Johnno
The Living Force
I came across this passage at the Gurdjieff legacy website.
http://www.gurdjieff-legacy.org/40articles/mouravieff1.htm
It's more the last passage which I have made bold I found rather interesting. How could either both or possibly none apply? I couldn't fathom it. Then an answer of sorts landed in my lap.
So I was wondering if anyone would be game to use some "fuzzy logic" and give examples where they have found where either, neither or both apply. Doesn't have to be on the example above or perhaps there are insatnces where this applies using the above math problem.
http://www.gurdjieff-legacy.org/40articles/mouravieff1.htm
I'm not looking at this as a Mouravieff is "bad" according the followers of Gurdjieff type of deal. This bias is evident throughout writings..... quite a bit of turf protection going on.Mouravieff, always absolutely confident in his own interpretation, revealed a dimension of his relationship with Ouspensky he never suspected when he tells of the two dining with Baroness O.A. Rausch de Traubenberg, a friend who was helping to translate Ouspensky's book from Russian into English. The baroness's twelve-year-old son came to the table and asked that the two men write something in his album. Wrote Mouravieff: "Whatever happens in life, never lose sight of the fact that two times two make four." Wrote Ouspensky beneath Mouravieff's sentence: "Whatever happens in life, don't lose sight of the fact that two times two never make four." Ouspensky smiled, and gave Mouravieff a mischievous look.
The baroness, who knew both men well, shrugged her shoulders and looking from one to the other, said:
"Well!—in your maxims, I recognize you perfectly, you two."
Of this Mouravieff wrote:
"Whim?—Certainly!—But from the point of view that interests us for the moment [Ouspensky's attitude toward life], Ouspensky was completely there [referring to the personality, not presence]."
In other words, in Mouravieff's view, Ouspensky was not scientific, not rational.
Of course, Ouspensky, a real teacher in his own right, was not denying the rationality of two times two making four. Rather, he was completing Mouravieff's assertion. What he wrote took the absolutism of Mouravieff's statement (a feature of his) and reopened the statement for the baroness' son in the sense of asking where and in what cases either of the statements is right or wrong, and further, in what instances they might both apply.
It's more the last passage which I have made bold I found rather interesting. How could either both or possibly none apply? I couldn't fathom it. Then an answer of sorts landed in my lap.
So I was wondering if anyone would be game to use some "fuzzy logic" and give examples where they have found where either, neither or both apply. Doesn't have to be on the example above or perhaps there are insatnces where this applies using the above math problem.