Gurdjieff On the Nature of Man

[Buddy]

I didn't realize that my comments might be associated with lecture videos so if I am responsible for any confusion, I apologize for that.

 

[Laura]

I didn't realize that my comments might be associated with lecture videos so if I am responsible for any confusion, I apologize for that.

It's not that they were "associated", I think it was due to the fact that you have not watched these videos that you are sort of "not on the same page".

 

[Buddy]

Oh, I get it. I thought we were having a more or less organic discussion. Thanks. :)

 

[Laura]

Oh, I get it. I thought we were having a more or less organic discussion. Thanks. :)

Those who have access to more info may forget that not everybody is aware of it.

 

[RflctnOfU]

I don't yet have the level of knowledge of G's work being discussed here so please indulge me for a second. Reading this thread reminded me of a friend back in the eighties. She was reading one of G's books (and was a member of a G group in London) every spare moment she had. I had never heard of Gurdjieff and asked her what the book was about. She said it wasn't 'about' anything and that there was no linear journey or logic to it. One just had to read the words and changes would take place in the reader.

Thinking about that and reading these posts I come up with hidden (to the conscious mind) symbolism that is understood by the subconscious mind through linkage with the universal mind. Or some other non-conscious process of transformation?

Is this what RflctnOfU is referring to?

Or am I wide of the mark?

In a sense, yes. The 'symbolism' that transfers to the subconscious occurs as a result of the 'friction' of various associations created from struggle with the text (which includes reading it aloud).

Thanks for coming back to me, Kris. In terms of the friction of the 'various associations' you mention, are they the associations created in the individual through his/her life experiences and perceptions? If so how do the Truths, conveyed by archetypal symbols 'hidden' in Gs writings, arise from friction which must by definition be individualised? What mechanics or dynamics would be involved.

I may be barking up a non-existent tree here, but I am struggling with how the transmission of a universal truth to a person's subconscious mind can take place if it is dependent on, or results from, the friction of an individuals own associations, as the latter differ in everyone.

The associations referred to are created by reading/struggling with the book. Various fragments of the truths are scattered all over the text. After enough material is collected, things start to fall into place, although slowly at first. G said "All the keys are there, but they are nowhere near the doors"

Kris

 

[RflctnOfU]

Me: "Yes, I know what you mean, it's like.....well, I can't really put it into words"

You: "Yes, I see you understand what I have understood, because, like me, you can't describe it using words"

Me: "Yes, that's exactly it, it's an understanding that just defies any attempt to communicate it to another using written or spoken words"

You: "I'm glad to see you've understood the same thing as I have."

Ahhhh, but we don't have recourse to spoken word do we??

Let me ask you a question Perceval. Were you ever involved in music in juinior/high school or further?? Band? Orchestra? Did you acquire a proficiency on a musical instrument?? Do you think it likely that that skill set could be acquired by being told about it?

The dancing man looks the fool to those who cannot hear the music.

So, tell us, how much work with other people do you do both publicly, withstanding attacks, and in your daily living experience under pressure?

I work with other people publicly all the time. My career is orchestral trumpet. As for withstanding attacks, I don't do what you do. I am not publicly exposing, to a wide audience, self-important individuals and their shenanigans...exposing lies. I do this on a small scale indirectly, but I am engaged in a different battle than you guys. You do The Work according to the C's. I do the Work according to G.

Kris

 

[Vic]

But what part do those semantic concerns play in the forming of the payload, Buddy?

Distraction to some extent and at some points? But maybe not for all the semantic concerns. Try to read the material while paying attention to how you relate to the text on two levels. Example:

Have you ever read the Cinderella story to a child? Did you come away with the feeling that you had shared an inspirational story of overcoming the bad guys (or gals) with this child and maybe taught her something valuable? Would you be shocked to discover that on the non-verbal level of imagery-meaning, you had just brainwashed her to be the kind of good little girl who knows to 'shut up, do everything she is told, as she is told to do it, and she will grow up to marry her a prince?' Well, maybe you did and maybe you didn't, but the point is that a part of you also learns from visual imagery and signification that's not necessarily related to words and it would be a good idea to be aware of this - at least as a potential to have reverse or alternate meanings installed in you at that level that unconsciously motivates.

Watch that animated movie with no sound, editing out any stretches of no interaction between individuals and you'll see what I mean.

Thank you, Buddy. That's incredibly helpful to me.

 

[Vic]

But what part do those semantic concerns play in the forming of the payload, Buddy?

Yes, Laura's information field explains a great deal in terms of, well, everything. As you say, to paraphrase (hopefully accurately) - communication is involved in everything. Access to the information field is an attractive prospect to say the least :)

I'm on a steep but rewarding learning curve here. I haven't quite got it with G, but I'm enjoying the attempt at getting it.

Just a note that Buddy is not a member of FOTCM and thus has not watched those lecture videos which are for FOTCM members.

Okay, Laura. Obviously you must have used the phrase 'information field' outside of the videos. Was how Buddy related it to Gurdjieff's cognitive/communicative field off the mark?

 

[Vic]

I don't yet have the level of knowledge of G's work being discussed here so please indulge me for a second. Reading this thread reminded me of a friend back in the eighties. She was reading one of G's books (and was a member of a G group in London) every spare moment she had. I had never heard of Gurdjieff and asked her what the book was about. She said it wasn't 'about' anything and that there was no linear journey or logic to it. One just had to read the words and changes would take place in the reader.

Thinking about that and reading these posts I come up with hidden (to the conscious mind) symbolism that is understood by the subconscious mind through linkage with the universal mind. Or some other non-conscious process of transformation?

Is this what RflctnOfU is referring to?

Or am I wide of the mark?

In a sense, yes. The 'symbolism' that transfers to the subconscious occurs as a result of the 'friction' of various associations created from struggle with the text (which includes reading it aloud).

Thanks for coming back to me, Kris. In terms of the friction of the 'various associations' you mention, are they the associations created in the individual through his/her life experiences and perceptions? If so how do the Truths, conveyed by archetypal symbols 'hidden' in Gs writings, arise from friction which must by definition be individualised? What mechanics or dynamics would be involved.

I may be barking up a non-existent tree here, but I am struggling with how the transmission of a universal truth to a person's subconscious mind can take place if it is dependent on, or results from, the friction of an individuals own associations, as the latter differ in everyone.

The associations referred to are created by reading/struggling with the book. Various fragments of the truths are scattered all over the text. After enough material is collected, things start to fall into place, although slowly at first. G said "All the keys are there, but they are nowhere near the doors"

Kris

This is very interesting. Thanks, Kris. At the risk of being tiresome, but taking into account that the associations, as you say, are created by the reading/struggle with the book (books? or one particular book?) I wonder how the reader's own acquired associations affect the reception of the symbolic meanings/truths. Or if they affect them at all.

I don't know if I am tying myself up in knots here, or if I am on the brink of a wider understanding. It certainly feels more like the latter.

 

[Vic]

Me: "Yes, I know what you mean, it's like.....well, I can't really put it into words"

You: "Yes, I see you understand what I have understood, because, like me, you can't describe it using words"

Me: "Yes, that's exactly it, it's an understanding that just defies any attempt to communicate it to another using written or spoken words"

You: "I'm glad to see you've understood the same thing as I have."

Ahhhh, but we don't have recourse to spoken word do we??

Let me ask you a question Perceval. Were you ever involved in music in juinior/high school or further?? Band? Orchestra? Did you acquire a proficiency on a musical instrument?? Do you think it likely that that skill set could be acquired by being told about it?

The dancing man looks the fool to those who cannot hear the music.

So, tell us, how much work with other people do you do both publicly, withstanding attacks, and in your daily living experience under pressure?

I work with other people publicly all the time. My career is orchestral trumpet. As for withstanding attacks, I don't do what you do. I am not publicly exposing, to a wide audience, self-important individuals and their shenanigans...exposing lies. I do this on a small scale indirectly, but I am engaged in a different battle than you guys. You do The Work according to the C's. I do the Work according to G.

Kris

That alarms me a little, fwiw. Aren't you concentrating on one part of the picture rather than the whole picture? I've experienced this community as doing The Work according to everything that ties together from the Cs, Gurdjieff, and others. Gurdjieff's work is integral to The Work here, as it mentions in the new member's guide:

The ideas of Gurdjieff are integral to this forum. If you're not familiar with Gurdjieff, you can read some basic information about his 4th Way teaching, generally referred to here as "the Work", by clicking on the links in this paragraph. It is a method of self-examination recommended to and practiced by most members of this forum, as a way of seeing ourselves, others, and the world around us from the perspective of OBJECTIVITY, rather than through the distorting prism of our own SUBJECTIVITY

_http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=16460.msg141631#msg141631

 

[Joe]

Ahhhh, but we don't have recourse to spoken word do we??

Let me ask you a question Perceval. Were you ever involved in music in juinior/high school or further?? Band? Orchestra? Did you acquire a proficiency on a musical instrument?? Do you think it likely that that skill set could be acquired by being told about it?

The dancing man looks the fool to those who cannot hear the music.

That's just more wiseacreing. In modern parlance it's called a 'straw man argument'. Of course a person cannot learn an instrument by being told how to do it, but what has that got to do with the point? A person who learns to play an instrument can teach another person how to learn it, by telling them what they need to do and that person can then practice and become as proficient as the first. You're talking about something that cannot be verified as being a shared knowledge between two people because it cannot be put into words. Two people who play an instrument can verify that they have learned the same skills, understood the same concepts, by playing in harmony together, in front of millions of witnesses sometimes.

 

[Joe]

You do The Work according to the C's. I do the Work according to G.

There is no difference. In fact, the C's expound more clearly on the work of G. That you can't see that suggests you don't understand G's work.

 

[RflctnOfU]

I don't yet have the level of knowledge of G's work being discussed here so please indulge me for a second. Reading this thread reminded me of a friend back in the eighties. She was reading one of G's books (and was a member of a G group in London) every spare moment she had. I had never heard of Gurdjieff and asked her what the book was about. She said it wasn't 'about' anything and that there was no linear journey or logic to it. One just had to read the words and changes would take place in the reader.

Thinking about that and reading these posts I come up with hidden (to the conscious mind) symbolism that is understood by the subconscious mind through linkage with the universal mind. Or some other non-conscious process of transformation?

Is this what RflctnOfU is referring to?

Or am I wide of the mark?

In a sense, yes. The 'symbolism' that transfers to the subconscious occurs as a result of the 'friction' of various associations created from struggle with the text (which includes reading it aloud).

Thanks for coming back to me, Kris. In terms of the friction of the 'various associations' you mention, are they the associations created in the individual through his/her life experiences and perceptions? If so how do the Truths, conveyed by archetypal symbols 'hidden' in Gs writings, arise from friction which must by definition be individualised? What mechanics or dynamics would be involved.

I may be barking up a non-existent tree here, but I am struggling with how the transmission of a universal truth to a person's subconscious mind can take place if it is dependent on, or results from, the friction of an individuals own associations, as the latter differ in everyone.

The associations referred to are created by reading/struggling with the book. Various fragments of the truths are scattered all over the text. After enough material is collected, things start to fall into place, although slowly at first. G said "All the keys are there, but they are nowhere near the doors"

Kris

This is very interesting. Thanks, Kris. At the risk of being tiresome, but taking into account that the associations, as you say, are created by the reading/struggle with the book (books? or one particular book?) I wonder how the reader's own acquired associations affect the reception of the symbolic meanings/truths. Or if they affect them at all.

I don't know if I am tying myself up in knots here, or if I am on the brink of a wider understanding. It certainly feels more like the latter.

It's always darkest before dawn, as the saying goes. In terms of realization, I think this is connected with the fifth stopinder. When I am speaking of associations created by struggling with the book (meetings and life is real are included to a certain extent, but IMO, the gristle on which to chew is BTs), associations from life certainly play a part, but the important thing is to acquire new material/associations.

An example of a created association by struggling with the text: I am unable to pronounce aloud 'Aliamizoornakalu', so I struggle with learning to pronounce this word (practice). By doing this, I create an association, based on experienced action, so I remember when I come across this word again. This process of learning to pronounce is consciously done, all centers are engaged in this activity, so it 'sticks'.

Does this make sense?

Kris

 

[Joe]

An example of a created association by struggling with the text: I am unable to pronounce aloud 'Aliamizoornakalu', so I struggle with learning to pronounce this word (practice). By doing this, I create an association, based on experienced action, so I remember when I come across this word again. This process of learning to pronounce is consciously done, all centers are engaged in this activity, so it 'sticks'.

Does this make sense?

Not to me. Can you explain how "all centers" are engaged in pronouncing a word like that? Seems to me it's only the intellectual, and even then with limited effort. I was able to pronounce it pretty easily by breaking it down into syllables. For example, Ali-ami-zoor-nakalu

 

[RflctnOfU]

You do The Work according to the C's. I do the Work according to G.

There is no difference. In fact, the C's expound more clearly on the work of G. That you can't see that suggests you don't understand G's work.

There IS a difference. There is certainly kinship, but G's teaching is more than what was written about his teaching activities. I learned about Gurdjieff from studying Laura's work with the C's. Having studied G, I reached the conclusion that Laura's conclusions, which at first I took to heart, were missing the mark. Especially in view of the fact that she has never taken the time to even read BTs once, which G went to such pains to 'birth' - which I COMPLETELY understand btw - her time is very valuable and she is putting it to different use. Have you followed G's advice on reading his material, leading towards 'fathoming the gist'? Have you read aloud? This is the point of my musical instrument analogy. Certain indications can be given, but learning is done through application/practice, and no amount of talking about my understanding can replace the practice required. Otherwise it is just information. I could have a useful exchange of ideas with someone who has practiced, but there seems to be a reluctance to put in the practice. The issue is in the apparent fact that you are stuck in the literal text. Or am I mistaken? You pretty much flatly denied any 'hidden' information in the book. G himself said that there are three versions of BTs. The outer version, the inner version, and the inmost version.

An example of a created association by struggling with the text: I am unable to pronounce aloud 'Aliamizoornakalu', so I struggle with learning to pronounce this word (practice). By doing this, I create an association, based on experienced action, so I remember when I come across this word again. This process of learning to pronounce is consciously done, all centers are engaged in this activity, so it 'sticks'.

Does this make sense?

Not to me. Can you explain how "all centers" are engaged in pronouncing a word like that? Seems to me it's only the intellectual, and even then with limited effort. I was able to pronounce it pretty easily by breaking it down into syllables. For example, Ali-ami-zoor-nakalu

Sure. I (thinking center). Wish (emotional center). Pronounce (moving center). Combined into one whole experience.

Kris