Thanks for this session, it was fascinating especially with regard to G's interpretation of reality.
Throughout my time reading the work relating to Gurdjieff's ideas, there have been multiple occasions where I felt like I hit a brick-wall in trying to understand what was meant by the words on the page. For example, the table of hydrogens and law of octaves never really made much sense. Although I just assumed that I was not yet intelligent enough to be able to comprehend the meaning or significance of it all. There was always difficulty when attempting to reconcile G's cosmology with the one laid out by the C's (which seemed to resonate with me).
I have also found it difficult to come to terms with the possibility of G being totally unaware of the existence of hyperdimensional realities. The famous story about the "magician" seemed to apply very well in this context, and it made sense to me that this was G's way of explaining the concept of 4D STS to people in an understandable way. With all of this new information... it seems like this assumption must be discarded.
Coming to terms with the fact that even G did not have all of the answers, tearing him down from the imaginary pedestal I had erected in my mind, and starting afresh feels kinda strange. I am not quite sure how to describe how I feel about it all. It feels a little like I have lost a small part of myself, or a sacred cow. I am trying to steer away from black and white thinking.
As was said by many here, G's power of observation and extensive understanding of human psychology were his greatest contributions and have personally helped me a lot in trying to understand the state of the human condition. So it would be silly to throw the baby out with the bathwater here. But a question which bugs me is: where to go from this point onward?
I guess the answer to that question can be found somewhere from the extensive readings and recommendations by Laura, so thanks for that. I hope that working through these books can help provide clarity and some direction.
I am at around section II of Collingwood's "Idea of History", although most of the time I find it difficult to obtain anything from it. Perhaps I need to go back and read it again from the start. Yesterday Jennifer asked me what I had learned from the book so far, and I was shocked by the fact that I couldn't even answer that question
. It is truly dense, and I am doubtful that I will be able to see the value in the insight provided by Collingwood. So again, thanks to everyone who has simplified and explained some of the ideas in the various threads!
)
