Gurdjieff On the Nature of Man

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Gurdjieff never completed his book "Life is Real..." His last chapter, titled "The Outer and Inner World of Man" began with:

Although the subject which I intend to elucidate by means of the text of this chapter of the last book of my writings is entirely lacking in the mentation of contemporary people, there nevertheless flows from the ignorance of the meaning of this subject the greatest part, if not all, of the misunderstandings which take place in the process of our common life.

Not only do the causes of almost all the misunderstandings of our common life flow from the lack of understanding of the significance of the given subject, but also exclusively in it are contained all the answers to the possibility of solving the chief problem of our existence.

That is, thanks alone to the recognition and all-round understanding of the sense and significance of this subject is it possible to solve the problem of the prolongation of human life.

Before beginning the further development of this question, I wish to cite the contents of an ancient manuscript with which I accidentally became acquainted in quite exceptional life circumstances.

This very ancient manuscript, the contents of which I intend to make use of, is one of those relics which is handed down from generation to generation by a very limited number of people, that is, by "Initiates"— not such "initiates," however, as have been multiplying recently in Europe, but genuine ones.

In this case, by "Initiates" of an esoteric sect which still exists at the present time in one of the remote corners of Central Asia.

The text of this manuscript is expounded, as was done in antiquity, "podobolizovany," in the form of symbolizing, or, as it is called in esoteric science, "making alike," that is, allegorically—quite different from the form now established for mentation among contemporary people.

As the difference between these forms is very well-known to me, of course also accidentally, I will endeavor to transmit the sense of this text as exactly as possible but in agreement with the form of mentation now established among contemporary people.

This ancient manuscript says the following:

The general psyche of every man on reaching maturity, which begins on an average in the male sex at twenty years and in the female sex at the beginning of the thirteenth year, consists of three totalities of functioning which have almost nothing in common with each other.

The course of action of all three of these independent totalities of functioning in the common presence of a man who has attained maturity takes place simultaneously and incessantly.

All the factors making up and producing these three totalities of functioning begin, and cease, to form in man at different periods of his life.

The factors producing in man the first totality of functioning, unless special measures are employed, are formed, as has been established long ago, only in childhood—in boys on an average until the age of eleven years, and in girls until the age of seven.

The factors producing the second totality of functioning begin to form in boys from the age of nine years, and in girls even from the age of four years, lasting in different cases a different length of time, approximately until the attainment of maturity.

And factors producing the third totality begin to form from the attainment of maturity, continuing in the average man at present only until the age of sixty, and in woman only until the age of forty-five.

But in the case of people who have consciously perfected themselves to the so-called "all-centers-awake state," that is, to the state of being able in their waking state to think and feel on their own initiative, these factors still continue to form in man until the age of three hundred years and in woman until the age of two hundred.
...

He proceeds to describe a number of incidents, including the one that is the centerpiece for his discussion of Sympathy and Condolences posted here: http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,33300.0.html

Following that story, he proceeds to another story about a series of coincidences that led him to a certain newspaper where: "As I opened it, the first thing on which my eyes fell was this title— "The Problem of Old Age," that is, just that question which for the course of three days and nights had left me no peace." G quotes the article in its entirety. Basically, it lays out a few observations about longevity, the final part saying:

What have the observations shown? The study of the long-lived has brought us to the conclusion that, aside from the outer, social causes which, for a long span of life, have an enormous part to play, hereditary factors have also a great significance. Almost all the very aged had had completely good health during their whole life! Many of them had retained their memory and their mental faculties. The majority looked much younger than their years. They were never in the least sick.

This characteristic brought the scholars to the extremely important idea of the presence in many of them of inborn immunity to infectious diseases. This biological quality seems to be one of the hereditary factors which characterize those inner conditions under which man may live to a great age.

There are also other extremely important results of the observations. For instance, the observation of the differences between very old and very young people has a great scientific significance. Is the blood of the aged normal?

This question has received a final answer: the blood of the aged has been found to be in a normal state, and to differ very little from the blood of younger people.

At the same time it has been shown that long-lived people retain their full physical capacity, in particular the sex function, for a very long time.

On comparison of the results of investigations of juveniles and aged, it was possible to establish a fundamental law conformity in the development of man, and to observe functional changes which are determined by the physiological peculiarities of man at different age levels. ...

Since the work of Brown-Sequard and Metchnikov, this scientific idea has made great progress. The doctrine of the glands of inner secretion has been greatly developed. The latest findings in the field of hormones have brought much that is new. {I emphasize what appears to me to be of importance in relation to Gurdjieff's ideas.}

Gurdjieff then reiterates the earlier statement from the ancient manuscript about the Three Totalities of Functioning that develop at different stages of human life as follows:

And thus, every man, if he is just an ordinary man, that is, one who has never consciously "worked on himself," has two worlds; and if he has worked on himself, and has become a so to say "candidate for another life," he has even three worlds.

At this point, he goes on to discuss his ideas of soul potentials.

First of all, it must be said that in the outpourings of various occultists and other will-less parasites, when they discuss spiritual questions, not everything is entirely wrong.

What they call the "soul" does really exist, but not everybody necessarily has one.

A soul is not born with man and can neither unfold nor take form in him so long as his body is not fully developed.

It is a luxury that can only appear and attain completion in the period of "responsible age," that is to say, in a man's maturity.

Then he further says:

The matter from which the soul is formed and from which it later nourishes and perfects itself is, in general, elaborated during the processes that take place between the two essential forces upon which the entire Universe is founded.

The matter in which the soul is coated can be produced exclusively by the action of these two forces, which are called "good" and "evil" by ancient science, or "affirmation" and "negation," while contemporary science calls them "attraction" and "repulsion."

Then he says that one of these forces - good or evil - "coincides with that function whose factors proceed from the results of impressions received from outside". The other force - good or evil - "appears as a function whose factors issue chiefly from the results of the specific functioning of the organs, as determined by heredity." He says also that sometimes one or the other - the outside or the inside functions - play the role of good or evil. ..."it is not important to know which of the two forces is affirmative and which is negative; what matters is that when one affirms, the other denies."

...that totality of functioning whose factors are constituted from impressions coming from outside is called the "outer world" of man.

...the other totality, whose factors have arisen from automatically flowing "experiences" and from reflexes of the organism—notably of those organs whose specific character is transmitted by heredity—is called the "inner world" of man.

In relation to these two worlds, man appears in reality to be merely a slave, because his various perceptions and manifestations cannot be other than conformable to the quality and nature of the factors making up these totalities.

He is obliged, in relation to his outer world as well as his inner world, to manifest himself in accordance with the orders received from any given factor of one or the other totality.

He cannot have his own initiative; he is not free to want or not to want, but is obliged to carry out passively this or that "result" proceeding from other outer or inner results.

Such a man, that is to say, a man who is related to only two worlds, can never do anything; on the contrary, everything is done through him. In everything, he is but the blind instrument of the caprices of his outer and inner worlds.

The highest esoteric science calls such a man "a man in quotation marks"; in other words he is named a man and at the same time he is not a man.

He is not a man such as he should be, because his perceptions and his manifestations do not flow according to his own initiative but take place either under the influence of accidental causes or in accordance with functioning that conforms to the laws of the two worlds.

In the case of "a man in quotation marks," the "I" is missing and what takes its place and "fills its role" is the factor of initiative proceeding from that one of the two above-mentioned totalities in which the center of gravity of his general state is located.

As we know from Timothy Wilson's book "Strangers to Ourselves", as well as Kahneman's book "Thinking: Fast and Slow..." and Porges' "Polyvagal Theory" (and others) what G has enunciated in this last series of remarks is confirmed by modern cognitive science.

Then he begins to talk about the Third World of Man: the world of the soul. Remember now what G said above about how, and from what, this soul develops:

The matter from which the soul is formed and from which it later nourishes and perfects itself is, in general, elaborated during the processes that take place between the two essential forces upon which the entire Universe is founded.

The matter in which the soul is coated can be produced exclusively by the action of these two forces, which are called "good" and "evil" by ancient science, or "affirmation" and "negation," while contemporary science calls them "attraction" and "repulsion."

That is to say, the "I" in a real man is formed as a result of 1) contemplation; 2) in the contact/struggle between the inner world and outer world as described above. Thus:

According to this terminology, the general psyche of man in its definitive form is considered to be the result of conformity to these three independent worlds.

The first is the outer world—in other words, everything existing outside him, both what he can see and feel as well as what is invisible and intangible for him.

The second is the inner world—in other words, all the automatic processes of his nature and the mechanical repercussions of these processes.

The third world is his own world, depending neither upon his "outer world" nor upon his "inner world"; that is to say, it is independent of the caprices of the processes that flow in him as well as of the imperfections in these processes that bring them about.

A man who does not possess his own world can never do anything from his own initiative: all his actions "are done" in him.

Well, we know this last bit pretty well just from cognitive science.

Now G draws a conclusion:

Thus, it is quite obvious that the whole secret of human existence lies in the difference in the formation of the factors that are necessary for these three relatively independent functions of the general psyche of man.

And this difference consists solely in that the factors of the first two totalities are formed by themselves, in conformity to laws, as a result of chance causes not depending on them, while the factors of the third totality are formed exclusively by an intentional blending of the functions of the first two.

Now, we are approaching the mystery, so to say. G begins the last bit by saying:

The necessary factors for the three totalities are formed in man, as is everything in the entire Universe, from corresponding vibrations...

To explain what is meant by the vibrations that I have just been speaking about, I can at once take as an excellent example the causes of the fact that today, enemies with an unusual inner attitude toward me are multiplying in great numbers, and I am now in relationship with them on all sides.

What the heck? What do G's enemies with "an unusual inner attitude" have to do with this topic?

Let's look at what he did write from this point on until the abrupt ending:

Among the diverse characteristic aspects of this unusual inner attitude on the part of the multitude of my enemies, we shall take for our explanation only the following:

There is not, so to speak, a single one of my sworn enemies who, in one or another of his ordinary states, would not be ready to "sell his soul for me."

"What an absurdity!" each of my readers will think. "How could one and the same man possibly have two such diametrically opposed attitudes toward another person?"

Yes, from a superficial point of view, it is absurd—and all the same, in reality, it is so.

Indeed, it is an irrefutable fact, a fact that can be demonstrated at will in all its details, not only on the practical level—I mean to say, by normal means available to everybody—but also scientifically, by making use of all the "diagnostics" of the various branches of the official science of our day, such as jurisprudence, chemistry, physics, medicine, etc. . . . and, it seems, psychoanalysis itself.

Moreover, nothing is easier to demonstrate than this, in the first place because suitable subjects for study can be found free of charge by the thousands, and furthermore—and this is the most important—because such investigations have as their point of departure a principle I have already established and formulated in a manner fully acceptable for every category of learned being.

This principle, which is beyond scientific dispute, I have defined in the following terms:

"The sharpness of the contradiction which appears between two diametrically opposed actions is directly proportional to the duration of their meeting."

And, in truth, it is so. The more someone has direct relations with me, the more strength he shows later in the diametrically opposed actions that he manifests towards me.

And this psycho-physical combination, which arises in the reciprocal relations of people—although unbelievable at first sight—operates in general in the simple manner which I am about to describe.

First of all, you must know that throughout the entire Universe every concentration, to whatever species it belongs, has the property of giving off radiations.

Given that in man the formation of the three totalities of functioning of his general psyche appears as an arising of results issuing from diverse sources, each of these sources must itself also have the property of giving off radiations.

Just as the radiation of every cosmic concentration consists of vibrations emitted by a corresponding source, so too the vibrations issuing from the processes of each of these quite distinct totalities of functioning that make up the general psyche of man have a density and a degree of vivifyingness of their own.

When there is a contact between the radiations of different cosmic concentrations, blending of the vibrations takes place according to their "affinity"; similarly, when the vibrations given off by two people come in contact, blending occurs among those of the vibrations that correspond to each other.

In order to explain by analogy certain features of the radiations of a person, I shall take as an example the radiations given off by our Earth.

The general radiations of the Earth, the totality of which manifests as the atmosphere, consist of three independent
classes of vibrations, issuing from processes that take place in the very heart of the Earth between metals, metalloids and minerals.

The general radiation of a person also consists of three independent kinds of vibrations, each with its own quality of vivifyingness.

And just as the heterogeneous vibrations given off by the Earth encounter certain well-defined limits in the course of their expansion according to their degree of vivifyingness, so too the different elements of the general radiation of a person have their precise limits.

For example, while the vibrations issuing from a process of active reasoning can, under certain known conditions, acquire a force of expansion that can span hundreds or thousands of kilometers, the vibrations given off by the process of sensation, however active it may be, cannot extend beyond some two hundred meters.

In man, the three kinds of vibrations have their origin in the following three processes:


The first kind of vibrations has its origin in the process called "active thought," and sometimes even, thanks to certain known combinations, in the process of "passive thought."

The second kind of vibrations has its origin in the process called "feeling."

The third kind of vibrations corresponds to the totality of the results issuing from the functioning of all the organs of the physical body— they are also referred to as "vibrations of the instinctive functions."

The vibrations given off by the whole presence of a man in a state of complete relaxation constitute in themselves an atmosphere analogous to the spectrum of colors, having a known limit to its expansion.

And as soon as a man begins to think, to feel or to move, this spectrumlike atmosphere changes, both as to the volume of its expansion and as to the quality of its presence.

The greater the intensity of manifestation of one or another of the separate functions of the general psyche of a man, the more the spectrum of his atmosphere is differentiated.

We can very well represent to ourselves the combination of heterogeneous vibrations arising in the general radiation of different persons in the course of their ordinary existence if we compare it to the following picture:

On a dark night, during a violent storm over the ocean, some people on shore observe the oscillations of a floating collection of many colored electric lamps, connected with each other at long intervals and at the ends with two wires.
Although these colored lamps draw their current from one and the same source, yet since their rays pass through changing conditions of various kinds, some shine out to a distance, others affect each other as they interpenetrate, still others are completely swallowed up either mid-way or at the very place of their arising.

If two people are together, the closer they are to each other, the more intimate is the mixing of their atmospheres, and therefore the better is the contact achieved between their specific vibrations.

The blending and fusion of the specific vibrations given off by different people take place mechanically, depending on their situation in relation to each other and on the conditions they are in.

And so, among the people with whom I come in contact, the formation of the psychic factors necessary for the manifestation of attitudes diametrically opposed to me must inevitably occur in the following way:

AND THAT'S THE END! That's it. If anybody knows of a place where what he intended to say is recorded, please bring it forward!

The only thing that occurs to me is that what he wrote in the prologue to the book must tell us what he intended which is the following which should be read slowly and carefully.

Although all the strange will-tasks and original principles which I have applied to life during the last seven years are, as already stated, elucidated in the subsequent text of this book, yet the feelings of admiration and gratitude overflowing in me bid the whole of me here, in the initial chapter, to comment on that principle of mine for outer life which unexpectedly became for me, so to say, the "inexhaustible source."

I refer to that already-mentioned principle which I characterized by the words "to press the most sensitive corn of everyone I met."

Thanks to this principle, which turned out to be miracle-working for me, I, besides having always and everywhere an abundance of material for my chief aim, that is, for my regeneration, also, thanks only to it, so affected everyone who met me, that he himself, without any effort on my part whatsoever, as if with great satisfaction and complete readiness, took off his mask presented to him with great solemnity by his papa and mama; and thanks to this I at once acquired an unprecedentedly easy possibility of unhurriedly and quietly feasting my eyes on what his inner world contained, not only of the accidentally surviving worthy data proper to man, but also of all the nauseating filth accumulated from his absolutely abnormal so-called "education."

This, and only this, for me Divine principle, enabled me to discern and understand at last those deeply hidden nuances of the human soul that had intrigued me all my life.

To it, and to it alone, am I indebted for all that I now possess.

...

However, concerning the significance and the value of the inner wealth acquired by me, I will also explain in detail at the end of this last book.

{And this is what he did not do as we see above.}

Meanwhile, in order to acclaim this principle, I shall say that on account of it I lost all without exception that I possessed of what people call wealth.

Because of it I lost not only the wealth that I possessed but also all so-called "friends," and even the so to say "privilege of being envied"—in a word, all that because of which only I was several years ago considered by a great many people no mere "dog's tail" but one of the first-ranking "aces" of contemporary life.

In spite of all this, I, today, when I write these lines and when the surrounding conditions of my ordinary life—grown law-abidingly worse and worse because of my inflexible carrying out in life of the tasks set myself, and among them this principle of mine—are already so far gone that I cannot even imagine how I shall pull through, bless this principle with all my being.

About the circumstances of ordinary life which have today resulted for me, I shall without fail explain also at the end of this book, if, of course, I succeed in somehow carrying on for one more month.

And I shall then explain, also, why I used the expression "grown law-abidingly worse."

I shall without fail explain it, for in all this there is not only much that is instructive but also such comicality that, if all the wits got together purposely to think it up, they could not think up even the tenth part of it.

Having expressed my gratitude to this principle for the acquisition of inner riches, I must now be quite impartial and put the question squarely. ... Is this so?

Could this principle invented by me be also, in all other surrounding conditions of ordinary life, such a vivifying factor?

Frankly speaking, according to the opinion of my subconscious, I must say. . . . no.

This could have happened only thanks to the general material crisis.

I must therefore express my thanks to such a general human misfortune.

Since it would be rather awkward to do that, I shall therefore retain my former opinion.

Now, while expressing half-mockingly my gratitude to this uncertain factor for the inner riches which I now possess, I remembered many living people near to me, who, because of my mentioned egoistic ideas, must have had many disappointments.

Among such people, who willingly or unwillingly did not have a very "sweet" life, there were many really near to me in blood as well as in spirit.

In concluding this chapter of the third series of my writings, I, almost on the eve of the sequential fulfillment of my egoistical aims, addressing all those near to me, shall speak only about two "substantial factors," formed in my inner world.

The first, formed in my being while yet in childhood, and which is the sovereign of my convictions, may be formulated as follows: "Only then may a man be a good altruist to his nearest, when at times he can be a complete egoist."

And the second was formed within me two years after I began to actualize the three aims of my seven-year task.

While working intensively on the books intended for publication, under conditions of law abidingly arisen misfortunes, I, when I noticed that because of my pursuit of my egoistical ideas those near me were becoming worse and worse, once brought myself into a state of mind by a technique I acquired from my father, and through self-suggestion crystallized in my presence this psychic factor, in terms of the following supposition:

If I should attain my self-imposed aims, and should still survive, then I would live with a definite program, as follows:

one third of all my waking state I shall devote to pleasures of my own body; the second third, exclusively to those by that time remaining near to me, in spirit as well as in blood; and the third part to science, that is, to all humanity.


Thus now, after everything that has been clarified in this introductory chapter, I advise, and at that very sincerely, all my readers, both those who know me and those who do not, and also all my dear friends and not less dear "enemies," to try to understand properly the essence of the text of this, my last book, and especially the essence of the concluding chapter.

The concluding chapter of my final book I intend to name "The Inner and Outer World of Man" and to explain in it a question, unusual in the mentation of people, but nevertheless the most preeminent of all questions, from the totality of which follow almost all the misunderstandings of our common lives.

Very sincerely I advise you to understand it because, if nothing else, the common presence of every one will acquire a perhaps even subconsciously acting "factor-pacifier" for the larger part of the futile worries and moral sufferings occurring in their lives.

Above I used the word "enemies" not casually but because, first, the very best friends for my real self, that is, for my inner world, appear, strange as it may seem, to be some from among a great number of my "staunch enemies," at the present time scattered all over the world; and because, second, it may serve me ideally as a good example for the concluding chapter of the present book, and therefore I shall use it as such.

{Here one might recall Mouravieff's discussion of the necessity for shocks and Castaneda's discussion of the necessity for a good petty tyrant. }

Recollecting now through association some of such "enemies" especially dear to my inner world, I, feeling sincerely touched, wish, already here in this introductory chapter of my last book, for their pleasure or displeasure, to quote a few from among the sayings known to me, sayings of popular wisdom which have reached our days through "legomonisms" from the ancient days.

I said for their pleasure or displeasure because I do not know which current of life's river they follow at present.
Since then much time has elapsed. . . . Whether they have remained in that current of life's river into which I, unmerciful to myself, had directed them—just that current which sooner or later must fall into the fathomless ocean—I do not know; or whether the temptations of life, likewise law-abiding, have pushed them into the current which sooner or later must fall into the abyss, for further involution and evolution.

And so, the first of these sayings of popular wisdom runs as follows:

"A man is not a pig to forget good, nor is he a cat to remember evil."

"The first refusal to a person who is devoid of conscience or consideration will destroy the results of even thousands of good deeds formerly manifested toward him by you."

"Only that person is worthy to be a follower of any religion who, although he remembers the wrong done to him by someone, will not manifest any evil toward him."

"You will be reasonable only then when you will learn to distinguish your future good or evil from that of your present."

"Such is the nature of man, that for your first gift—he prostrates himself;
for your second—kisses your hand;
for the third—fawns;
for the fourth—just nods his head once;
for the fifth— becomes too familiar; for the sixth—insults you;
and for the seventh—sues you because he was not given enough."

So, I suspect that these last few paragraphs - especially the last six lines - distill what G intended to discuss at length in the last unfinished chapter. Most likely he was talking about the "man in parentheses", the man without a soul, mechanical man or, perhaps not?
 
Laura, if you haven't read Hidden Meaning and Picture Form Language in the Writings of G I Gurdjieff, by John Henderson, I would recommend it highly. While I don't agree with some of the main conclusions the author reaches, there are some very valuable points raised. It is my opinion, as stated elsewhere, that all 'three series' are contained in BTs, with meetings and life is real acting as introductory texts to those 'other versions', as well as a distraction for those infected with 'wiseacring'. Until you get a VERY thorough familiarity with BT's, you are going to miss the gist of what was being said.

Kris
 
RflctnOfU said:
Laura, if you haven't read Hidden Meaning and Picture Form Language in the Writings of G I Gurdjieff, by John Henderson, I would recommend it highly. While I don't agree with some of the main conclusions the author reaches, there are some very valuable points raised. It is my opinion, as stated elsewhere, that all 'three series' are contained in BTs, with meetings and life is real acting as introductory texts to those 'other versions', as well as a distraction for those infected with 'wiseacring'. Until you get a VERY thorough familiarity with BT's, you are going to miss the gist of what was being said.

Kris

RflctnOfU, I agree with your assessment of Henderson's book. I think he's onto something when he writes about how G's books are structured. For those who haven't read the book, Henderson points out a couple oddities. For example, G describes his books like this in BT:

Ten Books in Three Series

FIRST SERIES:
Three books under the title of “An Objectively Impartial Criticism of the Life of Man,” or, “Beelzebub’s tales to his
grandson.”

SECOND SERIES:
Three books under the common title of “Meetings with Remarkable Men.”

THIRD SERIES:
Four books under the common title of “Life is Real Only Then, When ‘I Am.’”

But the 2nd and 3rd series are NOT divided into 3 and 4 books, respectively. This could have something to do with the fact that G himself didn't oversee their publication. In other words, they're not published as he intended. But Henderson points out that G did in fact write 4 books in total, not 3, if we include "Herald", which he 'repudiated'. Henderson's idea is that the 3 series are actually 3 ways of reading the books, or 3 layers (the third series including Herald).

As Paul Taylor observes in his book "Philosophy of GI Gurdjieff", roughly put, BT contains a lot of theory, Meetings is primarily about moral philosophy, and Life deals with practical philosophy. In other words, basically an exoteric/mesoteric/esoteric structure. For Henderson, G's 'surface narrative' in all three books is collectively the 1st series (i.e., the exoteric teaching). The symbolic meaning is the 2nd series (mesoteric), and the 3rd series gives actual practical exercises (esoteric). For example, in Life, G gives a meditation exercise in one of his talks. It's 'disguised' as just part of the narrative, but intended to be taken up by the reader who gets it. Herald also contains a 'hidden' breathing exercise (the part where he's watching a film in a theater and focuses/defocuses his eyes). So the idea is that G has included actual practical exercises written in code throughout all the books. These may comprise the chapters he hints at in the 2nd and 3rd series that seemingly don't exist. For example, in the 2nd series he mentions the fakir's lecture on "The Astral Body of Man", which he will include in the 3rd series, but it's not in Life. And, as Laura points out, in Life itself, he mentions he'll talk about stuff that he never does and even seems to break off mid-sentence. All these things could be there, but in the '3rd series', i.e., the third layer of the books as a whole.

But on the topic of Laura's post, RflctnOfU, if you think you have some insights into all this, why not share? Maybe you can help us all gain some understanding. After all, in a network, what is gained by one can be gained by all, but only via networking.

BTW, looking at the 2 early manuscripts available for Life, here's how they're labelled/structured:

1st MS said:
Title:
Third Series
First Book (possibly implying that the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th books are to be found elsewhere, i.e. in his other three books and their associated 'layers')
entitled
Life Is Real Only Then When I Am

Contents:
"Prologue"
"Second Chapter - The Outer and Inner World of Man" (note this chapter's placement, not at the end of the book, but as chapter 2. Interestingly, in a letter to Sherman Manchester, G says that "The Material Question", which is at the end of the published version of Meetings, is actually meant to be the second chapter of that book.)
"Introduction"
4 Lecture-Talks

Final sentence:
"This particularity is that ........." (to be continued)

2nd MS said:
Title:
"Life Is Real Only Then When I Am"

Contents:
"First Chapter of the Third Series" (early version of the "Introduction")
4 Lecture-Talks

Final sentence:
"This particularity is that ........." (to be continued)

This suggests to me that the ending was intentional. Even in early manuscripts, he left you hanging.

As for the "Outer and Inner Worlds" chapter, in the early manuscript, it simply ends here (8 pages before the published version ends):

And thus, every man, if he is not [note difference from published text, which doesn't have this word] just an ordinary man, that is, one who has never consciously "worked on himself", has two worlds; and if he has worked on himself, and has become a so-to-say "candidate for another life", he has even three worlds.

So without some revelations on the part of the G people, it's hard to say WHAT G actually intended, and what the final state of his manuscript was...
 
Very Interesting!

RflctnOfU, I sense that you seem to know something we
might be missing, and I second AI about sharing your insights
with the network, if you are willing? It might go a long way
in saving us time, individually or as a group, or at the very
least, to help us to become more colinear with one another?

Can you elaborate on this:
RflctnOfU said:
Until you get a VERY thorough familiarity with BT's, you are going to miss the gist of what was being said.
 
dant said:
Very Interesting!

RflctnOfU, I sense that you seem to know something we
might be missing, and I second AI about sharing your insights
with the network, if you are willing? It might go a long way
in saving us time, individually or as a group, or at the very
least, to help us to become more colinear with one another?

Can you elaborate on this:
RflctnOfU said:
Until you get a VERY thorough familiarity with BT's, you are going to miss the gist of what was being said.

Okay. The essence of what I mean by that statement has to do with what G talked about regarding the associative thought process. By struggling with the book, associations result, which function like a key to the inner meanings. Again, struggling with the 'inner' version of BTs, a secondary strata of associations are crystallized, again functioning like a key, this time to the 'inmost' version. I have only begun, as I stated elsewhere, to perceive the 'inmost' "text". The problem with communicating my understanding lies in the fact that being put into words, a big something is lost, and misunderstanding would likely result. It would be like the difference between being told what a pineapple tastes like versus taking a bite.

Part of my purpose with the attempted study group was to test the waters regarding familiarity with the Tales, and eventually give hints as to the general location of the 'keys-not-near-the-doors'.

Ultimately I really want to share, but it will do no good without struggling with the book. One thing I can say is that the density of material hiding behind the literal text is astounding. I am reminded of a brief passage in this connection:
BTs p.607-608 said:
[...]I went to this official doctor; but when he first of all desired to sound me thoroughly and for this requested me to undress entirely so that he might tap me all over with his little hammer, I could not of course in any way consent. And I could not consent to this, because, if I had bared myself, I should inevitably have betrayed my tail which there on your planet I skillfully hid under the folds of my dress.[...]

One example of my formed associations follows... Compare the ideas on pp. 249-251, and the ideas on pp. 331-337

Kris

edit: I just wanted to clarify my issue with Henderson's thesis. He turns a fly into an elephant with his focus on the 'double-quotation-marks' thing. A simple look at the overall text shows that the double vs single quotes issue is an artifact of grammar.
 
Approaching Infinity said:
RflctnOfU said:
Laura, if you haven't read Hidden Meaning and Picture Form Language in the Writings of G I Gurdjieff, by John Henderson, I would recommend it highly. While I don't agree with some of the main conclusions the author reaches, there are some very valuable points raised. It is my opinion, as stated elsewhere, that all 'three series' are contained in BTs, with meetings and life is real acting as introductory texts to those 'other versions', as well as a distraction for those infected with 'wiseacring'. Until you get a VERY thorough familiarity with BT's, you are going to miss the gist of what was being said.

Kris

RflctnOfU, I agree with your assessment of Henderson's book. I think he's onto something when he writes about how G's books are structured. For those who haven't read the book, Henderson points out a couple oddities. For example, G describes his books like this in BT:

Ten Books in Three Series

FIRST SERIES:
Three books under the title of “An Objectively Impartial Criticism of the Life of Man,” or, “Beelzebub’s tales to his
grandson.”

SECOND SERIES:
Three books under the common title of “Meetings with Remarkable Men.”

THIRD SERIES:
Four books under the common title of “Life is Real Only Then, When ‘I Am.’”

But the 2nd and 3rd series are NOT divided into 3 and 4 books, respectively. This could have something to do with the fact that G himself didn't oversee their publication. In other words, they're not published as he intended. But Henderson points out that G did in fact write 4 books in total, not 3, if we include "Herald", which he 'repudiated'. Henderson's idea is that the 3 series are actually 3 ways of reading the books, or 3 layers (the third series including Herald).

As Paul Taylor observes in his book "Philosophy of GI Gurdjieff", roughly put, BT contains a lot of theory, Meetings is primarily about moral philosophy, and Life deals with practical philosophy. In other words, basically an exoteric/mesoteric/esoteric structure. For Henderson, G's 'surface narrative' in all three books is collectively the 1st series (i.e., the exoteric teaching). The symbolic meaning is the 2nd series (mesoteric), and the 3rd series gives actual practical exercises (esoteric). For example, in Life, G gives a meditation exercise in one of his talks. It's 'disguised' as just part of the narrative, but intended to be taken up by the reader who gets it. Herald also contains a 'hidden' breathing exercise (the part where he's watching a film in a theater and focuses/defocuses his eyes). So the idea is that G has included actual practical exercises written in code throughout all the books. These may comprise the chapters he hints at in the 2nd and 3rd series that seemingly don't exist. For example, in the 2nd series he mentions the fakir's lecture on "The Astral Body of Man", which he will include in the 3rd series, but it's not in Life. And, as Laura points out, in Life itself, he mentions he'll talk about stuff that he never does and even seems to break off mid-sentence. All these things could be there, but in the '3rd series', i.e., the third layer of the books as a whole.

But on the topic of Laura's post, RflctnOfU, if you think you have some insights into all this, why not share? Maybe you can help us all gain some understanding. After all, in a network, what is gained by one can be gained by all, but only via networking.

BTW, looking at the 2 early manuscripts available for Life, here's how they're labelled/structured:

1st MS said:
Title:
Third Series
First Book (possibly implying that the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th books are to be found elsewhere, i.e. in his other three books and their associated 'layers')
entitled
Life Is Real Only Then When I Am

Contents:
"Prologue"
"Second Chapter - The Outer and Inner World of Man" (note this chapter's placement, not at the end of the book, but as chapter 2. Interestingly, in a letter to Sherman Manchester, G says that "The Material Question", which is at the end of the published version of Meetings, is actually meant to be the second chapter of that book.)
"Introduction"
4 Lecture-Talks

Final sentence:
"This particularity is that ........." (to be continued)

2nd MS said:
Title:
"Life Is Real Only Then When I Am"

Contents:
"First Chapter of the Third Series" (early version of the "Introduction")
4 Lecture-Talks

Final sentence:
"This particularity is that ........." (to be continued)

This suggests to me that the ending was intentional. Even in early manuscripts, he left you hanging.

As for the "Outer and Inner Worlds" chapter, in the early manuscript, it simply ends here (8 pages before the published version ends):

And thus, every man, if he is not [note difference from published text, which doesn't have this word] just an ordinary man, that is, one who has never consciously "worked on himself", has two worlds; and if he has worked on himself, and has become a so-to-say "candidate for another life", he has even three worlds.

So without some revelations on the part of the G people, it's hard to say WHAT G actually intended, and what the final state of his manuscript was...
Thanks Laura for the thread and AI for sort this data. Is very interesting what G. said about "The Problem of Old Age". And also, especially relevant on the importance of EE, diet and cognitive psychology, that a soul can not develop without a full body developed.
 
RflctnOfU said:
I have only begun, as I stated elsewhere, to perceive the 'inmost' "text". The problem with communicating my understanding lies in the fact that being put into words, a big something is lost, and misunderstanding would likely result. It would be like the difference between being told what a pineapple tastes like versus taking a bite.

Part of my purpose with the attempted study group was to test the waters regarding familiarity with the Tales, and eventually give hints as to the general location of the 'keys-not-near-the-doors'.

I'd watch out about that "giving hints" notion. If that's the way you see it, I think you might be approaching it wrongly. Basically, it shouldn't be about "discovering the inmost version" and then giving hints to others. That smacks of placing yourself in the role of a teacher, not as a 'companion' in seeking truth. I think a more productive method would be to approach it as a journey, sharing your 'waymarks' as you go for feedback. Kind of like, "well, here he says this, and here he says this. Maybe this is connected and relates somehow to this ... This looks like it might be a 'key'. Here's why I think that. Etc." Sure, not many here are BT aficionados, but who knows, we all might learn a thing or two? Maybe we can even find an answer to Laura's question in this thread?
 
Approaching Infinity said:
RflctnOfU said:
I have only begun, as I stated elsewhere, to perceive the 'inmost' "text". The problem with communicating my understanding lies in the fact that being put into words, a big something is lost, and misunderstanding would likely result. It would be like the difference between being told what a pineapple tastes like versus taking a bite.

Part of my purpose with the attempted study group was to test the waters regarding familiarity with the Tales, and eventually give hints as to the general location of the 'keys-not-near-the-doors'.

I'd watch out about that "giving hints" notion. If that's the way you see it, I think you might be approaching it wrongly. Basically, it shouldn't be about "discovering the inmost version" and then giving hints to others. That smacks of placing yourself in the role of a teacher, not as a 'companion' in seeking truth. I think a more productive method would be to approach it as a journey, sharing your 'waymarks' as you go for feedback. Kind of like, "well, here he says this, and here he says this. Maybe this is connected and relates somehow to this ... This looks like it might be a 'key'. Here's why I think that. Etc." Sure, not many here are BT aficionados, but who knows, we all might learn a thing or two? Maybe we can even find an answer to Laura's question in this thread?

As you noticed, the post quoted was a reply to dant's question, and I don't think you understood the point of view from which I was coming. I most certainly do not want to place myself in the role of teacher, as I am a student of Gurdjieff's, still learning, and I am hoping to find fellow students to broaden our understanding together - companion(s) in seeking truth. It's not about 'teaching', or about "discovering the inmost version then giving hints to others". In short, this 'hint giving issue' you raised isn't about me. The replies to my attempted thread showed the general level of understanding still struggling with the outer version, and hints are all that can be given. (FWIW, I disagree with Henderson's conclusions regarding the three versions of the Tales, with the exception of the outer version) I made a mistake in the study group thread - I stated plainly things that need to be ferreted out through struggle with the book. It is part of the crystalization of associations (knowledge vs understanding). Gurdjieff knew what he was doing. A very important part of penetrating the shell is to follow G's friendly advice at the beginning, specifically "Secondly: to read aloud, as if to another person". The benefit that comes from doing that can only be experienced - fwiw, the difference between the results of hearing it read aloud and actually reading aloud oneself is approximately the same as the difference between a plane and a solid. Beelzebub's Tales(this includes meetings, and life is real) is Art, in the highest sense. What is contained within ultimately must be experienced, and I wish for everyone who is able and willing to attain to this. But it takes personal work and struggle, or 'super efforts' as G talks about in ISOTM.

Kris
 
The most important of the teachings of Gurdjieff according to Ouspensky is that "man can do nothing, because to achieve "Do", must be first "Be", and "Be" mean "to be different". this phrase has amazed, angry and so scared to most readers, but after, you think "Oh, gurdjieff is right", but after .... read well this, is a variant of the Law of three:

« LAURA on: Yesterday at 02:24:27 PM »
Quote
«And thus, every man, if he is just an ordinary man, that is, one who has never consciously "worked on himself," has two worlds; and if he has worked on himself, and has become a so to say "candidate for another life," he has even three worlds».
--------------------------------- -------------------------------- --------------------------------
What kind of "Do" refers gurdjieff with this statement "worked in himself?. maybe is different "make" and "do" and if the man is working in himself, is pefectly clear that the man "CAN DO". There is also the work of the cells, as they can remember, or the "work" of genes, or the things humans "DO" linked to our thoughts. Here are material to think seriously. Thanks, Laura.

Excuse me if my English is not very correct.
 
Hypokrisia manifests as “associative loosening” and “aversive drift”.
Associative loosening results in a failure to bring different aspects of a problem together and leads to cognitive slippage in thought and speech.
Aversive drift is a steady progression of an individual towards a negative tone of affect leading to a gloomy pessimistic attitude towards life.

How does a schizotype appear? The answer to that question depends on how well he is compensated. It can be manifested through thought disorders, interpersonal fear or through laboratory tests measuring psychosomatic and neurological dysfunctions some examples of which would be eye tracking dysfunction, working memory impairment, motor dysfunctions etc. What is described is for people who were brought into treatment - which implies some level of decompensation.

{snip}

Regarding aversive drift, Meehl writes
[quote author=Meehl]
As one learns more about the patient he is struck by the fact that with the passage of time everything tends to get some negative loading. You get the feeling that all activities and relationships are somehow subtly “poisoned” as soon as the patient tries to make them his own. No person remains a “good figure”; no idea remains clearly acceptable; no interest or hobby can retain its appeal. The patient’s psyche seems to have kind of a “reverse Midas touch”—everything he touches turns to garbage…
Even a voluntarily under-taken new hobby gradually becomes boring, then irksome, and then even anxietous or shameful (e.g., “I haven’t practiced my cello lately. I hate the sight of it.”).
[/quote]

[quote author=Carlos Castaneda, Journey to Ixtlan]The art of a hunter is to become inaccessible,” he [Don Juan] said. “In the case of that blond girl it would’ve meant that you had to become a hunter and meet her sparingly. Not the way you did. You stayed with her day after day, until the only feeling that remained was boredom.... To be inaccessible means that you touch the world around you sparingly.... You don’t use and squeeze people until they have shrivelled to nothing, especially the people you love.

{snip}

[To] be inaccessible does not mean to hide or to be secretive," he said calmly. "It doesn't mean that you cannot deal with people either. A hunter uses his world sparingly and with tenderness, regardless of whether the world might be things, or plants, or animal, or people, or power.... He is inaccessible because he's not squeezing his world out of shape. He taps it lightly, stays for as long as he needs to, and then swiftly moves away before leaving hardly a mark.
[/quote]

To me it seems as if strictly limiting of one's interactions with the other to the requirements of Aim can help prevent us over-mingling with people and exchanging energies that can lead to unnecessary polarizations of inner opinion. This entropic drift may not be directly harmful, but to me seems to be generally wasteful, since it does no useful work without Aim in mind. I am reminded about what was written in Crucial Conversations, about how often in conversations our actual motivations for our speech change without our awareness according to the external shocks provided by other participants in the conversation.

How does this relate to Gurdjieff's three worlds? I frankly don't know what to make of "glands" and hormones related to the tree bodies... I think it may just be a rudimentary attempt to science-ize the teachings, similar to his use of modern elements (hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen) to represent the qualities and natures of certain vibrations in ISOTM. In any case though, it seems that the intention use of friction between the two worlds is the key to developing the third. Whether that manifests as the inner being active and the outer being passive (as is with the case of intentional suffering), or the inner being passive and the outer being active (as is with the case of receiving a mirror in the form of direct criticism or being shown something about yourself). Intelligently engaging with people with Aim at the forefront of mind, I think helps you avoid the poisoning of your own intentions, and avoids wasting your and the other's energy, even if the interaction takes on a superficially unpleasant character (such as when Gurdjieff snapped at the individual who offered insincere condolences over the death of Orage; being compelled to emotionally enmesh with someone for the sake of empty sympathy only produces mechanical suffering - or at least that's what I took away from the Condolences and Sympathy topic.

Thanks to this principle, which turned out to be miracle-working for me, I, besides having always and everywhere an abundance of material for my chief aim, that is, for my regeneration, also, thanks only to it, so affected everyone who met me, that he himself, without any effort on my part whatsoever, as if with great satisfaction and complete readiness, took off his mask presented to him with great solemnity by his papa and mama; and thanks to this I at once acquired an unprecedentedly easy possibility of unhurriedly and quietly feasting my eyes on what his inner world contained, not only of the accidentally surviving worthy data proper to man, but also of all the nauseating filth accumulated from his absolutely abnormal so-called "education."

Maybe Gurdjieff's "stepping on corns" prematurely caused people to split, allowing him to see how their negative opinions, selection-and-substitution of data, and aversive drift accumulated in plain sight as time went on.

If I may ask for your opinion on something Laura, in 30 Years Among The Dead, there are many "souls" which seem rather spiritually ignorant and mechanical. But they persist after death. Are those simply assemblies of thought-forms which have yet to leave 3D for 5D to de-compile in the "second death"? Because they certainly don't seem to be the type of hardy soul that Gurdjieff says is forged through intentional suffering and self-remembering. Mysterious world, this one.

I could be 100% wrong with these leads, mind you. Just my two cents.
 
Something related to the topic of this thread.

[quote author=Beelzebub's Tales To His Grandson: Chap 48: From The Author]

The lecture I propose to add as a conclusion to this first series was read more than once during the existence of the Institute by my "pupils of the first rank," as they were then called. Certain of them, by the way, as it later turned out to my sincere regret, showed a predisposition in their essence to the swift transformation of their psyche into the psyche called "hasnamussian"—a predisposition that soon became evident and clearly discernible to all more or less normal persons around them when, at the moment of inevitable crisis— due to my accident—in everything I had thus far accomplished, they, "fearing for their skins," that is, fearing to lose their personal welfare, which by the way I had created for them, deserted the common work and, with their tails between their legs, took themselves off to their kennels where, profiting by the crumbs fallen from my so to say "idea table," they opened what I would call their "schachermacher workshop booths" and, with a secret feeling of hope and perhaps even of joy at their speedy and complete release from my vigilant control, began manufacturing out of various unfortunate, naive people "candidates for lunatic asylums."

I have chosen this particular lecture because when I first began to spread the ideas I wished to introduce into the life of people, it was specially composed here in Europe to serve as the introduction or, as it were, "threshold" to the complete series of lectures, the totality of which alone can make clear in a form accessible to everybody the necessity, and even the unavoidable obligation, of putting into practice the immutable truths I have elucidated and established in half a century of active work, day and night, and also to prove that it is actually possible to employ these truths for the welfare of people. And furthermore I chose this lecture because, happening to be present at the large gathering where it was last read publicly, I made an addition to it which fully corresponds to the hidden thought introduced by Mr Beelzebub himself into his so to say "concluding chord," an addition which, by illuminating once more that supreme objective truth, will in my opinion enable the reader to perceive and assimilate it as befits a being who claims to be made in the "image of God. "

LECTURE I
The Diversity, According to Law, of the Manifestations of Human Individuality

LAST READ AT THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAYHOUSE IN NEW YORK JANUARY 1924

The investigations of many scientists of past ages, and also the data obtained at the present time by means of the quite exceptionally conducted research of the Institute for the Harmonious Development of Man according to the system of G. I. Gurdjieff, have shown that the whole individuality of every man— according to higher laws and the conditions of the process of human life, established from the very beginning and gradually fixed on Earth—of whatever heredity he is the result, and in whatever accidental conditions he arose and developed, must from the beginning of his responsible life, in order to respond to the sense and predestination of his existence as a man and not merely as an animal, indispensably consist of four definite and distinct personalities.

The first of these four independent personalities is nothing other than the totality of the automatic functioning proper to man, as to all animals, the data for which are composed, on the one hand, of the sum total of the results of impressions perceived since birth from all the surrounding reality, as well as from everything intentionally implanted in him from outside and, on the other hand, of the result of the process, also inherent in every animal, called "daydreaming " And this totality of automatic functioning most people ignorantly call "consciousness" or, at best, "thinking. "

The second of the four personalities, functioning in most cases entirely independently of the first, is the sum of the results of data deposited and fixed in the common presence of every man, as of every animal, through the six organs called "receivers of vibrations of different qualities"—organs that function in accordance with the new impressions perceived, and whose sensitivity depends upon heredity and upon the conditions of the preparatory formation for responsible existence of the given individual.


The third independent part of the whole being is the basic functioning of his organism as well as the play of the motor-reflex manifestations acting upon each other within that functioning—manifestations whose quality likewise depends on heredity and the circumstances prevailing during his preparatory formation.

And the fourth personality, which should also be a distinct part of the whole individual, is none other than the manifestation of the totality of the results of the already automatized functioning of the three enumerated personalities separately formed and independently educated in him, that is to say, it is that part of a being which is called "I. "


In the common presence of a man, for the spiritualization and manifestation of each of the three separately formed parts of his entire whole there is an independent "center-of-gravity localization," as it is called, that is to say, a "brain", and each of these localizations, with its own complete system, has for the totality of its manifestations its own peculiarities and predispositions proper to it alone. Consequently, in order to make possible the all-round perfecting of a man, a corresponding, correct education is absolutely indispensable for each of these three parts—and not such a treatment as is given nowadays under the name of "education."

Only then can the "I" that should be in a man be his own "I."

According to the serious experiments and investigations already mentioned, which were carried on over many years, or even simply according to the sane and impartial reflection of any contemporary man, the common presence of every man—particularly of one who for some reason claims to be not just an ordinary, average man, but one of the "intelligentsia," in the genuine sense of the word—should consist of all four of these distinct and quite definite personalities, and each of them should be developed in a corresponding way so that during his responsible existence the manifestations of these separate parts will harmonize with one another.

To illustrate more clearly the diversity of origin and nature of the personalities manifested in the general organization of a man, and also to underline the difference between the "I" that should be in the common presence of a "man without quotation marks," that is, a real man, and the "pseudo I" that people today mistake for it, one can very well make use of an analogy which, though worn threadbare by "spiritualists," "occultists," "theosophists," and other contemporary specialists in "catching fish in muddy waters," with their prattle about the "astral body," the "mental body," and other such bodies that are supposed to exist in man, can nevertheless throw light on the question we are now considering.
A man as a whole, with all his distinct and separately functioning localizations, that is to say, his independently formed and educated "personalities," is almost exactly comparable to that equipage for transporting a passenger which consists of a carriage, a horse, and a coachman.

It must be remarked, to begin with, that the difference between a real man and a pseudo man, that is, between a man who has his own "I" and one who has not, is indicated in this analogy by the passenger sitting in the carriage In the first case, that of the real man, the passenger is the owner of the carriage, and in the second case, he is merely the first chance passer-by who, like the fare in a "hackney carriage," is continually changing.

The body of a man, with all its motor-reflex manifestations, corresponds simply to the carriage itself, all the functionings and manifestations of feeling of a man correspond to the horse harnessed to the carriage and drawing it, the coachman sitting on the box and directing the horse corresponds to what in a man people usually call "consciousness" or "thought", and finally, the passenger sitting in the carriage and giving orders to the coachman is what is called "I ."

The fundamental evil among contemporary people is that, owing to the rooted and widespread abnormal methods of education of the rising generation, this fourth personality, which should be present in everybody on reaching responsible age, is entirely lacking in them, and almost all of them consist only of three of the enumerated parts, which, moreover, are formed arbitrarily of themselves and anyhow In other words, almost every contemporary man of responsible age consists of neither more nor less than a "hackney carriage," and what is more, a broken-down carriage that has long ago seen its day, a crock of a horse, and on the box, a tatterdemalion, half-asleep, half-drunk coachman, whose time designated by Mother Nature for self-perfection passes in fantastic daydreams while he waits on a corner for any old chance passenger The first one who happens along hires him and dismisses him just as he pleases, and not only him but also all the parts subordinate to him.

Pursuing this analogy between a typical contemporary man with his thoughts, feelings, and body, and a hackney carriage with its horse and coachman, we can clearly see that in each of the parts composing these two organizations there must have been formed and must exist its own separate needs, habits, tastes, and so on, proper to it alone because, according to the different nature of their origin and the diverse conditions of their formation, and also the varying possibilities put into them, there must inevitably have been formed in each of these parts its own psyche, its own notions, its own subjective supports, its own viewpoints, and so on.

The whole sum of the manifestations of human thought, with all the inherencies proper to its functioning and with all its specific characteristics, corresponds in almost every respect to the essence and manifestations of a typical hired coachman.

Like all hired coachmen in general, he is a certain type called "cabby" He is not entirely illiterate because, owing to the laws existing in his country for the "general compulsory teaching" of the three Rs, he was obliged in his childhood to put in an occasional appearance at what is called the "parish school." Although he himself is a country boy and has remained as ignorant as his fellow rustics, yet rubbing shoulders, thanks to his profession, with people of various positions and education and picking up from them, a bit here and a bit there, a lot of expressions for various notions, he has now come to look down with contempt upon everything smacking of the country, indignantly dismissing it all as "ignorance."

In short, this is a type to whom one could apply perfectly the adage: "Too good for the crows, but the peacocks won't have him. "

He considers himself competent even in questions of religion, politics, and sociology, with his equals he likes to argue, those whom he regards as his inferiors he likes to teach, with his superiors he is a servile flatterer, he stands before them, as is said, "cap in hand."

One of his greatest weaknesses is dangling after the neighborhood cooks and housemaids, but best of all he likes to put away a good square meal and to gulp down another glass or two, and then, fully satiated, drowsily to daydream.

To gratify these weaknesses of his he regularly steals part of the money his employer gives him to buy fodder for the horse.

Like every "cabby" he works only "under the lash," and if occasionally he does a job without being made to, it is always in the hope of a tip.

The desire for tips has gradually taught him to detect certain weaknesses in the people he deals with and to take advantage of them, he has automatically learned to be cunning, to flatter, "to stroke people the right way," as they say, and in general, to lie.

On every convenient occasion when he has a free moment, he slips into a saloon or a bar where, over a glass of beer, he daydreams for hours at a time, or talks with a type like himself, or just reads the paper.

He tries to look imposing, wears a beard, and if he is thin, pads himself out to appear more important.


As regards the feeling-localization in a man, the totality of its manifestations and the whole system of its functioning correspond perfectly to the horse of the "hackney carriage" in our analogy. Incidentally, this comparison of the horse with the composition of human feeling will help to show particularly clearly the error and one-sidedness of the contemporary education inflicted on the rising generation.

The horse, owing to the negligence of those around it during its early years, and to its constant solitude, is as if locked up within itself, in other words, its "inner life" is driven inside and for external manifestations it has nothing but inertia.

Thanks to the abnormal conditions around it, the horse has never received any special education but has been molded solely under the influence of constant thrashings and vile abuse.

It has always been kept tied up, and for food, instead of oats and hay it has only been given straw, which is utterly worthless for its real needs.

Never having seen in any of the manifestations toward it the least love or friendliness, the horse is now ready to surrender itself completely to anybody who gives it the slightest caress.

In consequence of all this, the inclinations of the horse, thus deprived of all interests and aspirations, must inevitably concentrate on food, drink, and the automatic yearning for the opposite sex, hence it invariably veers in the direction where it can get any of these and if, for example, it catches sight of a place where even once or twice it gratified one of these needs, it waits for the chance to run off in that direction.

It must be added that although the coachman has a very feeble understanding of his duties, he can nevertheless, even though only a little, think logically, and, remembering tomorrow, he does occasionally—either from the fear of losing his job or the desire of receiving a reward—show an interest in doing something or other for his employer without being forced to. But the horse, in the absence of a special education adapted to its nature, has not received at the proper time any data at all for manifesting the aspirations requisite for responsible existence, and of course it fails to understand— indeed it cannot be expected to understand—why it should do anything It therefore carries out its obligations with complete indifference and only from fear of further beatings.


As for the carriage, which in our analogy stands for the body considered separately from the other independently formed parts of the common presence of a man, its situation is even worse.
This carriage, like most other carriages, is made out of various materials and, furthermore, is of a very complicated construction.

It was designed, as is evident to any sane-thinking man, to carry all kinds of loads, and not for the purpose for which it is used by contemporary people, that is, only to carry passengers.

The chief cause of the many misunderstandings connected with it springs from the fact that those who invented the system of this carriage intended it for travel on byroads, and therefore certain inner details of its general construction were designed with this in view.

For example, the principle of its greasing, which is one of the chief needs of an equipage made of such different materials, was so devised that the grease should spread over all the metal parts from the jolting inevitable on such roads, whereas now, this carriage, designed for traveling on byroads, is usually stationed on a rank in the city and travels on smooth, level, paved streets.

In the absence of any shocks whatsoever while rolling along such roads, the greasing of all its parts does not take place uniformly, and consequently some of them are bound to rust and cease to perform the functions intended for them.

A carriage goes easily, as a rule, if its moving parts are properly greased With too little grease, these parts get overheated and finally red-hot, and thus the other parts get spoiled, however, if there is too much grease on some part, the general functioning of the carriage is impaired, and in either case it becomes more difficult for the horse to pull it.

The contemporary coachman, our cabby, has no inkling of the need for greasing the carriage, and even if he does grease it, he does so without proper knowledge, only on hearsay, blindly following the directions of the first comer.

So, when this carriage, now more or less adapted for travel on smooth roads, has for some reason or other to go along a byroad, something always happens to it either a nut gives way, or a bolt gets bent, or something or other gets loose, and so these expeditions rarely end without more or less considerable repairs.

In any case, it has become more and more risky to use this carriage for its intended purpose And once repairs are begun, you have to take the carriage all to pieces, examine all its parts one by one and, as is always done in such cases, "kerosene" them, clean them, and then put them together again, and frequently it becomes obvious that you have to change a part immediately and without fail This is all very well if the part happens to be inexpensive, but it may turn out that the repair is more costly than a new carriage.

And so, all that has been said about the separate parts of that vehicle which, taken as a whole, constitutes a "hackney carriage" is fully applicable to the general organization of the common presence of a man.

In view of the lack among contemporary people of any knowledge or ability to prepare the rising generation for responsible existence in an appropriate way, by educating all the separate parts composing their common presence, every person of today is a confused and extremely ludicrous "something" which, again using our analogy, presents the following picture.

A carriage of the latest model, just out of the factory, varnished by genuine German craftsmen from the town of Barmen, and harnessed to the kind of horse which in the region of Transcaucasia is called a "dglozidzi " "Dzi" is a horse, "dgloz" was the name of a certain Armenian expert in the art of buying and skinning utterly worthless horses.
On the box of this stylish carriage sits an unshaven, unkempt, sleepy coachman, dressed in a shabby frock coat, which he has retrieved from the rubbish bin where it had been thrown out as useless by Maggie, the kitchenmaid On his head reposes a brand-new top hat, an exact replica of Rockefeller's, and in his buttonhole is displayed a giant chrysanthemum.


Contemporary man inevitably presents such a ludicrous picture, because from the day of his arising these three parts formed in him—which though of diverse origin and having properties of diverse quality should nevertheless, for pursuing a single aim during his responsible existence, represent together his "entire whole"—begin, so to say, to "live" and to become fixed in their specific manifestations separately from one another, never having been trained to give the required automatic reciprocal support and help or to understand one another even approximately Thus later, when there is a need for concerted manifestations, these concerted manifestations do not appear.

To be sure, thanks to what is called the "system of education of the rising generation," completely fixed at the present time in the life of man, and which consists simply and solely in drumming into the pupils, by means of constant repetition to the point of stupefaction, numerous almost empty words and expressions, and in training them to recognize merely by the difference in their sounds the reality these words and
expressions are supposed to signify, the coachman is still able to explain after a fashion the various desires he feels (though only to types like himself), and he is sometimes even able, at least approximately, to understand others.

This coachman-cabby of ours, gossiping with other coachmen while waiting for a fare, and sometimes, as is said, "flirting" in the doorways with the local maids, even picks up various forms of what is called "civility. "

In accordance with the external conditions of the life of coachmen in general, he also gradually automatizes himself to distinguish one street from another and, for instance, to calculate how, when a street is closed for repairs, to get to the required destination from another direction.

But as for the horse, even though the maleficent contemporary invention called "education" does not extend to its formation, and in consequence its inherited possibilities are not atrophied, yet because of the fact that it has been formed under the abnormal conditions of the established process of ordinary existence, and that it grows up ignored by everybody, like an orphan, and moreover an ill-treated orphan, it neither acquires anything corresponding to the psyche of the coachman nor learns anything of what he knows, and hence it remains ignorant of the forms of reciprocal relationship which have become
habitual for the coachman, and no contact is made between them for understanding each other.

It may happen, however, that in its locked-in life the horse comes to learn some form of relationship with the coachman and even, perhaps, is not unfamiliar with some sort of "language", but the trouble is that the coachman does not know this or even suspect that such a thing is possible.

Apart from the fact that, in these abnormal conditions, no data have been formed between the horse and the coachman to allow them to understand each other automatically, even a little, there are many other outer causes, independent of them, which deprive them of the possibility of fulfilling together that single purpose for which they were both destined.

Just as the separate independent parts of a "hackney carnage" are connected, namely, the carriage to the horse by the shafts and the horse to the coachman by the reins, so also are the separate parts of the general organization of a man connected with each other: the body is connected to the feeling-organization by the blood {including neurotrasmitters - receptors, ligands - molecules of emotion }, and the feeling-organization with that of the thought or consciousness by what is called "hanbledzoïn," namely, by that substance which arises in the common presence of a man from all intentionally made being-efforts.


The deplorable system of education existing at the present time has led to the coachman's ceasing to have any effect whatever on his horse, at best he can arouse in its consciousness by means of the reins just three ideas—right, left, and stop.

Strictly speaking, he cannot always do even this, because the reins are generally made of materials that react to atmospheric phenomena for example, in a pouring rain they swell and lengthen, and in heat, the contrary, thus having a varying effect upon the horse's automatized sensitivity of perception.

The same thing proceeds in the general organization of the ordinary man whenever from some impression or other the "density and tempo of the hanbledzoïn" change in him so that his thinking loses all possibility of affecting his feeling-organization.

And so, to sum up everything that has been said, we must willy-nilly acknowledge that every man should strive to have his own "I,” otherwise he will never represent anything more than a "hackney carriage" which any passing fare can sit in and dispose of just as he pleases.

Here it will not be superfluous to point out that the Institute for the Harmonious Development of Man has among its fundamental tasks the aim, on the one hand, of educating in its pupils each of the independent personalities I spoke of, first separately and then in their reciprocal relationships, according to the needs of their subjective life in the future, and on the other hand, of begetting and fostering in each of its pupils what every bearer of the name of "man without quotation marks" should have—his own "I. "

For a more exact, and so to speak scientific, definition of the difference between a real man, that is, a man as he ought to be, and a "man in quotation marks," such as almost all contemporary people have become, it is appropriate to quote here what was said about this by Gurdjieff himself in one of his
lectures.

What he said was this:

"For the definition of man, according to our point of view, no contemporary knowledge, whether anatomical, physiological, or psychological, can help us, since each of the characteristics it describes is inherent to one degree or another in every man and applies equally to all, and consequently this knowledge does not enable us to determine the exact difference between people that we wish to establish.

"The measure of this difference can only be formulated in the following
terms:
" 'Man is a being who can do,' and 'to do' means to act consciously and by one's own initiative.
"And indeed every more or less sane-thinking man, capable of being at all impartial, must admit that never before has there been, nor could there be, a fuller or more exhaustive definition.

"Suppose that we provisionally accept this definition, the question inevitably arises can a man who is a product of contemporary education and civilization do anything at all himself, consciously and by his own will?
"No . . . we answer at once to this question
"And why not? . . .
"Simply because, as the Institute for the Harmonious Development of Man categorically affirms and demonstrates on the basis of its experiments, everything without exception, from beginning to end, 'does itself in contemporary man, and there is nothing that a contemporary man himself does.

"In personal, family, and social life, in politics, science, art, philosophy, and religion, in short, in everything entering into the process of the ordinary life of a contemporary man, everything from beginning to end does itself, and not a single one of these 'victims of contemporary civilization' can 'do'
anything.

"This experimentally proved, categorical affirmation of the Institute for the Harmonious Development of Man, namely, that the ordinary man can 'do' nothing and that everything does itself in him, coincides with what is said of man by contemporary 'exact positive science.'

"Contemporary 'exact positive science' says that a man is a very complex organism developed by evolution from the simplest organisms, and now capable of reacting in a very complex manner to external impressions.

"This capacity for reaction in man is so complex, and the reflex movements can be so far removed from the causes evoking and conditioning them, that to naive observation the actions of man, or at least some of them, seem quite spontaneous.

According to the ideas of Gurdjieff, the ordinary man is really incapable of the slightest independent or spontaneous action or word.
[/quote]
 
whitecoast said:
If I may ask for your opinion on something Laura, in 30 Years Among The Dead, there are many "souls" which seem rather spiritually ignorant and mechanical. But they persist after death. Are those simply assemblies of thought-forms which have yet to leave 3D for 5D to de-compile in the "second death"? Because they certainly don't seem to be the type of hardy soul that Gurdjieff says is forged through intentional suffering and self-remembering. Mysterious world, this one.

I don't mean to try and answer the question that you addressed to Laura - but here are some thoughts on the same topic. In Gurdjieff's scheme, man can potentially have multiple bodies. Next to the physical body is what he calls the kesdjan (astral) body. The "hanbledzoin" referred to in the previous post which serves as the connection between the feeling and thinking parts is also said to be the "blood for the kesdjan body". If the kesdjan body is fully formed and coated, then it is said to exist within the planetary sphere after the death of physical body. This kesdjan body or second being body is different from the soul or third being body. While the kesdjan body, if formed and coated, can survive the death of the physical body within the sphere of the planet of its arising, the soul, if formed and coated, can survive within the sphere of the solar system of its arising.

G talks about some interesting properties of the kesdjan body. For one, it is not localized in space as the physical body. It also cannot apparently exist forever by itself if certain developmental level (required gradation of reason) is not reached and it needs to attach itself to something which could be a physical body or "other kesdjanian arisings". So the eartbound "soul" could correspond to G's concept of kesdjan body which has not developed itself to some level.

fwiw
 
obyvatel said:
whitecoast said:
If I may ask for your opinion on something Laura, in 30 Years Among The Dead, there are many "souls" which seem rather spiritually ignorant and mechanical. But they persist after death. Are those simply assemblies of thought-forms which have yet to leave 3D for 5D to de-compile in the "second death"? Because they certainly don't seem to be the type of hardy soul that Gurdjieff says is forged through intentional suffering and self-remembering. Mysterious world, this one.

I don't mean to try and answer the question that you addressed to Laura - but here are some thoughts on the same topic. In Gurdjieff's scheme, man can potentially have multiple bodies. Next to the physical body is what he calls the kesdjan (astral) body. The "hanbledzoin" referred to in the previous post which serves as the connection between the feeling and thinking parts is also said to be the "blood for the kesdjan body". If the kesdjan body is fully formed and coated, then it is said to exist within the planetary sphere after the death of physical body. This kesdjan body or second being body is different from the soul or third being body. While the kesdjan body, if formed and coated, can survive the death of the physical body within the sphere of the planet of its arising, the soul, if formed and coated, can survive within the sphere of the solar system of its arising.

G talks about some interesting properties of the kesdjan body. For one, it is not localized in space as the physical body. It also cannot apparently exist forever by itself if certain developmental level (required gradation of reason) is not reached and it needs to attach itself to something which could be a physical body or "other kesdjanian arisings". So the eartbound "soul" could correspond to G's concept of kesdjan body which has not developed itself to some level.

fwiw

Not only that, but Gurdjieff seems to have been feeling his way toward a clearer exposition of psychopathy and ponerology which is what I was sort of hinting at in the first post. And I don't think he ever got there, not even in B'sT.

I think that the observations of the ancients about souls - or lack thereof - were quite good and accurate, the only problem was the language they used to express these things changed over time and misunderstandings entered in. To say that a person is not born with an individuated soul but must grow it is an interesting observation about a person occupying a mechanical physical body where the animal nature is strong and dissociation and ponerization are strong influences, but it really says nothing about whether or not they "have" a soul. It just speaks about whether that soul is able to fully "drive" the body. And in most people, that rarely happens.

At the same time, the Cs have said there are other types that do not have individuated souls at all - Organic Portals. So it seems to me that this type could easily be confused with the mechanical person with a soul and the conclusion drawn that nobody is born "with a soul" as Gurdjieff - possibly based on ancient teachings - concluded.

When you begin to apply modern cognitive science to the problem, things like "Strangers to Ourselves" and "The Myth of Sanity", as well as the work of Altemeyer as revealed in "Amazing Conversions", you begin to get a somewhat more precise picture of what may be going on. And, of course, this picture is fleshed out quite a bit with such things as Spirit Release Therapy. As mentioned, there are possibly many attachments that are just spiritual energy constructs that persist for various reasons and not exactly individuated souls. They could also be CREATIONS of the dynamics between various elements of the "three worlds" as Gurdjieff described it.

As I've said a number of times in the Spirit Release videos, so much research is needed. And it needs to be good research, with some basic controls over the material, yardsticks, etc, as minimal as they might be in the beginning. But all attempts to do this were stymied and sort of died on the vine at the turn of the century with the clamp-down by materialist science and the ridiculing and destruction of any legitimate scientist who turned their attention to these crucial topics. I would even suggest that a large part of the reason for the many, many attacks on me and my work is because I take this approach. Not only are you not allowed to study the paranormal if you are a scientist, if you are a student of the paranormal, you are not allowed to introduce scientific methods! You must either preach the religion of science or the religion of religion. And of course, from my perspective, that is crazy.
 
Laura said:
obyvatel said:
whitecoast said:
If I may ask for your opinion on something Laura, in 30 Years Among The Dead, there are many "souls" which seem rather spiritually ignorant and mechanical. But they persist after death. Are those simply assemblies of thought-forms which have yet to leave 3D for 5D to de-compile in the "second death"? Because they certainly don't seem to be the type of hardy soul that Gurdjieff says is forged through intentional suffering and self-remembering. Mysterious world, this one.

I don't mean to try and answer the question that you addressed to Laura - but here are some thoughts on the same topic. In Gurdjieff's scheme, man can potentially have multiple bodies. Next to the physical body is what he calls the kesdjan (astral) body. The "hanbledzoin" referred to in the previous post which serves as the connection between the feeling and thinking parts is also said to be the "blood for the kesdjan body". If the kesdjan body is fully formed and coated, then it is said to exist within the planetary sphere after the death of physical body. This kesdjan body or second being body is different from the soul or third being body. While the kesdjan body, if formed and coated, can survive the death of the physical body within the sphere of the planet of its arising, the soul, if formed and coated, can survive within the sphere of the solar system of its arising.

G talks about some interesting properties of the kesdjan body. For one, it is not localized in space as the physical body. It also cannot apparently exist forever by itself if certain developmental level (required gradation of reason) is not reached and it needs to attach itself to something which could be a physical body or "other kesdjanian arisings". So the eartbound "soul" could correspond to G's concept of kesdjan body which has not developed itself to some level.

fwiw

Not only that, but Gurdjieff seems to have been feeling his way toward a clearer exposition of psychopathy and ponerology which is what I was sort of hinting at in the first post. And I don't think he ever got there, not even in B'sT.

I think that the observations of the ancients about souls - or lack thereof - were quite good and accurate, the only problem was the language they used to express these things changed over time and misunderstandings entered in. To say that a person is not born with an individuated soul but must grow it is an interesting observation about a person occupying a mechanical physical body where the animal nature is strong and dissociation and ponerization are strong influences, but it really says nothing about whether or not they "have" a soul. It just speaks about whether that soul is able to fully "drive" the body. And in most people, that rarely happens.

At the same time, the Cs have said there are other types that do not have individuated souls at all - Organic Portals. So it seems to me that this type could easily be confused with the mechanical person with a soul and the conclusion drawn that nobody is born "with a soul" as Gurdjieff - possibly based on ancient teachings - concluded.

When you begin to apply modern cognitive science to the problem, things like "Strangers to Ourselves" and "The Myth of Sanity", as well as the work of Altemeyer as revealed in "Amazing Conversions", you begin to get a somewhat more precise picture of what may be going on. And, of course, this picture is fleshed out quite a bit with such things as Spirit Release Therapy. As mentioned, there are possibly many attachments that are just spiritual energy constructs that persist for various reasons and not exactly individuated souls. They could also be CREATIONS of the dynamics between various elements of the "three worlds" as Gurdjieff described it.

As I've said a number of times in the Spirit Release videos, so much research is needed. And it needs to be good research, with some basic controls over the material, yardsticks, etc, as minimal as they might be in the beginning. But all attempts to do this were stymied and sort of died on the vine at the turn of the century with the clamp-down by materialist science and the ridiculing and destruction of any legitimate scientist who turned their attention to these crucial topics. I would even suggest that a large part of the reason for the many, many attacks on me and my work is because I take this approach. Not only are you not allowed to study the paranormal if you are a scientist, if you are a student of the paranormal, you are not allowed to introduce scientific methods! You must either preach the religion of science or the religion of religion. And of course, from my perspective, that is crazy.
The bolded above isn't quite true. Can some one post the end of book one of BTs - the tale dealing with the hasnamuss. (That is the psychopath, Laura.)

Kris
 
obyvatel said:
whitecoast said:
If I may ask for your opinion on something Laura, in 30 Years Among The Dead, there are many "souls" which seem rather spiritually ignorant and mechanical. But they persist after death. Are those simply assemblies of thought-forms which have yet to leave 3D for 5D to de-compile in the "second death"? Because they certainly don't seem to be the type of hardy soul that Gurdjieff says is forged through intentional suffering and self-remembering. Mysterious world, this one.

I don't mean to try and answer the question that you addressed to Laura - but here are some thoughts on the same topic. In Gurdjieff's scheme, man can potentially have multiple bodies. Next to the physical body is what he calls the kesdjan (astral) body. The "hanbledzoin" referred to in the previous post which serves as the connection between the feeling and thinking parts is also said to be the "blood for the kesdjan body". If the kesdjan body is fully formed and coated, then it is said to exist within the planetary sphere after the death of physical body. This kesdjan body or second being body is different from the soul or third being body. While the kesdjan body, if formed and coated, can survive the death of the physical body within the sphere of the planet of its arising, the soul, if formed and coated, can survive within the sphere of the solar system of its arising.

G talks about some interesting properties of the kesdjan body. For one, it is not localized in space as the physical body. It also cannot apparently exist forever by itself if certain developmental level (required gradation of reason) is not reached and it needs to attach itself to something which could be a physical body or "other kesdjanian arisings". So the eartbound "soul" could correspond to G's concept of kesdjan body which has not developed itself to some level.

fwiw

Ah that makes a lot of sense imo. I am currently making my way through "30 years among the dead" and am taken aback at times at the amount of ignorance that some earthbound "spirits" can have about the nature of reality.

It's as if there is a correlation (inverse) between the amount of ignorance and mental apathy a person indulges in versus one that striving for objective knowledge; consequently and seemingly producing very different outcomes once one has passed to the other side. The contrast between these two types in the book are astounding, but now reflecting on some of the work Gurdjieff has done, sometimes it feels as though there is a connection to the non-souled/potentially souled and ignorant and intelligent spirits. However, i still get the inkling that G may be talking about something with a bit more substance.

So far this is just conjecture on my part and may be a bit of a stretch to even compare these two works of literature.

In relation to the snipped section above laura, I got the visualization of magnets coming in close contact very slowly. If Their opposite polarities are facing one another their will be an attraction, but more fundamentally when this happens their forces begin to experience a growing and diametrically opposed polarity and seek to balance each other. I guess because you can't have one without the other right? (It's been hard for me to not see polarities in everything I read. I feel that sometime my viewpoint may be perpetually one-sided because of this)

A closer vicinity or longer duration of exposure to one another can be directly proportional to the amount force being exerted with respect to "time". Now I noticed that he mentioned that the longer they were around him the greater their diametrical opposition would be. BUT that they would all sell their soul for him. (opposite polarities but yet none-the-less attraction takes place) One instance re-enforcing the other so to say? Could non-souled and potentially souled be polarities? What about psychopaths and their aim to conquer those not like themselves? I could agree with the notion that psychopaths are our polar opposites.

I took note that his (G's) analogy immediately incited somewhat of an electromagnetic metaphor for me anyways. So naturally when he described that a form of resonance can take place in close vicinity of these "vibrations" I thought of FRV but in his case these meshings enforced or amplified the opposite polarity. Which could mean that sometimes FRV could take one of two forms. Meshing the frequency or polarity. OR maybe also a meshing of intensity or amplitude! With the distinct and opposing polarities remaining intact.

Effectively making the contrary vibration to his own even stronger. This may also be why it is not wise to send love in light to those that hate you as the C's say.

Couldn't find the specific quote but this has similar context

Q: Then, is it true as my son said, when you give pity, when you send love and light to those in darkness, or those who complain and want to be "saved" without effort on their own part, when you are kind in the face of abuse and manipulation, that you essentially are giving power to their further disintegration, or contraction into self-ishness? That you are powering their descent into STS?

A: You know the answer!



I don't know though I could be incredibly off or not even wrong. But I thought i'd share my impressions.
 
Back
Top Bottom