There are different degrees of generality in the
formulation of the bootstrap principle. So the English
physicist, Paul Davies, does not hesitate to speak of a
"cosmic bootstrap."
Under this general form, bootstrap theory tries to respond
to the question: How does the universe work? Is it a sort
of machine, certainly marvelous, but nonetheless a
machine, made up of practically independent systems,
mechanically interrelated? Or rather does there exist an
underlying unity, maintained by a dynamic intelligence,
in permanent evolution, at work at every level of nature?
Is a level of nature what it is because all the other levels
exist at the same time? Are there laws which apply to all
levels of nature (particles, atoms, planets), immutable laws
which, however, as Gurdjieff had thought, produce
different effects according to the level on which they act?
In other words, is there a sort of "reciprocal feeding" or
"reciprocal maintenance" between different levels of
nature? Or, rather, is the universe a sad machine, where
each level is destined, by the continual growth of disorder,
of entropy, for destruction and death?

A universe seems capable of self-creation and selforganization,
without any "external" intervention. It is
precisely the whole process of self-creation and self
organization of the universe which Paul Davies baptized
"cosmic bootstrap": "The universe fills itself exclusively
from within its own physical nature with all the energy
necessary to create and animate matter, thus channeling
its own explosive origin. That is cosmic bootstrap. We owe
our own existence to its astonishing power."42 It seems
evident that self-creation and self-organization only have
meaning in a universe made up of an infinite chain of
systems regulated by universal interdependence. Unity in
diversity and diversity through unity are the conditions
for self-creation and self-organization. Otherwise there is
nothing but the law of accident which can act.

Finally, it is logically conceivable to postulate a still more
general form than the bootstrap principle, which would
include the quantum world, the macrophysical world, the
universe, life, and consciousness. In this very general
form, the bootstrap principle, in the present state of
knowledge, appears clothed in a nonscientific character.
Whatever the destiny of bootstrap theory in particle
physics (the reigning theory in the decade of 1960–70 but
now replaced by the quantum field theory), its
methodological and epistemological interest remains
considerable. More than a new thêma in physics, it is
rather a matter of a symbol—a symbol determining the
emergence of a vision of the unity of the world. This
symbol, while remaining precise, is inexhaustible. Its
richness includes manifestation in the domain of natural
systems. Indeed, there is a "total bootstrap," which
constitutes a vision of the world, and a "partial bootstrap,"
which corresponds to a scientific theory. The one without
the other remains poor and, in the end, sterile. The double
aspect of the bootstrap principle as symbol and scientific
notion explains why it allows a profound rapprochement
between science and the philosophy of nature.

Cosmic Dimensions and the Unification of Physical
Interactions: Let us come back to the notion of
"dimensions" and its implications. Gurdjieff's philosophy
of nature is centered on the idea of "cosmoses": "Science
and philosophy, in the true meaning of these terms, begin
with the idea of cosmoses."43 "The ray of creation" includes
seven cosmoses contained one within the other: the
Absolute, All Worlds, All Suns (the Milky Way), the Sun,
All Planets, Earth, Moon. The names given to these worlds
must not distract us. For example, the heavenly bodies
possess, apart from their habitual physical properties,
other properties which explain why the number of
dimensions of space is different from the number of
dimensions of our world:
Each cosmos is a living being which lives, breathes,
thinks, feels, is born, and dies. All cosmoses result from
the action of the same forces and the same laws. Laws
are the same everywhere. But they manifest themselves
in a different, or at least, in not quite the same way on
different planes of the universe, that is, on different
levels.

It is interesting to mention the way in which Gurdjieff
conceives the notion of "All Worlds":
We may say that "All Worlds" must form some, for us,
incomprehensible and unknown Whole or One.… This
Whole, or One, or All, which may be called the
"Absolute" or the "Independent" because, including
everything within itself, it is not dependent upon
anything, is "world" for "all worlds."

Here we have a good example of contradictory thought,
which alone can introduce us to the world of symbols. It is
also interesting to note that, according to Gurdjieff, "Man
lives in all these worlds, but in different ways. This means
that he is first of all influenced by the nearest world, the
one immediate to him, of which he forms a part."46 In other
words, in spite of his three-dimensional structure, man
potentially has difficult, but not impossible, access to other
dimensions.

But what is the sense of "seven independent dimensions"
(of space, of course, because in the Gurdjieffian cosmology
there is only one dimension of time)? Is the word
"dimension" used, as we have been led to understand, in
its mathematical, scientific sense (of a space-time
dimension), or does it rather convey a vague and
ambiguous meaning, closer to that of ordinary language?
The answer seems unequivocal: it is the scientific sense
that Gurdjieff uses. First of all, Ouspensky presented
Gurdjieff with an interpretation of the consequences of
these seven dimensions, based on the scientific meaning of
the word dimension, and Gurdjieff agreed with it. On
the other hand, Gurdjieff himself made several clear
reflections on this subject. He says, for example: "The
interrelation of the cosmoses is permanent and always the
same. That is to say, one cosmos is related to another as
zero to infinity. But the relation between "zero and
infinity" is exactly that which characterizes the relation
between a space of a certain number of dimensions and a
space of a higher number of dimensions (for example, the
relation of a point to a line, of a line to a surface). It is
exactly this relation of "zero to infinity" which inspired
Edwin Abbott in his wonderful book Flatland, where he
describes the joys and the sufferings of two-dimensional
beings confronted by the strangeness and the miracles of a
three-dimensional world. Further, this brings to mind a
remark of Gurdjieff concerning mystical experience and
ecstatic states: the intellectual, emotional, and moving
centers "transmit in worldly three-dimensional forms
things which pass completely beyond the limits of
worldly measurements." The fact that it is the scientific
meaning of the word "dimension" which is used here
appears clear.

The universe of Gurdjieff possesses a great number of
dimensions in its totality. But as the different worlds have
not only physical properties, does it not mean that the
physical universe itself must be described by a space-time
with a large number of dimensions?

Certain theories of unification make reference to a space in
which the number of dimensions is larger than that of the
world in which we live. Evidently, it is not possible to
visualize additional dimensions of space, because our
sense organs are built to correspond to a threedimensional
reality. However, the unification of all the
interactions appears to require the physical existence of
these strange spaces. In a certain sense, the symmetries
leading to unification are associated with seven additional
dimensions of space. These seven dimensions were
probably "compacted" at 10-43 seconds after the Big Bang;
i.e., they were hidden in an extremely small region of
space (10-33 centimeters). The unification of all the physical
interactions, the additional dimensions of space, the
necessary relation between the particle and the universe
(which implies a truly cosmic genesis): do they just
happen to coincide with the implications of Gurdjieff's
philosophy of nature?

The Quantum Vacuum and the Nothing: I would like to
close this discussion with a theoretical speculation which
could appear questionable.
For Gurdjieff, the ray of creation ends with Nothing. Up to
that point, this is not a remarkable idea because, after all,
it is normal to link an "end" with "Nothing." But things
become complicated when we learn that according to him,
"Nothing" means the Absolute under its aspect of "Holy
the Firm":
Between All and Nothing passes the ray of creation.
You know the prayer "Holy God, Holy the Firm, Holy
the Immortal." … Holy God means the Absolute or All.
Holy the Firm also means the Absolute or Nothing. Holy
the Immortal signifies that which is between them, that
is, the six notes of the ray of creation, with organic life.
All three taken together make one. This is the coexistent
and indivisible Trinity.

In the light of what we have come to up to now, it is
tempting to establish a relation between "Nothing" and
the quantum vacuum. So I would certainly not wish to
affirm a relation of identity between "Nothing" and the
quantum vacuum (that would be ridiculous), but to
suggest that the quantum vacuum could be, on the
physical plane, one of the facets of "Nothing." The
plausibility of such a relation is justified by the affirmation
of Gurdjieff himself. His description of the ray of creation
gives the impression that, in descending, matter becomes
more and more dense, less and less intelligent, subject to
more and more laws. And here, then, at the end of the ray
of creation, we find the Absolute, thus rejoining the very
beginning of this ray. The apparently linear aspect of the
ray of creation is transformed into a circle. The universe
becomes a loop enclosing an indeterminate number of
systems in perpetual interaction. So we understand better
the meaning of the trogoautoegocratic process.

The "quantum vacuum" is that which is furthest from the
accepted meaning of the word vacuum in current usage.
When we study a smaller and smaller region of space we
find a greater and greater activity, a sign of perpetual
movement. The key for understanding this paradoxical
situation is provided by Heisenberg's uncertainty
principle. A very small region of space corresponds, by
definition, to a very short time, and thus, conforming to
Heisenberg's principle, to a very wide spectrum of energy.
So the "quantum fluctuations of the vacuum determine the
sudden appearance of "virtual" particle-antiparticle pairs
which then annihilate each other reciprocally, this process
taking place in very short intervals of time. Everything is
vibration: according to quantum physics, we cannot
conceive of a single point in the world which is inert,
immobile, and not animated by movement. At the
quantum level the vacuum is full; it is the seat of
spontaneous creation and annihilation of particles and
anti-particles. Quantum particles have a certain mass and
so, according to the theory of relativity, they need a
certain energy to materialize. In furnishing the energy to
the quantum vacuum, we can help it to materialize these
potentialities. It is exactly what we do in constructing
particle accelerators (an amusing dialectic between the
"visible" and the "invisible" is thus set up: in order to
detect infinitesimal particles we have to build immense
accelerators).

The full quantum vacuum contains in itself potentially all
particles, whether they have already been observed or not.
It is we who have drawn most existing particles from
nothingness in building our accelerators and other
experimental apparatuses, whereas the "natural" world is
much more "economical": the proton, the neutron, and the
electron are sufficient for constructing almost the whole of
our "visible" universe. We are, in this sense also,
participants in a reality which embraces us, our particles,
and our universe.

The quantum vacuum is, then, a marvelous facet of
reality. The quanta, the vibrations, be they real or virtual,
are everywhere. The void is full of vibrations. It contains
potentially all reality. The entire universe is perhaps being
drawn from nothingness by a "gigantic fluctuation of the
void, which we know today under the name of 'big
bang.'"52 So, would there not be a relation between the
quantum vacuum and Nothing, in its character as Holy
the Firm?

LIFE, GAIA, AND THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE
With rare exceptions, contemporary philosophy considers
that life and man are accidents, the products of chance. It
is by chance that we appeared one day on a small planet
in orbit around a certain star, in the remote suburbs of a
galaxy which is nothing out of the ordinary. This sad and
dismal vision is propagated with joy and conviction by
our philosophers.

Gurdjieff's point of view in regard to this is completely
opposed to that of contemporary philosophy. For him, life
and man are products of a cosmic necessity—life cannot
exist without the universe and the universe cannot exist
without life: "Thus organic life is an indispensable link in
the chain of the worlds which cannot exist without it just
as it cannot exist without them." According to the
Gurdjieffian cosmology, life appeared as a necessary
discontinuity to fill, in conformity with the law of seven,
one of the intervals of a cosmic octave: "The conditions to
insure the passage of forces are created by the
arrangement of a special mechanical contrivance between
the planets and the earth. This mechanical contrivance,
this 'transmitting station of forces' is organic life on earth."

This point of view on the necessity of life is paradoxically
being reinforced, not by philosophy, but by science. Here
we wish to speak of the celebrated "anthropic principle"
("anthropic" comes from the Greek word anthropos, which
means man). There exists a very rich literature on this
subject. We shall limit ourselves to discussing a few of its
aspects in relation to Gurdjieff's cosmology.

The anthropic principle was introduced by Robert H.
Dicke in 1961. Its utility was being demonstrated by the
works of Brandon Carter, Stephen Hawking, John Barrow,
Frank Tipler, and other researchers.

The anthropic principle is presented today under different
formulations. In spite of this diversity, we can recognize a
common idea which goes through them all: the existence
of a correlation between the appearance of man,
"intelligent" life in the cosmos—and so on earth, our only
point of reference for this "intelligent" life—and the
physical conditions which regulate the evolution of our
universe. This correlation seems to be under very strong
constraints: if the value of certain physical constants or
that of parameters appearing in certain laws varies even
slightly, then the physical, chemical, and biological
conditions which permit the appearance of man on earth
are no longer brought together. "The big surprise," writes
Hubert Reeves, "is that the quasi-totality of fictional
universes that can be elaborated on computers by
physicists will be extremely different from our own. In
particular, they will be absolutely unsuited to engender
living beings [of biochemical structure]. Brandon Carter
has underlined the importance of the gravitational
coupling constant, which must be close to the
experimentally observed value so that planets can exist for
a sufficiently long time that life can appear on them. Too
strong or too weak a gravitation leads either to ephemeral
planets or quite simply to the impossibility of their being
formed. The coupling constant characterizing strong
interactions—acting in the quantum world—is here again,
very precise: "If the force was a little bit less strong than it
is.… there would be no more hydrogen available to form
stars of the first importance.… If, on the contrary, it were
much weaker, complex atoms like carbon could not
exist."

A vast self-consistency thus seems to regulate the
evolution of the universe, self-consistency concerning
physical interactions as well as the phenomena of life.
Galaxies, stars, planets, man, atom, the quantum world
thus seem united by one and the same self-consistency. In
this sense, the anthropic principle can be considered as a
special case of bootstrap and as an illustration of the
trogoautoegocratic process.

We should not confuse the self-consistency of the
anthropic principle with simple coherence. We could
think that, from the simple fact that the universe exists,
that it "stands," it must necessarily be coherent, and that,
in this sense, the anthropic principle is only a trivial
affirmation. But the coherence of our universe is of a very
special nature. From the point of view of physics, nothing
prevents the same physical laws, by varying the constants
and the parameters applicable to these laws, from creating
different universes where life would be present. Now the
extraordinary fact shown by astrophysical studies is that,
in order for life to appear, the numerical values of these
constants and of these parameters must pass through
extremely narrow windows. The anthropic principle,
therefore, implicitly poses the dizzying question of the
uniqueness of this world.

In any case, the fact that, for life to appear on a little
planet, an entire galaxy at least had to be created, opens
large perspectives on the philosophic and poetic plane. In
his groups in St. Petersburg and Moscow, Gurdjieff
insisted on the fact that life did not appear by the
accidental creation on earth of certain molecular
structures, but that it came from "Above," from the world
of celestial bodies. Ouspensky comments: "Organic life.…
began in the sun. This last was the most important point
because once more.… it contradicted the usual modern
idea of life having originated so to speak from below. In
his explanations life came from above."58 This point of
view is completely in accord with the anthropic principle:
at least a galaxy had to be present for life to appear, so in
this sense, life has a celestial origin. We are the children of
the stars.

If the origin of life is celestial, it is interesting to clarify the
relationship between life and the earth. For Gurdjieff, life
is "the earth's organ of perception." For him as for
Kepler, the earth is a living being. He even speaks of the
"degree of intelligence" which the earth possesses. On the
scientific plane, such a point of view may appear
completely unrealistic (if not surrealistic). But here too the
surprise comes from science itself. After thorough
research, the very serious scientist James Lovelock
formulated the Gaia hypothesis: the earth operates like a
living organism. So the biosphere appears as a selfregulating
entity, controlling the physical and chemical
environment so as to insure the conditions of life. (The
name of Gaia—goddess of the earth among the Greeks—
given to this hypothesis, was suggested by the writer
William Golding.)

Even if the notions of "life" or "intelligence" of the earth
are richer in meaning in Gurdjieff's philosophy of nature
than in the Gaia hypothesis, a relation between them can
nevertheless be established.
Gurdjieff's philosophy of nature, by the relation that it
establishes between life and the earth, succeeds in linking
two scientific hypotheses which are quite different and
which appear in very different domains: the anthropic
principle and the Gaia hypothesis.
 
Last part..
GURDJIEFF AND SYSTEMS THEORY
A surprising kinship also can be found between
Gurdjieff's thought and systems theory, which was born
some decades after the formulation of his teaching. It
should be noted, incidentally, that the word "system"
appears in Gurdjieff's vocabulary when he speaks of the
"Common-system-harmonious-movement", "commonsystem-
harmony," or the "common systematic
movement."

Contemporary systems theory appeared as a rejection of
classical realism, which was not in conformity with the
data of modern science, and as an attempt to bring about
order in the complexity which is manifest in every domain
of reality and, in particular, physics. Systems approaches
derive from such diverse domains as biology, economics,
chemistry, ecology and physics. Of course, we are not
referring here to the technical or mathematical aspects of
the different systems theories but to systems theory as a
vision of the world.

Implicitly, we have made allusion to the parallels between
Gurdjieff's philosophy of nature and systems theory.
Let us sum up these parallels, before broaching the
differences, which are just as interesting:

1. We can conceive of the universe as a great whole, a vast
cosmic matrix where everything is in perpetual movement
and energetic formation. This All is regulated by universal
interdependence. With Gurdjieff, this interdependence is
brought about by the action of discontinuity, a
characteristic of the law of seven or the law of the octave:
"The law of octaves connects all processes of the
Universe." This unity is not static; it implies
differentiation, diversity, the appearance of hierarchical
levels, of relatively independent systems, of "objects"
taken as local configurations of energy. With Gurdjieff, it
is the existence of different matter-energies and the action
of the law of three, with its logic of the included middle,
which assures the emergence of these properties.

2. It is the opening of the system, by interaction with other
systems, which prevents its degeneration, its death,
through the inevitable degradation of energy, through
increasing disorder. The "system of systems" could thus be
so constituted as to establish the diversity of the world, in
a perpetual and universal energetic exchange, in a vast
and unceasing nonseparability, a veritable safeguard of
the "life" of systems. In the cosmology of Gurdjieff, as
presented by Ouspensky, the opening is created by the
complex action of the law of seven. We note simply two
characteristics bound to opening: (1) "Any note of any
octave may at the same time be any note of any other
octave passing through it"; and (2) "Each note of any
octave can be regarded as an octave on another plane.
Each note of these inner octaves again contains a whole
octave." This second property gives the chain of systems
a tree-like character.

3. As distinct from reductionism, which explains diversity
by a substance common to different systems, systems
theory, like Gurdjieff's thought, envisages a common
organization. This common organization is of an energetic
nature, the energy appearing as a unifying concept of
"substance"—a "crystallized" form of energy—and to
"information"—a "coded" form of energy. In Gurdjieff's
cosmology, the common organization is due to the joint
action of the law of three and the law of seven. These laws
assure the invariance of the energetic structure and by the
same token, the stability of natural systems.

4. Natural systems are formed from themselves; they
create themselves in time. Natural systems avoid an
equilibrium which is equivalent to degeneration and
death, by choosing, through opening toward other
systems, stability in a state of disequilibrium. So
fluctuations become the source of evolution and creation.
Self-organization and self-creativity of natural systems are
the indubitable signs of freedom, but this freedom
operates within the limits of its conformity, of its
compatibility with the necessary dynamics of the All.
These characteristics are found also in the cosmology of
Gurdjieff. Determinism and indeterminism coexist in the
universe of Gurdjieff. The different cycles of seven can
evolve or involve; they can interconnect with themselves
in many ways. Self-organization and self-creativity of
different systems depend on these interconnections. So
systems can "rise" or "fall" in relation to other systems.

Finally, the role of fluctuations is explicitly evoked:
The law of octaves explains many phenomena in our
lives which are incomprehensible. First is the principle
of the deviation of forces. Second is the fact that nothing
in the world stays at the same place, or remains what it
was, everything moves, everything is going
somewhere, is changing, and inevitably either develops
or goes down, weakens or degenerates, that is to say, it
moves along either an ascending or descending line of
octaves. And third, that in the actual development itself
of both ascending and descending octaves, fluctuations,
rises and falls are constantly taking place.

As we have already stated, if the parallels between
systems theory and Gurdjieff's thought are interesting,
their differences are also highly instructive:

1. If systems theory is fascinating in many respects, it
nevertheless remains vague and ambiguous when it
comes to the dynamic description of unity in diversity,
and of diversity in unity, which it allows. On the other
hand, according to Gurdjieff, "The number of fundamental
laws which govern all processes both in the world and in
man is very small."70 This hypothetico-deductive method,
foreshadowed by Kepler, is found in science even today.
We postulate a certain number of laws, often very
abstract, mathematical, and therefore far from directly
observable reality; we deduce the consequences of these
laws and then we compare these consequences to the
experimental data. The fundamental laws of the universe,
in Gurdjieff's cosmology, are the law of three and the law
of seven (or of octaves). These laws confer a truly
axiomatic character on his philosophy of nature. The
different writings of Gurdjieff and Ouspensky bear
witness to the fruitfulness of such an approach. It is the
absence of an axiomatic character which remains, in our
opinion, the main weakness of contemporary systems
theory.

2. When systems theory speaks of exchange" (of
substance, energy, or information), it very obviously
means a horizontal exchange which takes place between
systems belonging to one and the same level (the level of
particles, the human level, the level of planets). But in the
Gurdjieffian universe, the vertical exchange which takes
place between systems belonging to different levels is
equally conceivable, because these levels possess common
matter-energy; there exist not one but several matterenergies.
The fact that the laws governing different levels
are different explains why vertical exchanges are,
nevertheless, so rare and why they are associated with
results of extreme fineness. We can replace the word
"level" with the word "cosmos" and propose the same
considerations, in adding to it the notion of
supplementary dimension of space. But systems theory
does not envisage the existence of several cosmoses.

3. For systems theory, time has no characteristic which is
special in relation to its usual physical properties, whereas
Gurdjieff introduces a subtle distinction between time and
space. For him, time is the "Ideally-Unique-Subjective-
Phenomenon":
Time in itself does not exist; there is only the totality of
the results ensuing from all the cosmic phenomena
present in a given place. Time itself, no being can either
understand by reason or sense by any outer or inner
being-function. It cannot even be sensed by any
gradation of instinct.… It is possible to judge Time only
if one compares real cosmic phenomena which proceed
in the same place and under the same conditions, where
Time is being constated and considered.… Only Time
alone has no sense of objectivity because it is not the
result of the fractioning of any definite cosmic
phenomena. And it does not issue from anything, but
blends always with everything, and becomes selfsufficiently
independent; therefore, in the whole of the
Universe, it alone can be called and extolled as the
"Ideally-Unique-Subjective-Phenomenon."

These propositions by Gurdjieff introduce an interesting
dialectic between time and nontime, between time and the
abolition of time.
Considered in isolation, this space-time continuum
appears as a sort of approximation, as a subjective
phenomenon linked to a subsystem. Each subsystem,
corresponding to a certain degree of materiality, possesses
its own space-time. Time associated with a subsystem will
be therefore a "breath,"72 characterizing the individuality
of this subsystem in the unity of the universe.
On the other hand, according to Gurdjieff's definition of
time, if we consider all phenomena in all places in the
universe, time ceases to exist. The unity of the endless
linkage of systems escapes the action of time; it is outside
time.

4. In spite of the interaction between systems and the
endless linkage of systems, systems theory gives no
particular significance to the place of this system in the
whole of all systems and to the relation of this system with
this whole. For Gurdjieff, on the other hand, these aspects
are essential. To study them, he introduces a principle of
relativity:
The study of the relation of laws to the planes on which
they are manifested brings us to the study of
relativity.… But before anything else it is necessary to
understand the relativity of each thing and of each
manifestation according to the place it occupies in the
cosmic order.73
The choice of the word "relativity" may be surprising.
Gurdjieff probably knew Einstein's theory of relativity.74
Did he choose this word ironically? But, exactly as in
Einstein's theory, the diversity of phenomena in different
systems of reference coexists with the invariance of the
laws of physics in all systems of reference. Likewise, in
Gurdjieff's cosmology, the great diversity of phenomena
bound to their places in different cosmoses coexists with
the invariance of the great cosmic laws, the law of three
and the law of seven. Gurdjieff insisted on the necessity of
the study of phenomena of one cosmos as if we were
observing them from the point of view of the laws of
another cosmos. Likewise, if we consider the change of
one system of reference to another system of reference,
according to Einstein's relativity theory, we
demonstrate—by the diversity of these transformations—
the dynamic aspect of the laws of invariance.

Gurdjieff speaks of an "exact language" whose structure
should be based on the principle of relativity. All the
ideas of this new language concentrate around a single
idea: that of evolution. "The place in the cosmic order"
considered by Gurdjieff in his definition of the principle of
relativity is, in fact, the "place in the evolutionary
ladder."

It is perhaps in keeping with the principle of relativity,
with all its implications, that we can note the most
important difference between systems theory and
Gurdjieff's philosophy of nature.

THE REASON OF KNOWING AND THE REASON OF
UNDERSTANDING IN OUR TIME
The hegemony of technoscience in our societies no longer
needs to be demonstrated. It is tied in an undeniable
manner to the notion of "power."

But what does knowledge serve? In the name of what
does the extraordinary development of technoscience
function?
These questions may seem useless, because the association
between the words "technoscience" and "progress" is
made automatically. The word "progress," unhappily, is
one of the most ambiguous and noxious words in our
vocabulary.

In the absence of a value system, the development of
technoscience follows its own logic: all that can be done
will be done. If we reflect for a moment, we can
understand that this logic of technoscience is frightening.
The disastrous consequences for our species can be
innumerable and some of them are already present among
us. Several philosophers have not failed to note the
dangers of a technoscience which would exclusively
follow its own logic.

Thus, a philosopher such as Michel Henry is not afraid to
say that technoscience is the cause of a new barbarism:
"Life itself is affected, all our values totter, not only the
aesthetic, but also the ethical, the sacred—and with them
the very possibility of living each day."

For Gurdjieff, the decline and disappearance of
civilizations is tied to the "disequilibrium between
'knowing' and 'being'": "In the history of humanity there
are known many examples when entire civilizations have
perished because knowledge outweighed being or being
outweighed knowledge." Are we not in a world where
knowing far surpasses being?

Gurdjieff distinguishes in this way "the reason of
knowing" and "the reason of understanding": "Knowledge
is one thing, understanding is another thing.…

Understanding depends on the relation of knowledge to
being." Gurdjieff ironically refers to the "scientist of new
formation," who serves only knowing:
And especially in Western culture, it is considered that
a man may possess great knowledge, for example he
may be an able scientist, make discoveries, advance
science, and at the same time he may be, and has the
right to be, a petty, egoistic, caviling, mean, envious,
vain, naive, and absent-minded man. It seems to be
considered here that a professor must always forget his
umbrella everywhere.… And they do not understand
that a man's knowledge depends on the level of his
being. If knowledge gets far ahead of being, it becomes
theoretical and abstract and inapplicable to life, or
actually harmful, because instead of serving life and
helping people the better to struggle with the
difficulties they meet, it begins to complicate man's life,
brings new difficulties into it, new troubles and
calamities which were not there before. The reason for
this is that knowledge which is not in accordance with
being can never be large enough for, or sufficiently
suited to, man's real needs. It will always be a
knowledge of one thing together with ignorance of
another thing; a knowledge of the detail, without a
knowledge of the whole; a knowledge of the form
without a knowledge of the essence.… A change in the
nature of knowledge is possible only with a change in
the nature of being.

So we see all the importance of Gurdjieff's philosophy of
nature in its definition of "reason of understanding": the
relation between the manifestations on the different
planes of reality, relation between the part and the whole,
the relation between form and structure.

On the other hand, in Gurdjieff's terminology, the content
of the word "to be" is very precise. It is linked to
evolution—a central aspect of Gurdjieff's oral and written
teaching. Gurdjieff was revolted by the modern
acceptance of the expression "evolution of man." "Only
thought as theoretical and as far removed from fact as
modern European thought could have conceived the
evolution of man to be possible apart from surrounding
nature, or have regarded the evolution of man as a gradual
conquest of nature."82 Moreover, the very idea of the
"conquest of nature" is absurd and pernicious, and it is this
that has led us to the disquieting and dangerous character
of technoscience. Man is a part of nature and not the
conqueror of a nature outside himself. In this sense, each
"conquest of nature" can, potentially and paradoxically, be
a defeat for man. We should rather envisage a cooperation
between man and nature. But this cooperation necessarily
takes place through the "reason of understanding."

In Beelzebub's Tales to His Grandson, Gurdjieff describes in
some detail the inner alchemy which leads to the "reason
of understanding,"83 but the full meaning of it requires a
complete and effective knowledge of the Gurdjieff
teaching. Here it is enough to say that, for Gurdjieff, the
"reason of understanding" fuses organically with a man's
being, whereas the "reason of knowing" settles in him
merely as information. In any case, it is the "reason of
understanding" in one form or another which could help
in developing the dialogue between science and meaning.

The contemporary encounter between science and
meaning is a major event which, in our view, is probably
going to generate the only true revolution of this
century. We are perhaps at the threshold of a new
Renaissance, one of whose conditions is exactly the
dialogue between science and meaning. More and more,
science is discovering its own limits, flowing from its own
methodology. Science has been able to reveal, in an
exemplary way, the signs of nature, but, because of its
own methodology, it is incapable of discovering the
meaning of these signs. Science carries with it an immense
technological development. Technoscience, withdrawn
into itself, cut off from philosophy by its dominant
position in our society, can only lead to self-destruction.

Our self-destruction is necessarily engendered by the
ontological incomprehension of the signs of nature, more
and more numerous, more and more powerful, and more
and more active. This ontological incomprehension leads
in its turn to a technological, anarchic development,
invariably guided by the concern for efficiency and profit.
We must invent a mediator between science and meaning.
This mediator can only be a new philosophy of nature.
The point of departure for this new philosophy of nature
can only be modern science, but a science which, having
arrived at its own limits, tolerates and even cries out for
an ontological opening. The discovery of idea-symbols in
quantum physics and in other sciences, as well as the
interpretation of certain major scientific discoveries, opens
a fabulous free space where there arises a transdisciplinary
dialogue between past and present, between
science and the philosophies of nature, art, tradition, and
other forms of knowledge.

In a realistic way, in the present state of knowledge, and
in the actual state of trends in the philosophic, historical,
sociological, or religious domains, a return to the ancient
philosophy of nature is unthinkable. But the study of
certain philosophies of nature, such as that of Gurdjieff,
which show deep parallels with modern science, can be a
precious guide in the search for a philosophy of nature
adapted to our time. Gurdjieff's philosophy of nature is
undoubtedly ahead of our time, as it has been ahead on
certain aspects of modern science. It can, in any case, help
us in our choice between a new barbarism and a new
Renaissance. Only the "reason of understanding" can lead
us to this new Renaissance.

* Quantum mechanics was born in 1900, with the work of
Max Planck on the radiation of the "black body" (a "black
body" is a body which completely absorbs electromagnetic
radiation). As we shall see, this work gave rise, at the
center of the new physics, to the discontinuous structure
of energy. Many other discoveries followed, up to about
1915, but it is true that quantum mechanics was not
formulated as a theory until about 1920–1930 and, since
then, it has been the formal basis of modern particle
physics, which extends, and at the same time
presupposes, quantum mechanics and Einstein's theory of
relativity.

** "Corpuscle" was the term used in the early days of
quantum physics.
A specialist in the theory of elementary particle physics,
Basarab Nicolescu is the author of more than a hundred
articles in leading international scientific journals, has
made numerous contributions to science anthologies and
participated in several dozen French radio documentaries
on science. He has collaborated for many years with G. F.
Chew, former Dean of Physics at the University of
California at Berkeley and founder of the Bootstrap
Theory. They have jointly published several articles on the
topological framework of Bootstrap Theory.
He is the author of several books including Science,
Meaning, and Evolution-The Cosmology of Jacob Boehme,
translated from the French by Rob Baker, winner of the
1992 Benjamin Franklin Award for Best History Book. His
latest book, Manifesto of Transdisciplinarity is published by
the State University of New York Press. In it, Nicolescu
unifies science and the sacred based on what we've
learned from Quantum physics. More information about
Nicolescu’s work is available from his Trans disciplinary
web site:
http://perso.club-internet.fr/nicol/ciret/
http://perso.club-internet.fr/nicol/ciret/biobn/bibnen.htm
E-mail : nicol@club-internet.fr

NOTES
1. Michel Ambacher, Les Philosophies de la Nature
(Presses Universitaires de France, Coll.) "Que saisje?",
No. 1589, 1974.
2. P. D. Ouspensky, In Search of the Miraculous:
Fragments of an Unknown Teaching (New York:
Harcourt Brace and World, 1949), 75.
3. Ouspensky, In Search of the Miraculous, 122–23.
4. Basarab Nicolescu, Nous, la particule et le monde (Paris:
Le Mail, 1985).
5. Max Planck, Initiations à la physique (Flammarion,
1941), 73.
6. Ibid., 76.
7. G. I. Gurdjieff, Beelzebub's Tales to His Grandson (New
York: Harcourt Brace, 1950), 832.
8. G. I. Gurdjieff, Views from the Real World: Early Talks
As Recollected by His Pupils (New York: E. P. Dutton,
1973), 21.
9. Ouspensky, In Search of the Miraculous, 86.
10. Ibid., 86.
11. Ibid.
12. Ibid., 87.
13. Ibid., 170.
14. Stephane Lupasco, Le principe d'antagonisme et la
logique de l'énergie (Paris: Rocher 1987), foreword by
Basarab Nicolescu; see also George Melhuish, The
Paradoxical Universe (Bristol: Rankin Books Ltd.,
1959).
15. Gurdjieff, Views from the Real World, 189.
50
16. Ouspensky, In Search of the Miraculous, 172.
17. Ibid., 317.
18. Ouspensky, In Search of the Miraculous, 176.
19. Ibid., 88.
20. Ibid.
21. Ibid., 77.
22. Gurdjieff, Beelzebub's Tales, 139.
23. P. D. Ouspensky, Tertium Organum (New York:
Vintage Books, 1970). Ouspensky also wrote A New
Model of the Universe (New York: Vintage Books,
1971).
24. Edwin A. Abbott, Flatland (New York: New
American Library, 1984).
25. Ouspensky, In Search of the Miraculous, 77.
26. Gurdjieff, Beelzebub's Tales, 140.
27. Ibid., 153.
28. Ibid., 138.
29. Ibid., 153.
30. Ibid., 140.
31. Ibid., 137.
32. Ibid., 142.
33. Ibid., 749.
34. Basarab Nicolescu, Science, Meaning and
Evolution: The Cosmology of Jacob Boehme (New York:
Parabola Books, 1991).
35. Gurdjieff, Beelzebub's Tales, 785.
36. Ibid., 136–37.
37. Ouspensky, In Search of the Miraculous, 22.
38. Gurdjieff, Beelzebub's Tales, 1094–95.
51
39. Ibid., 759.
40. Basarab Nicolescu, "Unité et structure
hiérarchique: la théorie du bootstrap topologique," in
Nous, la particule et le monde.
41. Paul Davies, Superforce: the Search for a Grand
Unified Theory of Nature (New York: Simon and
Schuster, 1984).
42. Ibid., 195.
43. Ouspensky, In Search of the Miraculous, 208.
44. Ibid., 206.
45. Ibid., 76.
46. Ibid.
47. Gurdjieff, Beelzebub's Tales, 477.
48. Ouspensky, In Search of the Miraculous, 208–13.
49. Ibid., 206.
50. Ibid., 195.
51. Ibid., 132.
52. Heinz R. Pagels, The Cosmic Code (New York:
Bantam Books, 1983), 247.
53. Ouspensky, In Search of the Miraculous, 283.
54. Ibid., 138.
55. George Gale, "The Anthropic Principle,"
Scientific American (vol. 245, no. 6, 1981), 114–22; John
D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, The Anthropic
Cosmological Principle (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1986).
56. John D. Barrow, Frank J. Tipler and M.-O.
Monchicourt, L'Homme et le cosmos-Le Principe
anthropique en astrophysique moderne (Imago, 1984).
Afterword by Hubert Reeves, 103.
57. Ibid., 79–80.
58. Ouspensky, In Search of the Miraculous, 139.
52
59. Ibid., 138.
60. Ibid., 25.
61. Ibid.
62. James E. Lovelock, Gaia—A New Look at Life on
Earth (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982).
63. Gurdjieff, Beelzebub's Tales, 170.
64. Ibid., 263.
65. Ibid., 951.
66. Ouspensky, In Search of the Miraculous, 285.
67. Ouspensky, In Search of the Miraculous, 139.
68. Ibid., 135–36.
69. Ibid., 129–30.
70. Ouspensky, In Search of the Miraculous, 122.
71. Gurdjieff, Beelzebub's Tales, 123–24.
72. Ouspensky, In Search of the Miraculous, 213, 329,
334.
73. Ibid., 89.
74. Ibid., 207.
75. Ibid., 70.
76. Ibid., 71.
77. Michel Henry, La barbarie (Paris: Grasset, 1987),
9.
78. Ouspensky, In Search of the Miraculous, 66–67.
79. Ibid., 67.
80. Gurdjieff, Beelzebub's Tales, 853.
81. Ouspensky, In Search of the Miraculous, 65–66.
82. Ibid., 57.
83. Gurdjieff, Beelzebub's Tales, 1164–67.
84. Basarab Nicolescu, La transdisciplinarité,
manifeste (Paris: Rocher, 1996); Manifesto of
Transdiisciplinarity translated by Karen-Claire Voss.
53
A volume in the Western Esoteric Traditions Series.
(Albany: SUNY, 2002).
 
This book must be a republication.
I have the same book from 1998, The Continuum Publishing Company, NY.
Note: Editors are Jacob Needleman and George Baker.
 
andi,

Thank you so much. I feel like I have been blasted by a bright light. I don't understand very much of it but maybe at least a glimmer. It's like finding a "gem" in a crack in the road. I just stumbled on to this about 4 years after your original post.

goyacobol :)
 
Back
Top Bottom