as Laura says… “ You can’t change the way you think with the way you think”
That is nicely put, I believe!
Accepting all ideas that are spoken at a lecture because it sounds good or is easy
I wasn't exactly picturing what I've described in this context (a lecture); what I had in mind was rather the practical interaction between two people (at a lecture, one uses free-will to go there; there may be a "topic" for the lecture/conference, and the acquisition of knowledge may differ a bit).
So, really, when you meet a person and the person tries to "push" his own world view unto you. This happens so many times, and I have been learning to preserve my own way of thinking foremost, so that i can feel when this happens. Many many times, people suggest you to update your world view with their own homemade bits & takes.
It is funny that T.S. Eliot says "we are not competent to decide"... I feel this incompetency has been raised many times on the forum (Jeanne de Salzmann for example). I am spectating too common
situations, during which
others, come
ballistic, and
freely start to
analyze &
give advices...
After all, is ourselves are barely competent to see ourselves and figure things out, that would be an even greater mistake in terms of objectivity... I appreciate the modus operandi on the forum which goes by The Swamp, in which we can ask for help, advices and suggestions. It reframes the sane context during which a "correction" of others can take place.
I find it empowering because I would stop to take what others say at a first degree.
And then, what to do when a person gives advices out of "love"??? There may be situations during which STO manifests.
I would say, mostly, when people start to expand "from their own navel" - the situation is getting STS-ish in the background, and it's not practical in terms of positive human interaction. Then, reasons vary. Then - love - etc etc. Difficult to find a good way. I would say if a person pushes in STS ways, we can feel it, and that's when we can cut the interaction. The idea would be "experience", so learning.
So that is a bit the context in which I was appreciating the quote... The transmission of ideas, the reception of the idea, the acquisition of the idea. Seems there are several steps that are packaged in a whole, and that we have been taught that "it's how the mind function". Seems not so, after all... It seems we have free-will, a brain - and time.
It’s not so much that this way favors thinking only it’s what it doesn’t favor - it doesn’t favor life, growth, contribution and so forth. Accepting all ideas that are spoken at a lecture because it sounds good or is easy - this focuses on one’s intellectual center too much, life experiences “work” brings balance in the emotional center and intellectual center and when they are aligned one can gain wisdom as you gain info from lecture/books then you VARIFY/INVESTIGATE the intellectual knowledge by gaining experiences “work” in life while simultaneously pondering the information gained intellectually and sifting through what is verified and what is not. What rings true in you
Yes - you are right - it boils down to this. The Work, 4th D growth and STO and so on. You can yourself see the various aspects of troubles, in terms of the centers of Gurdjieff, it seems, because you can refer to those principles when a person like me quotes something; you can bind the aspects to the Work. This is a precious skill that I don't have.
The quote may be introductive to those precise matters?
I appreciated it and shared it, because I found it general, and applicable.
So, do you believe this quote is of "use" (even if the Work states things differently)?
One thing I can see, too, if I get back at the quote:
as Laura says… “ You can’t change the way you think with the way you think”
This is nicely put. What would be the first step, for a person eager to get away from this "condition"???
she portrays him as a man so incapable of making decisions for himself, indecisive, shy, very insecure, with serious problems with his wife, who had mental health issues. He was kind but didn't know how to act, how to behave, or how to make decisions. He was, of course, highly sensitive.
Hello
@loreta thank you for the comment! I am discovering the author, and he is so much encensed on Substack by book-people.
What you've said provides a context; it made me sad for T.S. Eliot. I think I can relate, being a shy person in a world based on domination-motions. I have been learning to bypass this, but people who are polarized to litterature and poetry are strangers in their own world.
The book I refer to is a gathering of essays, mostly on poetry. "How to criticize poetry", in terms of "what is real poetry". Many many lines are quite complex because we need the experience of art, theatre works, and poetry - something I am not familiar with, or even attracted to. But in midst of the lines, that are specific to the field that T. S. Eliot seemed into, he provides very general thoughts such as the one I've quoted. Those may be applicable to more than just poetry.
Those Brit's were really fundamental thinkers and it seems some tried to get to the bottom of things & principles - with the goal in mind to benefit from the best world view (and teaching others afterwards). G.K. Chesterton has many hints of such a goal, in his writings. Alfred North WHITEHEAD too. I cannot help it, I am fond of this aspect of things. This is surely due to the fact that I have been receiving a specific education - and that I am not satisfied with it.
Thank you for the references! I did not know about it. T.S. Eliot seemed to be a tortured individual. It is puzzling because at his time, Britain would be more easy than today's world (unless it wasn't - Dickens portray a very black & white society indeed). Eh! I can reflect on what you say! A world who favours the biggest mouths & the biggest "people who dare"... This is pretty unfortunate. The "skills" becomes - manipulation, cunningness and psychopathology. I claim room for the introverts!
