Wu Wei Wu
Jedi Master
This is a thought that's been on my mind for some time, ever since I read an article by Joseph Azize in the Crossroads Journal. Crossroads is an 'interdisciplinary journal for the study of history, philosophy, religion, and classics' (their words). A friend of mine, also involved in the work, passed the article my way and I've been pondering it ever since.
There are clear parralels between the Gurdjieff work and stoic thought. This forum has approached that angle already and dug up some very interesting work. But what about Neoplatonism?
Neoplatonism was a syncretic philosophy that aimed to unite trends from Stoicism, Aristotelianism, and Middle Platonism. Historically its considered the Greek pagan response to the rise of Christianity. Those of you familiar with Neoplatonism will be aware that there are awfully close parallels between the two and that Neoplatonic thought now forms the core of Ismaili philosophy and had enormous influence on the various Islamic and Jewish philosophies, like Kabbala, that followed it. It was also very influential with the philosopher Thomas Aquinas, so its legacy sticks.
Anyways, Azize here made the assertion that at the least Gurdjieff was intimately familiar with Neoplatonism, specifically the works of the three remaining well known writers: Plotinus, Porphyry, Iamblichus, and the Emperor Julian the Apostate. While I've read parts of the surviving works of all three the parallels were not immediately clear.
As to the close connection in ideas, there are many. The most explicit being the following quote by Porphyry on his teacher, Plotinus: 'he was present at once to himself and to others, and he never relaxed his self-turned attention except in sleep'. Furthermore Plotinus had ideas of the intellect that directly mirror the 4th Way with regards to the higher emotional and intellectual center which he describes as always being present and touching the divine. There are many other parallels. His supposed final words were 'Endeavor to lead the divine in you back to the divine in the all'.
Plotinus was, in his time, known as a sage as well.
Now that I look for it I'm finding Neoplatonism in a lot of strange places. I'm really quite curious as to what the board thinks of the matter. The Enneads themselves are quite dense as they are strictly class notes for those already familiar with Neoplatonic ideas and the only other surviving directly Neoplatonic works belong to Porphyry and Iamblichus, with Julian as a footnote. So sources are limited. I've asked my friend, who is much wiser than I, for a good book on the matter so I can research Neoplatonic thought and compare. The Work has yielded much fruit for me and allowed me to create a vastly better life for myself, perhaps Neoplatonism will do the same.
Is there perhaps a long tradition of the Work, as Gurdjieff described in his work, stretching back all the way to the Greeks of this time? Was Plotinus a man of considerable stature after all, a man number 6 or 7?
I don't have answers, only questions, so this may be a fruitful avenue to explore. I'm also curious as to what the Cs would say about it, but this is more a matter of historical interest and connecting the dots.
For those who want to read the direct article you can find it in the Crossroads Journal, Volume V (5) Issue I (1) from 2010, pages 18-26. I have pdf, but I'm not certain it would be legal for me to upload so I'm going to abstain from doing that.
Comments and insight would be appreciated.
There are clear parralels between the Gurdjieff work and stoic thought. This forum has approached that angle already and dug up some very interesting work. But what about Neoplatonism?
Neoplatonism was a syncretic philosophy that aimed to unite trends from Stoicism, Aristotelianism, and Middle Platonism. Historically its considered the Greek pagan response to the rise of Christianity. Those of you familiar with Neoplatonism will be aware that there are awfully close parallels between the two and that Neoplatonic thought now forms the core of Ismaili philosophy and had enormous influence on the various Islamic and Jewish philosophies, like Kabbala, that followed it. It was also very influential with the philosopher Thomas Aquinas, so its legacy sticks.
Anyways, Azize here made the assertion that at the least Gurdjieff was intimately familiar with Neoplatonism, specifically the works of the three remaining well known writers: Plotinus, Porphyry, Iamblichus, and the Emperor Julian the Apostate. While I've read parts of the surviving works of all three the parallels were not immediately clear.
As to the close connection in ideas, there are many. The most explicit being the following quote by Porphyry on his teacher, Plotinus: 'he was present at once to himself and to others, and he never relaxed his self-turned attention except in sleep'. Furthermore Plotinus had ideas of the intellect that directly mirror the 4th Way with regards to the higher emotional and intellectual center which he describes as always being present and touching the divine. There are many other parallels. His supposed final words were 'Endeavor to lead the divine in you back to the divine in the all'.
Plotinus was, in his time, known as a sage as well.
Now that I look for it I'm finding Neoplatonism in a lot of strange places. I'm really quite curious as to what the board thinks of the matter. The Enneads themselves are quite dense as they are strictly class notes for those already familiar with Neoplatonic ideas and the only other surviving directly Neoplatonic works belong to Porphyry and Iamblichus, with Julian as a footnote. So sources are limited. I've asked my friend, who is much wiser than I, for a good book on the matter so I can research Neoplatonic thought and compare. The Work has yielded much fruit for me and allowed me to create a vastly better life for myself, perhaps Neoplatonism will do the same.
Is there perhaps a long tradition of the Work, as Gurdjieff described in his work, stretching back all the way to the Greeks of this time? Was Plotinus a man of considerable stature after all, a man number 6 or 7?
I don't have answers, only questions, so this may be a fruitful avenue to explore. I'm also curious as to what the Cs would say about it, but this is more a matter of historical interest and connecting the dots.
For those who want to read the direct article you can find it in the Crossroads Journal, Volume V (5) Issue I (1) from 2010, pages 18-26. I have pdf, but I'm not certain it would be legal for me to upload so I'm going to abstain from doing that.
Comments and insight would be appreciated.
