We have discussed earlier the rigorous meanings to be attached to two of the
technical terms included in the body of the Gurdjieffian ideas, Self-Remembering and
Self-Observation. It will be recalled that Self-Remembering is one of the necessary
preliminaries to Self-Observation, the other one being obviously the recollection that one
wishes to engage in the latter activity. Self-Remembering consists in the establishment of
the dichotomy that genuinely exists between “I” and It, between the at first almost empty
reality of the ultimately subjective entity which proposes to engage in the self-
observatory activity and, to the other hand, that objective organism to which he is related
and which he is about to observe. In short, Self-Remembering comprises the effort of
non-identification from the physical body which is essential to any correct or successful
practice of Self-Observation. In the Oragean Version these distinctions are clear and
final and there exists no excuse for confusing either one of these terms with the other; but
in the Ouspenskian Version the distinction is by no means so clear-cut, in fact it is rather
fuzzy and at times it even appears that Self-Remembering is actually considered to be
synonymous with Self-Observation. When such an attitude is maintained, therefore, no
genuine Self-Observation can take place and the very first practical work relating to the
Hidden Secret is omitted.
This same fuzziness or lack of rigorous and conclusive definition appears also to
me to characterize a number of other concepts closely connected with the Ouspenskian
Version, and in particular those involving the work of the pupil upon himself rather than
those concerned with the paraphysical, parachemical or cosmic formulations.
It is my impression that in the Ouspenskian Version the individual work of the
pupil, which of course is the very heart and core of the whole procedure, being what in
the present treatise is called the Boat, is far more introspective than genuinely objective
and that it is often taken for granted that the candidate, newly come to these techniques, is
in a position to understand both the possibility and the nature of a genuine Self-
Observation far more readily than in fact is, or can be, the case. Thus the real crux of the
Hidden Secret is missed; and without that revelation, which must always be fully
understood self-revelation deriving from an actual experience of the difference between
introspection and objective observation, no sort of work that is done can in fact lead to
the results formulated in the Gurdjieff system.
To be specific, I suspect that the individual work of the Ouspenskian Version
consists, either wholly or predominantly, in what I have above called the work of the
Open Secret and that the work of the Hidden Secret is either omitted or so inadequately
glossed over that it is never really mastered by the candidate concerned. It must be
remembered that I do not know this to be the case but it should also be stated that the
opinion is no mere guess. It has arisen not only from lengthy discussions with members
of the Ouspensky groups but likewise from my experiences with them, as well
individually as collectively. Never at Mendham, for instance, have I heard the least
mention of the kind of constatation that must result from the Self-Observation of a
specific organic body but, to the contrary, only the sort of opinion that can arise from
introspections relating to subjective states of mind or emotion or from reflections upon
the nature of one’s habits, and so on. On occasion I have heard ordinary students, much
interested in class work in the usual kind of psychology, produce equally shrewd
opinions; but the work envisaged here is not at all comparable to class work in ordinary
psychology or to the assumed self-interrogations of psychoanalysis.
Now this is an extremely serious point and it ought to be discussed in the light of
Ouspensky’s own words in regard to it. In his book, In Search of the Miraculous, on page
193 he speaks of the required transformation of that hydrogen in man’s body which is
here identified as the hydrogen, “mi 12,” and of the allusions allegorically made to this
transformation by the alchemists. He continues: “Alchemists who spoke of this
transmutation began directly with it. They knew nothing, or at least they said nothing,
about the nature of the first volitional ‘shock.’ It is upon this, however, that the whole
thing depends. The second volitional ‘shock’ and transmutation become physically
possible only after long practice on the first volitional ‘shock,’ which consists in self-
remembering, and in observing the impressions received. On the way of the monk and
on the way of the fakir work on the second ‘shock’ begins before work on the first
‘shock’, but as mi 12 is created only as a result of the first ‘shock,’ work, in the absence
of other material, has of necessity to be concentrated on si 12, and it very often gives
quite wrong results. Right development on the fourth way must begin with the first
volitional ‘shock’ and then pass on to the second ‘shock’ at mi 12.”
In the words of the Oragean Version the first conscious shock is created by the
activity of Self-Observation, the second conscious shock by the activities of Voluntary
Suffering and Conscious Labor; and it is seen that what Ouspensky says is what has here
been said in the second paragraph above. There is thus no ultimate contradiction between
the two Versions upon this point but there is certainly quite a difference between them in
regard to what is considered as providing the first conscious shock. If in place of
Ouspenky’s own words we should write that this “consists primarily in self-remembering,
and incidentally in observing the impressions received,” we would have not only the
superficial implication of his Version but likewise the understanding of it expressed
directly to this inquirer by his own followers. As to the Oragean Version the case is
explicit and has already been stated: that Self-Remembering by itself will accomplish
nothing and that the cause of the actual transformation of the given physical substances is
exactly the activity of Self-Observation, and neither one of its preliminaries nor anything
else. Whether the error above discussed was ever Ouspensky’s own or consists only in a
misinterpretation on the part of his pupils, or in fact whether it exists at all, I cannot of
course decide in any final sense. It is simply my conclusion from my own experiences
that it does exist.
My opinion in this respect is reinforced by Ouspensky’s own words, viz., “and in
observing the impressions received.” No impression can be observed in the sense of a
genuine organic Self-Observation by any pupil of the degree of those I met at Mendham
or have previously met in the Gurdjieff work anywhere else; and the very phraseology
quoted, evidences to me a lack of comprehension of the activity actually discussed.
“Observing an impression” is observing a sensation (or else it is the attempt to observe
some even foggier emotional or mental occurrence) and, as we have earlier seen, this is
not really an observation at all but is equivalent, instead, to becoming more vividly aware
of the occurrence of the sensation or impression. The only thing that can be observed in a
correct sense is some current organic phenomenon; such an observation is made by
means of sensations or impressions, which only mediate the self-observatory activity. To
substitute the observation of impressions for that of organic phenomena first of all
confuses the issue and secondly is at best a subjective manifestation closely resembling
introspection if, indeed, it is not the same thing exactly. Until the object of observation is
made specific and physically objective without possibility of doubt or verbal cavil, the
activity itself remains as non-objective as its own object.
Observing an impression is the Introspective Fallacy with vengeance. It is facile,
though, and thus it is a lazy fallacy, too. We have already remarked upon how easy it is to
skip the hard, energetic, objective task and to slip into the pleasant daydream that
introspection may be able to solve the difficulties, after all. Unfortunately (perhaps) that
is not the case. Introspections, of course, can sometimes be difficult and unpleasant also;
but neither does that alter the case, if you come right down to it.
The object of observation not only can, but must, be a physical, organic
phenomenon of one’s own body so clearly and universally recognized as to be open with
equal ease either to instrumental checking or to that of other instructed and careful
observers. Only so can there be any proper suggestion, let alone guarantee, of impartially
objective success in the outcome. The distinction here made between introspective
opinion and impartially objective knowledge is in plain fact so subtle and so difficult for
anyone’s apprehension in the usual terms that to me the failure to place the greatest
emphasis upon this really extraordinary concept indicates the highest probability that
both the crucial importance and the true meaning of the formulation have been lost upon
the formulator.
In this kind of activity, that of the Fourth Way, introspection is not the technique
advocated for the candidate or pupil; and introspection, whether or not accompanied by
an admixture of Self-Remembering, remains introspection. Either that position is
understood or it is not understood. In the Ouspenskian Version it does not appear to me
to be understood.
This point is unusually important because it refers to something very important in
any version of the Gurdjieff ideas, viz., the whole basis and beginning of the practical
work that alone can lead to objective results in the case of the subnormal and
undeveloped human being. The introspective misdirection of this first and basic step not
only invalidates the very nature of the Hidden Secret, preventing its correct realization by
the student, but likewise must of necessity then throw the predominant emphasis back
upon the work of the Open Secret, which, merely by itself, is equivalent to little more
than an advanced sort of Pelmanism or the self-interrogations of ordinary psychology. A
great many persons, from those who study how to make friends and influence people to
the victims of psychoanalysis, theorize about their own types, behaviors, past histories
and so on, without ever in any way altering their status as subnormal or undeveloped
human beings even when their conclusions of this kind happen to be unexpectedly
correct. The successful prosecution of the work of the Open Secret will produce no
fundamental change in semi-conscious man.
. Is it a good approach ?
