Caesar, Gurdjieff and abduction

[Joe]

I've noticed that, like on the postimperial society topic, there seems to be a problem with really letting go of personal prejudices and trying to see something from a really objective observer's point of view. Not that that view is a good idea as a way to live our lives, but as an exercise it seems a pretty hard thing to do, which I suppose is normal!

 

[sitting]

But "karmic and simple understandings" don't really speak to "morality".

And that's precisely my point.

By "morality", I was not referring to sex, or a lot of sex, or a lot of sex partners. Married or otherwise. C's have made clear they're essentially indifferent to such things.

What DOES matter however, are issues of attachment, possessiveness, abuse, control & domination.

I believe these factors have semi-permanent relevance -- within the scale of universal morality. Regardless of the times we live in. I've used "morality" entirely within that context.

But I could be wrong.

FWIW.

 

[luke wilson]

Comparing killing in a war to promiscuous behavior is like comparing apples to oranges :P ;D

So, to simplify, the conclusion is that since they were evolved and there are contexts we don't understand and don't know, their promiscuous behaviour was a-ok. I don't understand how that is but you know, I guess they were functioning at a different level.

As a closing statement, I would say the arguments that went into reaching those conclusions wouldn't hold water in a court of law (not that this is one). First of all, saying they were evolved in this context is being used as a point to excuse behaviours that for non evolved people would be seen as questionable, secondly, invoking destiny mission profile after the fact again is being used as a point to pepper over acts that for others would be seen as questionable, thirdly, saying there are contexts we don't know/don't understand gives the person using that argument the privilege of dismissing outright any opposing views because the other person doesn't know/can't know... Basically, JC and G are irreproachable because they are evolved, also, whatever acts that may be perceived as questionable by us are not because there are contexts we don't know so in short, they were perfect! Anything but mere mortals... to that, I say, what God goes and gets himself assassinated, furthermore, what God goes and dies a mortal death... If we are not to judge them as men, then I guess we are to judge them as Gods. Sorry if that was a bit childish but that's my impression of that conclusion.

 

[Joe]

But "karmic and simple understandings" don't really speak to "morality".

And that's precisely my point.

By "morality", I was not referring to sex, or a lot of sex, or a lot of sex partners. Married or otherwise. C's have made clear they're essentially indifferent to such things.

What DOES matter however, are issues of attachment, possessiveness, abuse, control & domination.

I believe these factors have semi-permanent relevance -- within the scale of universal morality. Regardless of the times we live in.

But I could be wrong.

FWIW.

ok, I see, and I think that's the crux of the matter. Thanks!

 

[Joe]

Comparing killing in a war to promiscuous behavior is like comparing apples and oranges :P ;D

:P

So, to simplify, the conclusion is that since they were evolved and there are contexts we don't understand and don't know, their promiscuous behaviour was a-ok. I don't understand how that is but you know, I guess they were functioning at a different level.

The idea is that it may not have been "bad" for those reasons.

As a closing statement, I would say the arguments that went into reaching those conclusions wouldn't hold water in a court of law (not that this is one). First of all, saying they were evolved in this context is being used as a point to excuse behaviours that for non evolved people would be seen as questionable, secondly, invoking destiny mission profile after the fact again is being used as a point to pepper over acts that for others would be seen as questionable, thirdly, saying there are contexts we don't know/don't understand gives the person using that argument the privilege of dismissing outright any opposing views because the other person doesn't know/can't know... Basically, JC and G are irreproachable because they are evolved, also, whatever acts that may be perceived as questionable by us are not because there are contexts we don't know so in short, they were perfect! Anything but mere mortals... to that, I say, what God goes and gets himself assassinated, furthermore, what God goes and dies a mortal death... If we are not to judge them as men, then I guess we are to judge them as Gods. Sorry if that was a bit childish but that's my impression of that conclusion.

Some black and white thinking going on there. And yes, it was a bit childish.

 

[Laura]

So, to simplify, the conclusion is that since they were evolved and there are contexts we don't understand and don't know, their promiscuous behaviour was a-ok. I don't understand how that is but you know, I guess they were functioning at a different level.

That's YOUR simplification and a very simplistic black and white one it is.

However, I do notice a certain tone of resentment in your words as though "how dare anyone be more advanced or evolved than I am", i.e. a sense of entitlement.

As a closing statement, I would say the arguments that went into reaching those conclusions wouldn't hold water in a court of law (not that this is one). First of all, saying they were evolved in this context is being used as a point to excuse behaviours that for non evolved people would be seen as questionable,

No, what is being said is that those behaviors were not seen that way then. And may not be seen that way in many other contexts. Nobody is seeking to "excuse" anything. But your use of that term, as noted above, indicates a certain resentment. The questions you need to ask are: were any of those things seen as questionable by anybody then? Can we even rely on the reports that have come down to us? What "non-evolved people" are you talking about who would see any of those actions as questionable? Are you projecting YOUR view onto persons in ancient times?

secondly, invoking destiny mission profile after the fact again is being used as a point to pepper over acts that for others would be seen as questionable,

What "others" are saying that anything is questionable? Us, here and now? Or people then and there?

thirdly, saying there are contexts we don't know/don't understand gives the person using that argument the privilege of dismissing outright any opposing views because the other person doesn't know/can't know...

Resentment again...

Basically, JC and G are irreproachable because they are evolved, also, whatever acts that may be perceived as questionable by us are not because there are contexts we don't know so in short, they were perfect! Anything but mere mortals... to that, I say, what God goes and gets himself assassinated, furthermore, what God goes and dies a mortal death... If we are not to judge them as men, then I guess we are to judge them as Gods. Sorry if that was a bit childish but that's my impression of that conclusion.

Somehow, I think you are in the wrong bar. You need the God of Israel to sort your issues out for you.

 

[Joe]

Basically, JC and G are irreproachable because they are evolved, also, whatever acts that may be perceived as questionable by us are not because there are contexts we don't know so in short, they were perfect! Anything but mere mortals... to that, I say, what God goes and gets himself assassinated, furthermore, what God goes and dies a mortal death... If we are not to judge them as men, then I guess we are to judge them as Gods. Sorry if that was a bit childish but that's my impression of that conclusion.

There's enough evidence to suggest that G and Caesar were not "mere mortals" in the sense of being average human beings. That doesn't make them gods. Their above average nature can be seen, in the case of Caesar, of 'choosing' to be assassinated in order to seed the idea of compassion and mercy to millions. Lady Di might also come to mind. Would you agree to such a life plan? In the case of G. he 'chose' to dedicate his life, full of hardship, to understanding fundamental truths about human nature and informing as many people as possible.

I get the impression that you are almost willfully NOT understanding here. Kind of like a child that prefers to insist on his own view even when other viewpoints make more sense. And btw, I didn't compare killing in war to promiscuity, I compared killing in war in one context to killing in another context. :P

 

[Miss.K]

It might be worth re-reading Gurdjieff's discussion of morality vs. conscience.

This one?:

[P.D. Ouspensky, In Search of The Miraculous]
In ordinary life the concept 'conscience' is taken too simply. As if we had a conscience.
Actually the concept 'conscience' in the sphere of the emotions is equivalent to the concept 'consciousness'
in the sphere of the intellect. And as we have no consciousness we have no conscience.

"Consciousness is a state in which a man knows all at once everything that he in general knows and
in which he can see how little he does know and how many contradictions there are in what he knows.

"Conscience is a state in which a man feels all at once everything that he in general feels, or can feel.
And as everyone has within him thousands of contradictory feelings which vary from a deeply hidden realization
of his own nothingness and fears of all kinds to the most stupid kind of self-conceit, self-confidence,
self-satisfaction, and self-praise, to feel all this together would not only be painful but literally unbearable.

"If a man whose entire inner world is composed of contradictions were suddenly to feel all
these contradictions simultaneously within himself, if he were to feel all at once that he loves everything he hates
and hates everything he loves; that he lies when he tells the truth and that he tells the truth when he lies;
and if he could feel the shame and horror of it all, this would be the state which is called 'conscience.
A man cannot live in this state; he must either destroy contradictions or destroy conscience.
He cannot destroy conscience, but if he cannot destroy it he can put it to sleep,
that is, he can separate by impenetrable barriers one feeling of self from another, never see them together,
never feel their incompatibility, the absurdity of one existing alongside another.

"But fortunately for man, that is, for his peace and for his sleep, this state of conscience is very rare.
From early childhood 'buffers' begin to grow and strengthen in him, taking from him the possibility of seeing
his inner contradictions and therefore, for him, there is no danger whatever of a sudden awakening.
Awakening is possible only for those who seek it and want it, for those who are ready to struggle with themselves
and work on themselves for a very long time and very persistently in order to attain it. For this it is necessary
to destroy 'buffers,' that is, to go out to meet all those inner sufferings which are connected
with the sensations of contradictions.
Moreover the destruction of 'buffers' in itself requires very long work and a man must agree to this work
realizing that the result of his work will be every possible discomfort and suffering from the awakening of his conscience.

"But conscience is the fire which alone can fuse all the powders in the glass retort which was mentioned before
and create the unity which a man lacks in that state in which he begins to study himself.

"The concept 'conscience' has nothing in common with the concept 'morality.'

"Conscience is a general and a permanent phenomenon. Conscience is the same for all men and conscience is possible
only in the absence of 'buffers.[...]

"There is nothing general in the concept of 'morality.' Morality consists of buffers. There is no general morality.
What is moral in China is immoral in Europe and what is moral in Europe is immoral in China. What is moral in Petersburg
is immoral in the Caucasus. And what is moral in the Caucasus is immoral in Petersburg. What is moral in one class of society
is immoral in another and vice versa. Morality is always and everywhere an artificial phenomenon. It consists of various 'taboos,'
that is, restrictions, and various demands, sometimes sensible in their basis and sometimes having lost all meaning or never even
having had any meaning, and having been created on a false basis, on a soil of superstition and false fears. [...]

"A morality common to all does not exist. It is even impossible to say that there exists any general idea of morality,
for instance, in Europe. It is said sometimes that the general morality for Europe is 'Christian morality.'
But first of all the idea of 'Christian morality' itself admits of very many different interpretations and many different crimes
have been justified by 'Christian morality.' And in the second place modern Europe has very little in common with 'Christian morality,'
no matter how we understand this morality.

"In any case, if 'Christian morality' brought Europe to the war which is now going on, then it would be as well to be as far as possible
from such morality."

"Many people say that they do not understand the moral side of your teaching," said one of us. "And others say that your teaching
has no morality at all."

"Of course not," said G. "People are very fond of talking about morality. But morality is merely self-suggestion.
What is necessary is conscience. We do not teach morality. We teach how to find conscience. People are not pleased when we say this.
They say that we have no love. Simply because we do not encourage weakness and hypocrisy but, on the contrary, take off all masks.
He who desires the truth will not speak of love or of Christianity because he knows how far he is from these. [...]

"Morality and conscience are quite different things. One conscience can never contradict another conscience.
One morality can always very easily contradict and completely deny another. A man with 'buffers' may be very moral.
And 'buffers' can be very different, that is, two very moral men may consider each other very immoral. As a rule it is almost inevitably so.
The more 'moral' a man is, the more 'immoral' does he think other moral people.

"The idea of morality is connected with the idea of good and evil conduct. But the idea of good and evil is always different for different people,
always subjective in man number one, number two, and number three, and is connected only with a given moment or a given situation.
A subjective man can have no general concept of good and evil. For a subjective man evil is everything that is opposed to his desires or interests
or to his conception of good.

"One may say that evil does not exist for subjective man at all, that there exist only different conceptions of good.
Nobody ever does anything deliberately in the interests of evil, for the sake of evil. Everybody acts in the interests of good, as he understands it.
But everybody understands it in a different way. Consequently men drown, slay, and kill one another in the interests of good.
The reason is again just the same, men's ignorance and the deep sleep in which they live.

"This is so obvious that it even seems strange that people have never thought of it before. However, the fact remains that they fail
to understand this and everyone considers his good as the only good and all the rest as evil.
It is naive and useless to hope that men will ever understand this and that they will evolve a general and identical idea of good."

"But do not good and evil exist in themselves apart from man?" asked someone present.

"A permanent idea of good and evil can be formed in man only in connection with a permanent aim and a permanent understanding.
If a man understands that he is asleep and if he wishes to awake, then everything that helps him to awake will be good and everything
that hinders him, everything that prolongs his sleep, will be evil. Exactly in the same way will he understand what is good and evil for other people.
What helps them to awake is good, what hinders them is evil. But this is so only for those who want to awake, that is, for those who understand
that they are asleep. Those who do not understand that they are asleep and those who can have no wish to awake,
cannot have understanding of good and evil. And as the overwhelming majority of people do not realize and will never realize that they are asleep,
neither good nor evil can actually exist for them.

 

[Buddy]

Basically, JC and G are irreproachable because they are evolved, also, whatever acts that may be perceived as questionable by us are not because there are contexts we don't know so in short, they were perfect! Anything but mere mortals... to that, I say, what God goes and gets himself assassinated, furthermore, what God goes and dies a mortal death... If we are not to judge them as men, then I guess we are to judge them as Gods. Sorry if that was a bit childish but that's my impression of that conclusion.

What you seem to be missing here is a useful perspective. Joe and Laura have already pointed out the difficulty, so let me try to put it this way: to judge Ceaser's actions in the context of his own time and before, you'd have to remove layers of thought coming from cultural additions/advancements since then. You've inherited all that whether you know it or not.

An analogy we often use is to peel back the layers of an onion, but you can also think of it as removing your outer coat before you can remove that shirt that you'd need to remove in order to see the thermal undershirt and judge its quality in the context of the design, material and sewing equipment that was available to make it and also as compared to what was possible at the actual time and place where it was made. So, even if you were able to achieve that dropping of all prejudices and other thought to get back to that time period, there'd still be a lot of assumptions in the judgments.

Do you see the difficulty, luke, even if that's not the best way to explain it? Why do we still give our own thinking, which amounts to little more than talking to ourselves, so much credibility for knowing anything?

 

[luke wilson]

I get what you are saying... I was looking at it from my perspective, locked into a particular type of moral code... Blind to what applied then. Furthermore, not really appreciating the fact that G and JC were not 'mere mortals'. Actually what they did is beyond comprehension really, supermen. Its hard to really grok that but true. Sometimes you just forget and talk about them like they were your average joes out on the street. Its like being in the presence of the best teachers and not listening or trying to learn and know more, understand more and improve thinking.

Thanks, understood (I hope! ).

PS, I'd just like to clarify I'm not resentful, don't believe in God and I don't even want to think of the e word as thinking of the millage that has to be covered to get to an ok average level is depressing.

Added: Also I was thinking that you get similar stories about JFK and MLK and really, what matters is what they did for the greater good, the influence they had in the world, the legacy they left behind.

 

[Buddy]

I get what you are saying... I was looking at it from my perspective, locked into a particular type of moral code... Blind to what applied then. Furthermore, not really appreciating the fact that G and JC were not 'mere mortals'. Actually what they did is beyond comprehension really, supermen. Its hard to really grok that but true. Sometimes you just forget and talk about them like they were your average joes out on the street. Its like being in the presence of the best teachers and not listening or trying to learn and know more, understand more and improve thinking.

Well, IMO, nature is working to perfect species, rather than to perfect individual members within a species, so if people could be left alone by those with vested interests in molding us into acceptable people (culturally representative automatons), I think each human being would flower into something unique and very special and maybe 200 of those at one time could indeed change the world. The culture we're born into has other plans though and before we know it, we're all fitted into a model that a culture holds up for us and no one has the freedom to come into his own.

Should an individual be born so, or somehow find a way to, or stumble into something that allows him to shed the overwhelming weight of cultural programming, then naturally he'd be free to make his own choices. All there would be to do would be stuff that helps others anyway. I'm not saying anything definitive about G or Caesar, I'm just saying this is theoretically plausible and likely supported by Gurdjieff's ideas as I interpret them.

 

[Laura]

I would like to add a few more comments.

I DO find Gurdjieff's dalliance with student(s) to be a bit of a problem. As was noted, it could be considered a clear violation of a power relationship. But, on the other hand, I realize from extensive reading that he must have been very, very lonely, carrying a heavy burden. If he had moments of weakness, then I understand. And that's just assuming that it was "moments of weakness" and need for human touch and comfort. It may not have been that at all. And, as noted, it was a different time, place and culture.

As for Caesar, I've read enough about ancient polemic to realize that what is said about him in the sources is highly colored. A few certain facts can be extracted, however. He refused to divorce his first wife on the orders of Sulla because he considered the sacred marriage ceremony of that union to be inviolable. He was accused by one of his greatest enemies of homosexual relations with an Eastern potentate. He later swore an oath that it was not true and considering the value he gave to oaths, I think he was telling the truth and that was just vicious slander. After the death of his first wife, the mother of his daughter, he did something that was unheard of: honored her with a public oration and funeral as though she were an important man.

After the death of his wife, he was known to have had one "great love", so to say, the mother of Brutus, Servilia. But exactly when that relationship began, is hard to say. He did divorce his second wife, Pompeia, though one notices that the form of marriage was not the sacred ceremony. One gets the impression that in his mind, if you have once been married via the sacred ceremony, that's it; you can't do it again.

There was quite a kerfuffle about his "cruise up the Nile" with Cleopatra alleging that there was a serious relationship there. But it is more likely that Caesar - the natural scientist - was exploring. He was also probably binding Cleopatra to him politically so he wouldn't have to worry about rebellion in Egypt when he was gone. Cleopatra later claimed that one of her children was Caesar's, but that is unlikely.

What he did during all those years in Gaul, one can't really know. He did SO MUCH that there wasn't much time for messing around, that's for sure. There was a Gaul who came forward in later years and claimed that his grandmother was Caesar's mistress and that Caesar was his grandfather, but he was executed by the emperor of the time. Can't have any kids of Caesar's running around, doncha know? So if there were others, they kept it to themselves.

 

[Laura]

Took me awhile to find the name, but once I did, I found a brief description on Wikipedia. So here's the story derived from Tacitus, Histories 4.55, also found in Plutarch, On Lovers:

Julius Sabinus was an aristocratic Gaul of the Lingones at the time of the Batavian rebellion of AD 69. He attempted to take advantage of the turmoil in Rome after the death of Nero to set up an independent Gaulish state. After his defeat he was hidden for many years by his wife Epponina.

He was a Roman officer, naturalized, as indicated by his name. He claimed to be the great-grandson of Julius Caesar on the grounds that his great-grandmother had been Caesar's lover during the Gallic war.

In AD 69, benefiting from the period of disorders which shook the Roman Empire and the rebellion started on the Rhine by the Batavians, he started a revolt in Belgian Gaul. However, his badly organised forces were easily defeated by the Sequani who were still faithful to Rome. Following his defeat, he faked his own death by telling his servants that he intended to kill himself. He then burned down the villa in which he was staying. He went into hiding in a nearby cellar, known only to his wife Epponina and a few faithful servants.

Following the failure of the revolt, the territory of Lingons was detached from Belgian Gaul, and was placed under the direct monitoring of the Roman army of the Rhine. It formed thus part of Roman province of Germania Superior.

Epponina then lived a double-life for many years as his widow, while also on one occasion even visiting Rome with Sabinus disguised as a slave. She even gave birth to two sons by her "deceased" husband. According to Plutarch she minimised her pregnancy using an ointment that made her flesh swell, concealing her pregnancy bump. She also gave birth alone and in secret.

Eventually, the deception became too obvious to continue unnoticed. In AD 78 Sabinus and Epponina were arrested and taken to Rome to be questioned by the emperor Vespasian. Her pleas for her husband were ignored. She then berated Vespasian to such an extent that he ordered her execution along with her husband. Plutarch later wrote that "In the whole of his reign no darker deed than this, none more odious in the sight of heaven, was committed."

Her two sons survived. Plutarch mentions that at the time he was writing one lived in Delphi and the other had recently been killed in Egypt (possibly in the Kitos War).

 

[Kay Kim]

If man marry and pledge to his wife that he will only love her faithfully until his death.
Then, to my certain knowledge, he is bound by his own law. If he break it, he will be in consequence of his karmic law.

But, if his wife is seriously ill that incurable, and love her husband dearly that declares and release marriage vow.

And later the man found some ladies that have mutual feelings about sexual interest and have sex.
Can anybody condemn such people?

I certainly did it, before I joined this Forum. Matter of fact, I used to condemn almost every human behavior, because I was living influence of 48 Cosmic Law and furthermore countless, society and man made law.

But nowadays I trying to be free from it, and not to judge others, because, I do not have ability to know others circumstances or persons motive.

 

[Keit]

Lady Di might also come to mind.

Princess Diana comes to mind also in case of extramarital affair she had with Dodi Fayed. She was obviously miserable and unhappy in her marriage. The C's said about them that they were soul mates and decided to check out together. That's something to consider too.