CONCRETE Examples, please.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cricket
  • Start date Start date
C

Cricket

Guest
EsoQuest said:
You know, I'm just wondering how usful that would be to anyone. You see, all of the deliberate experiences are of the "don't try this at home" variety, things I was personally inclined to do and compelled by circumstance, but of course nothing that involved harm to anyone except perhaps risk to myself.
From: http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=1213
and...
Cyre2067 said:
I've also been doing the self-observation bit, extremely useful, and each time i get that prodding from the pred i just remind myself that overcoming it's influence is extremely important and thus far i've been able to do just that. Some examples...
From: http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=1185
Very useful for me!
You see, I find it problematic to recognize on my self certain results of the work. I will give a example to this problematic: The inner voice. In my mind, if that is not a "enhaced intuition", I just cannot undertsand what the inner "voice" is (therefore, it is not a "voice"). Either me being dumb, asleep or a slow learner, "voice", on this context, is not, in my experience, someone/something "talking" to me from inside of me. Or? I guess such a "voice" would do it's thing on spanish (english is my second language), and I guess I would had to "hear" it. How? Does it like resonates all through my bone structure so I kind of perceive this resonance as a "voice", right there, at my inner hearing aparatus? And, if such is the case, I feel I am glad I don't have it because, if being like that, it does sounds to me like a occupation (!).
But maybe, and surely, it is not like I am describing it (I am shure this is a rather vulgar way to get to understand what this "inner" "voice" might be), and then, maybe I just do not know how to recognize it. A inner "voice"... I have been trying to achieve inner silence to get to hear such a "voice" which, it is said, talks very very low so one most really pay attention, and so on.
Or maybe I already have it but just don't know I have it!
Or maybe is not a "voice" in the firest place! This would be hilarious. Why to call "voice" to something which is not a voice totally eludes me.
Then, a "light in the heart" -and here we go again: A "light" like the flame of a candle? Or like the light a flashlight produces? And in such a case, can it be directed? And is it on the heart, that is, on the left side of the chest, place I am to "focus" my "attention" when I close my eyes and then it would eventually "lit"? Etc...
Those are the problems I would like to study on this tread and EsoQuest story was for me very "talkative" down to a intuitive level.
Cyre gives examples of the effects of the work. I was trully pleased with his explanations. He did manage to give me CONCRETE EXAMPLES of what is, and how does it manifests, the predator's mind! I actually understood what he meant! They were clear examples of the effects of the work and such examples do accomplish on me such a understandings as to be able to really get to accept, after recognizing them, the evidences of my efforts in/within/about the self as true effects -which I cannot get to recognize, maybe because I am totally alone on my experiential life: Besides you all, there are only books for me.
Thanks to Cyre and to EsoQuest (and many others of you) I have been able to say "Ah! So that experience/event/sensation/whatever was actually this sort of phenomena! Alright!".
So I invite you all, who have the patience I on times dont have, to please share and provide CONCRETE EXAMPLES of the work as it has been happening on your experience: There are those of us who are still blind and are struggling on oppening our eyes, and CONCRETE EXAMPLES tryllu are eye-opening lessions.
Many of us will be very thankful with you all.
 
Hmm i don't know about the inner light bit, i don't get that. As for the "voice" it's more like thoughts. I don't "hear" it as i would someone talking to me, its like there's a conversation in my head and different thought trains converge and bounce off of eachother. The predator has become increasingly easy to identify. Whenever a thought has its origination is laziness, greed, lust, malice, or fear i know it's it. To identify what the origination of a particular thought train is all i have to do is feel the emotions behind the thought.

For example, a coworker of mine today pointed out an error i had made. It was an honest mistake on my part, however in my mind i found myself listing mistakes of others, comparing my innocuous error to larger errors made by other people. Observing myself i was wondering why i was doing this when it hit me, the predator feels insecure and it is affirming my "correctness" by demeaning others. Hope that clarifies a bit.
 
Cyre2067 said:
For example, a coworker of mine today pointed out an error i had made. It was an honest mistake on my part, however in my mind i found myself listing mistakes of others, comparing my innocuous error to larger errors made by other people. Observing myself i was wondering why i was doing this when it hit me, the predator feels insecure and it is affirming my "correctness" by demeaning others. Hope that clarifies a bit.
yup, I know that one all right. The other day I was talking with a very good and trusted friend of mine, we were on a day out with each of our sons, and we were watching their behaviour (and having a good old laugh about some of it - they are 3 and 4 yrs old). This friend of mine suggested something I might want to try differently to do with how I deal with my son in certain situations, part of his upbringing, and immediately I could feel my defensive hackles being raised! Yet what he said was right, and I knew it, and thought it was a good idea.

There was quite a powerful (predator defensive) emotion of "huh, don't criticise me", even though my friend is someone who I have a great respect for, and who is always honest, and straightforward in his intentions. The fact that he always says straight-out what is on his mind, and doesnt skirt around issues, is something that I really admire. So, it wasn't the "real" me who was reacting - it was a mechanical defensive program, but still a fast/powerful one.

Watching things like that going on inside my own mind/body, is quite an eye opener, and I think is an essential part of the 'work' to know oneself, and also to know those aspects of oneself that actually aren't part of one's inner essential spirit, but are part of the "machine".
 
Cricket said:
I will give a example to this problematic: The inner voice. In my mind, if that is not a "enhaced intuition", I just cannot undertsand what the inner "voice" is (therefore, it is not a "voice"). Either me being dumb, asleep or a slow learner, "voice", on this context, is not, in my experience, someone/something "talking" to me from inside of me. Or? I guess such a "voice" would do it's thing on spanish (english is my second language), and I guess I would had to "hear" it. How? Does it like resonates all through my bone structure so I kind of perceive this resonance as a "voice", right there, at my inner hearing aparatus? And, if such is the case, I feel I am glad I don't have it because, if being like that, it does sounds to me like a occupation (!).
Voice is a metaphore for a thought-like process, that is called such because we tend to think in verbal terms. This does not mean this thought-like process is verbal. For me it is pre-verbal and you can act on it without words manifesting. Call it a sense of knowing or a feeling of knowing that can translate to words, images, feelings and even direct action, depending on personal disposition and the case the situation manifests.

Actually, these things are natural. Here is a way of looking at it: Gurdjieff says we have many I's. These are not only recognized by their effects, but we can feel each one distinctly. They have characters, and are sub personalities, but even before we associate qualities we can feel them in the same way we can feel textures. So the voice of the true I is what connects to this higher intuition, which is different than normal thought which is sensory and memory based. If you must rely only on senses and memory then you ignore this voice because it is meaningless to you. Still, sometimes it manages to come through in dreams through the symbols. So having it quiet is a habit, which we need to unlearn.

Here is an example of activating it anyone can try at home. I used to access the University library when a student, but there were so many books I could not read them all. So I just intended to find the right ones I needed and walked through the place. The main challenge here is getting out of your own way. You can extend your arm and intend to feel the right book or simply go where your feet lead you. Sometimes if is even best to make the intention an hour before hand and forget about it, and then go to where books are and just act normal. You may find one pops up that is just what you needed.

Once I had the book, I practiced reading-meditation. When we read, we tend to think around the words. I quieted my thoughts and felt into my retinas so I could feel them in a sense being touched by the words. I do this with my field of vision generally and my visual information has a touch or energy component that spreads around and in my body, and has nothing to do with skin-based touch.

With words I discovered that some authors had energy, a kind of inspiration that was carried through the words that generated deeper understanding or a deeper "computation" of the information. Since I found myself lazy to sit in yoga postures and meditate, I either did this in nature, while falling asleep or waking or while reading, thus associating it with may day to day habits. I found it easier to ground in this manner and keep the meditative state from becoming something alien to my otherwise normal mindset. Thus it became more integrated in my life.

Later I found that energy could be felt when I wrote. Someone actually pointed this out to me, and it occures spontaneously. I can balancing it more when I am focused about what I want to convey. I can also feel similar energies that come as feeling/sensations, and these turn into information if I let my brain process them.

This reading energy with words opened my intuition greatly because it allowed me to turn any impression in my feeling sense easily turn into words and basically activated an inner translator which in turn generates a deeper sensitivity to energies that my tactile sense doesn't even percieve, but which still register as a knowing sense that can blossom as my own thoughts if I choose.

It took a while before I could trust this, but as I learned to do so it became a natural part of how I function, which I take for granted to the point that I may end up saying things that make people wonder where I got my information. I've learned to hear in the same manner, experiencing the sound touching my ear drums, and through the tactile sense I could feel the pattern behind the sound on a much deeper level.

This is great when you hear a bubbling brook or birds singing, but torture in a city, when watching TV or at a concert where feeling the energies of compromised musicians was not comfortable, even with recordings. Nowadays I play simple compositions on my keyboard and circulate nonverbal inspiration even if the music is just a simple chord inversion. I find it rejeuvinating. Lately, now that spring has come and trees blossomed I find this sense works great through olfactory pathways.

Cricket said:
Then, a "light in the heart" -and here we go again: A "light" like the flame of a candle? Or like the light a flashlight produces? And in such a case, can it be directed? And is it on the heart, that is, on the left side of the chest, place I am to "focus" my "attention" when I close my eyes and then it would eventually "lit"? Etc...
Think in terms of warmth. To me the sense of touch is the most primal, the one the body understands the most so if you can interpret these metaphores in terms of feeling/touch it may be easier to digest. Just remember the warmth felt in the heart when feelings of affection arise, and take out the context or reason for the feelings, just remembering the sensation.

Imagination triggers cellular memory and I find visual queues too "other" and not intimate enough. This is not forcing a feeling, just focusing attention on something already there, but too quiet to sense among all the other static that draws our attention. Anyway, the real feeling of soul warmth is associated with the true I, but if we don't pay attention with our bodies this I may stay a mental experience or idea-form. It is far more real when the body experiences it as well. And it leads to feedback at the genetic level that can activate these abilities more.

Well, that's my experience at least.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ina
I must admit Eso, alot of the stuff you write does jump out at me. Even as i read your above post, the feeling that our interaction here is more then just questons and answers, it's almost as if the universe is instructing us in finer lessons through eachother. Perhaps this is what is meant as "exponentially increasing" awareness as mentioned by the C's.

As a sidenote i've noticed the spot where my third eye would be/is tingling the last few days. It was disturbing at first because it was foreign, now my guess is that its just a part of natural growth. Just thinkin about it makes it throb slightly...
 
The inner voice is the endless babbling of "wrong work" of the intellectual center in my case.

In my opinion the inner "I" and integral self are not experienced vocally or verbally, not even internally or metaphorically speaking.

Sometimes I step outside of a sensation experience/sitting just to go back to meditation, which isn't "taught" in the work.
 
Hi Cyre2067,

Cyre2067 said:
The predator has become increasingly easy to identify. Whenever a thought has its origination is laziness, greed, lust, malice, or fear i know it's it. To identify what the origination of a particular thought train is all i have to do is feel the emotions behind the thought.
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say: one "aspect" or "level" of the predator's mind is becoming increasingly familiar to you; the outer layer of the onion. I think it's pretty safe to say that the deception goes much deeper, and becomes much more subtle (requiring super efforts) to uncover. I'm unsure of whether you realise this, because you say: ". . . all I have to do is . . ." I think the first real concrete observation that can be made in this work, is that we do not observe ourselves - certainly not objectively. That requires, "independently" speaking, a far higher level of being.

Cyre2067 said:
For example, a coworker of mine today pointed out an error i had made. It was an honest mistake on my part, however in my mind i found myself listing mistakes of others, comparing my innocuous error to larger errors made by other people. Observing myself i was wondering why i was doing this when it hit me, the predator feels insecure and it is affirming my "correctness" by demeaning others. Hope that clarifies a bit.
Well this isn't "self-observation", because "it" was observing, not "I":

Gurdjieff said:
On one occasion at the beginning of a meeting G. but a question to which all those present had to answer in turn. The question was: "What is the most important thing that we notice during self-observation?"

Some of those present said that during attempts at self-observation, what they had felt particularly strongly was an incessant flow of thoughts which they had found impossible to stop. Others spoke of the difficulty of distinguishing the work of one center from the work of another. I had evidently not altogether understood the question, or I answered my own thoughts, because I said that what struck me most was the connectedness of one thing with another in the system, the wholeness of the system, as if it were an "organism," and the entirely new significance of the word to know which included not only the idea of knowing this thing or that, but the connection between this thing and everything else.

G. was obviously dissatisfied with our replies. I had already begun to understand him in such circumstances and I saw that he expected from us indications of something definite that we had either missed or failed to understand.

"Not one of you has noticed the most important thing that I have pointed out to you," he said. "That is to say, not one of you has noticed that you do not remember yourselves." (He gave particular emphasis to these words.) "You do not feel yourselves; you are not conscious of yourselves. With you, 'it observes' just as 'it speaks,' 'it thinks,' 'it laughs.' You do not feel: I observe, I notice, I see. Everything still 'is noticed,' 'is seen.' . . . In order really to observe oneself one must first of all remember oneself." (He again emphasized these words.) "Try to remember yourselves when you observe yourselves and later on tell me the results. Only those results will have any value that are accompanied by self-remembering. Otherwise you yourselves do not exist in your observations. In which case what are all your observations worth?"

[...]

The very first attempts showed me how difficult it was. Attempts at self-remembering failed to give any results except to show me that in actual fact we never remember ourselves.

"What else do you want?" said G. "This is a very important realization. People who know this . . . already know a great deal. The whole trouble is that nobody knows it. If you ask a man whether he can remember himself, he will of course answer that he can. If you tell him that he cannot remember himself, he will either be angry with you, or he will think you an utter fool. The whole of life is based on this, the whole of human existence, the whole of human blindness. If a man really knows that he cannot remember himself, he is already near to the understanding of his being. [ISOTM, p. 118]
And as for the "wondering why":

Gurdjieff said:
Knowledge of oneself is a very big, but a very vague and distant, aim. Man in his present state is very far from self-knowledge. Therefore, strictly speaking, his aim cannot even be defined as self-knowledge. Self-study must be his big aim. It is quite enough if a man understands that he must study himself. It must be man's aim to begin to study himself, to know himself, in the right way.

"Self-study is the work or the way which leads to self-knowledge.

"But in order to study oneself one must first learn how to study, where to begin, what methods to use. A man must learn how to study himself, and he must study the methods of self-study.

"The chief method of self-study is self-observation. Without properly applied self-observation a man will never understand the connection and the correlation between the various functions of his machine, will never understand how and why on each separate occasion everything in him 'happens.'

"But to learn the methods of self-observation and of right self-study requires a certain understanding of the functions and the characteristics of the human machine. Thus in observing the functions of the human machine it is necessary to understand the correct divisions of the functions observed and to be able to define them exactly and at once; and the definition must not be a verbal but an inner definition; by taste, by sensation, in the same way as we define all inner experiences.

"There are two methods of self-observation: analysis, or attempts at analysis, that is, attempts to find the answers to the questions: upon what does a certain thing depend, and why does it happen; and the second method is registering, simply 'recording' in one's mind what is observed at the moment.

"Self-observation, especially in the beginning, must on no account become analysis or attempts at analysis. Analysis will only become possible much later when a man knows all the functions of his machine and all the laws which govern it.

"In trying to analyze some phenomenon that he comes across within him, a man generally asks: 'What is this? Why does it happen in this way and not in some other way?' And he begins to seek an answer to these questions, forgetting all about further observations. Becoming more and more engrossed in these questions he completely loses the thread of self-observation and even forgets about it. Observation stops. It is clear from this that only one thing can go on; either observation or attempts at analysis.

"But even apart from this, attempts to analyze separate phenomena without a knowledge of general laws are a completely useless waste of time. Before it is possible to analyze even the most elementary phenomena, a man must accumulate a sufficient quantity of material by means of 'recording.' 'Recording,' that is, the result of a direct observation of what is taking place at a given moment, is the most important material in the work of self-study. When a certain number of 'records' have been accumulated and when, at the same time, laws to a certain extent have been studied and understood, analysis becomes possible.

"From the very beginning, observation, or 'recording,' must be based upon the understanding of the fundamental principles of the activity of the human machine. Self-observation cannot be properly applied without knowing these principles, without constantly bearing them in mind. Therefore ordinary self-observation, in which all people are engaged all their lives, is entirely useless and leads nowhere.

"Observation must begin with the division of functions. All the activity of the human machine is divided into four sharply defined groups, each of which is controlled by its own special mind or 'center.' In observing himself a man must differentiate between the four basic functions of his machine: the thinking, the emotional, the moving, and the instinctive. Every phenomenon that a man observes in himself is related to one or the other of these functions. Therefore, before beginning to observe, a man must understand how the functions differ; what intellectual activity means, what emotional activity means, what moving activity means, and what instinctive activity means.

"Observation must begin from the beginning. All previous experience, the results of all previous self-observation, must be laid aside. They may contain much valuable material. But all this material is based upon wrong divisions of the functions observed and is itself wrongly divided. It cannot therefore be utilized, at any rate it cannot be utilized at the beginning of the work of self-study. What is of value in it will, at the proper time, be taken up and made use of. But it is necessary to begin from the beginning. A man must begin observing himself as though he did not know himself at all, as though he had never observed himself.

"When he begins to observe himself, he must try to determine at once to what group, to which center, belong the phenomena he is observing at the moment.
There is so much more to this chapter and topic that it would be impossible to post it all here. You'll need to get the book, read it, re-read it and read it more. But it certainly, at least, should give you much to consider in regards to what you have thus far been "doing" or so to say, "imagining". Predator's mind?
 
Woah craig. Just as i think i have the picture finished someone else comes along and gives me yet another piece to the puzzle which changes the image all together. I took all day going through the thread you linked above, and i must say the scholar's quoted are wordy as hell. I was trying to bubble down the self-observation bit to something i could use and here's what i got:

As a beginner i should observed purely physical phenomena, as they occur. I shouldn't judge or analyze those phenomena at this time. I shouldn't attempt to change them either, as that would interfere with the observation and thus i might loose the lesson. I must clearly seperate the concious I that is doing the observing/awareness from the it that is the actor, performing the action sotospeak. I should define the awareness acutely, with specificity. I should avoid attempting to observe my thoughts or emotions at this time.

The awareness or observations should be pure sensation as opposed to thought about what i am doing. This was the most difficult concept for me, but i think i have it. Instead of saying in my mind, "it is sitting up", i should consciously acknowledge what it feels like to sit up in my muscles and bones throughout my body. Is that correct?

And a few questions for any who care to answer:
At what point does one make the transition from observing physical phenomena to observing emotions/thoughts? It was probably in the thread, and i read it through, but i might have missed the concept as some of the material is quite thick.

I ordered a bunch of books offa amazon: In Search of the Miraculous, Beelzebub's Tales to His Grandson, Life Is Real Only Then - When I Am, and The Fourth Way. Which should i read first? Am I missing any other essential reading?

I'm still working on reading the hard copy of the Wave, and Secret History. Got through volume I, and secret history im only a hundred or so pages into it. I'm also tackling Sinister Barrier, but that's fiction and more for fun then the work. All in all i must say there's a damn lot of reading, one step at a time i guess... i find myself frustrated, but i guess that's part of the experience.

:-)
 
Well, Cyre2067, at least you're showing a positive attitude, which is really important. All the books you ordered are great and will go a long way toward helping you to understand the ideas that Craig presented. In Search of the Miraculous is a good starter, since it's a bit easier to read than Beezlebub (although I found Beezlebub to be more 'fun' to read in a way, since it's a 'story' in a classical sense and not just instructive.) It's really up to you, and if you start one of them and find it discordant, perhaps you should pick up another and read it first - that might sound odd, but some of the material seems to flow more smoothly in different order for different people, or so I've heard from others.
 
Hi Brent,

I was trying to bubble down the self-observation bit to something i could use and here's what i got:

As a beginner i should observed purely physical phenomena, as they occur. I shouldn't judge or analyze those phenomena at this time. I shouldn't attempt to change them either, as that would interfere with the observation and thus i might loose the lesson. I must clearly seperate the concious I that is doing the observing/awareness from the it that is the actor, performing the action sotospeak. I should define the awareness acutely, with specificity. I should avoid attempting to observe my thoughts or emotions at this time.
It's hard for me to say much on this, because I'm also a beginner. I think maybe the best for now would be to wait for In Search of the Miraculous to arrive, and read it; pay particular attention of course, to the first several chapters. The "starting points" you mention seem to be taken from C. Daly King's book that I quoted. Well, take note of Laura's response to that; although, the issue of "sensation" and the role of the moving/instinctive center is still a huge dangling thread.

In the meantime, here is a short chapter on self-observation from Gurdjieff's Views from the Real World:

Self-observation is very difficult. The more you try, the more clearly you will see this.

At present you should practice it not for results but to understand that you cannot observe yourselves. In the past you imagined that you saw and knew yourselves.

I am speaking of objective self-observation. Objectively you cannot see yourselves for a single minute, because it is a different function, the function of the master.

If it seems to you that you can observe yourselves for five minutes, this is wrong; if it is for twenty minutes or for one minute - it is equally wrong. If you simply realise that you cannot, it will be right. To come to it is your aim.

To achieve this aim, you must try and try.

When you try, the result will not be, in the true sense, self-observation. But trying will strengthen your attention, you will learn to concentrate better. All this will be useful later. Only then can one begin to remember oneself.

If you work conscientiously, you will remember yourselves not more but less, because self-remembering requires many things. It is not so easy, it costs a great deal.

The exercise of self-observation is sufficient for several years. Do not attempt anything else. If you work conscientiously, you will see what you need.

At present you have but one attention, either in the body or feeling. [p. 88-9]
Now in the next chapter titled "How can we gain attention?" there maybe something that could be used right now:

Question: How can we gain attention?

Answer: There is no attention in people. You must aim to acquire this. Self-observation is only possible after acquiring attention. Start on small things.

Question: What small things can we start on? What should we do?

Answer: Your nervous and restless movements make everyone know, consciously or unconsciously, that you have no authority and are a booby. With these restless movements you cannot be anything. The first thing for you to do is to stop these movements. Make this your aim, your God. Even get your family to help you. Only after this, you can perhaps gain attention. This is an example of doing.

Another example-an aspiring pianist can never learn except little by little. If you wish to play melodies without first practicing, you can never play real melodies. The melodies you will play will be cacophonous and will make people suffer and hate you. It is the same with psychological ideas: to gain anything, long practice is necessary.

Try to accomplish very small things first. If at first you aim at big things you will never be anything. And your manifestations will act like cacophonous melodies and cause people to hate you. [p. 90-1]
Gurdjieff then makes an interesting remark that seems to apply here:

. . . you have an appetite to do things too big for you. This is an abnormal appetite. You can never do these things, and this appetite keeps you from doing the small things you might do. Destroy this appetite, forget big things. Make the breaking of a small habit your aim.
Now, more extracts from In Search of the Miraculous on the "division of functions", something which can be applied when interacting and discussing things here. Obviously, the groups here are very much focused around the intellectual/emotional centers, and there are some good examples given here that can be the basis for further study:

Gurdjieff said:
"Observation must begin with the division of functions. All the activity of the human machine is divided into four sharply defined groups, each of which is controlled by its own special mind or 'center.' In observing himself a man must differentiate between the four basic functions of his machine: the thinking, the emotional, the moving, and the instinctive. Every phenomenon that a man observes in himself is related to one or the other of these functions.

Therefore, before beginning to observe, a man must understand how the functions differ; what intellectual activity means, what emotional activity means, what moving activity means, and what instinctive activity means.

"Observation must begin from the beginning. All previous experience, the results of all previous self-observation, must be laid aside. They may contain much valuable material. But all this material is based upon wrong divisions of the functions observed and is itself wrongly divided. It cannot therefore be utilized, at any rate it cannot be utilized at the beginning of the work of self-study. What is of value in it will, at the proper time, be taken up and made use of. But it is necessary to begin from the beginning. A man must begin observing himself as though he did not know himself at all, as though he had never observed himself.

"When he begins to observe himself, he must try to determine at once to what group, to which center, belong the phenomena he is observing at the moment.

"Some people find it difficult to understand the difference between thought and feeling; others have difficulty in understanding the difference between feeling and sensation, between a thought and a moving impulse.

"Speaking on very broad lines, one may say that the thinking function always works by means of comparison. Intellectual conclusions are always the result of the comparison of two or more impressions.

"Sensation and emotion do not reason, do not compare, they simply define a given impression by its aspect, by its being pleasant or unpleasant in one sense or another, by its colour, taste, or smell. Moreover, sensations can be indifferent-neither warm nor cold, neither pleasant nor unpleasant: 'white paper,' 'red pencil.' In the sensation of white or red there is nothing either pleasant or unpleasant. At any rate there need not necessarily be anything pleasant or unpleasant connected with this or that colour. These sensations, the so-called 'five senses,' and others, like the feeling of warmth, cold, and so on, are instinctive. Feeling functions or emotions are always pleasant or unpleasant; indifferent emotions do not exist.

"The difficulty of distinguishing between the functions is increased by the fact that people differ very much in the way they feel their functions. This is what we do not generally understand. We take people to be much more alike than they really are. In reality, however, there exist between them great differences in the forms and methods of their perception. Some perceive chiefly through their mind, others through their feeling, and others through sensation. It is very difficult, almost impossible for men of different categories and of different modes of perception to understand one another, because they call one and the same thing by different names, and they call different things by the same name. Besides this, various other combinations are possible. One man perceives by thoughts and sensations, another by thoughts and feelings, and so on. One or another mode of perception is immediately connected with one or another kind of reaction to external events. The result of this difference in perception and reaction to external events is expressed in the first place by the fact that people do not understand one another and in the second by the fact that they do not understand themselves. Very often a man calls his thoughts or his intellectual perceptions his feelings, calls his feelings his thoughts, and his sensations his feelings. This last is the most common. If two people perceive the same thing differently, let us say that one perceives it through feeling and another through sensation-they may argue all their lives and never understand in what consists the difference of their attitude to a given object. Actually, one sees one aspect of it, and the other a different aspect.

"In order to find a way of discriminating we must understand that every normal psychic function is a means or an instrument of knowledge. With the help of the mind we see one aspect of things and events, with the help of emotions another aspect, with the help of sensations a third aspect. The most complete knowledge of a given subject possible for us can only be obtained if we examine it simultaneously with our mind, feelings, and sensations. Every man who is striving after right knowledge must aim at the possibility of attaining such perception. In ordinary conditions man sees the world through a crooked, uneven window. And even if he realizes this, he cannot alter anything. This or that mode of perception depends upon the work of his organism as a whole. All functions are interconnected and counterbalance one another; all functions strive to keep one another in the state in which they are. Therefore when a man begins to study himself he must understand that if he discovers in himself something that he dislikes he will not be able to change it. To study is one thing, and to change is another. But study is the first step towards the possibility of change in the future. And in the beginning, to study himself he must understand that for a long time all his work will consist in study only.

"Change under ordinary conditions is impossible, because, in wanting to change something a man wants to change this one thing only. But everything in the machine is interconnected and every function is inevitably counterbalanced by some other function or by a whole series of other functions, although we are not aware of this interconnection of the various functions within ourselves. The machine is balanced in all its details at every moment of its activity. If a man observes in himself something that he dislikes and begins making efforts to alter it, he may succeed in obtaining a certain result. But together with this result he will inevitably obtain another result, which he did not in the least expect or desire and which he could not have suspected. By striving to destroy and annihilate everything that he dislikes, by making efforts to this end, he upsets the balance of the machine. The machine strives to re-establish the balance and re-establishes it by creating a new function which the man could not have foreseen. For instance, a man may observe that he is very absent-minded, that he forgets everything, loses everything, and so on. He begins to struggle with this habit and, if he is sufficiently methodical and determined, he succeeds, after a time, in attaining the desired result: he ceases to forget and to lose things. This he notices, but there is something else he does not notice, which other people notice, namely, that he has grown irritable, pedantic, fault-finding, and disagreeable. Irritability has appeared as the result of his having lost his absent-mindedness. Why? It is impossible to say. Only detailed analysis of a particular man's mental qualities can show why the loss of one quality has caused the appearance of another. This does not mean that loss of absentmindedness must necessarily give rise to irritability. It is just as easy for some other characteristic to appear that has no relation to absent-mindedness at all, for instance Stinginess or envy or something else.

"So that if one is working on oneself properly, one must consider the possible supplementary changes, and take them into account beforehand. Only in this way is it possible to avoid undesirable changes, or the appearance of qualities which are utterly opposed to the aim and the direction of the work. But in the general plan of the work and functions of the human machine there are certain points in which a change may be brought about without giving rise to any supplementary results.

"It is necessary to know what these points are and it is necessary to know how to approach them, for if one does not begin with them one will either get no result at all or wrong and undesirable results.

"Having fixed in his own mind the difference between the intellectual, the emotional, and the moving functions, a man must, as he observes himself, immediately refer his impressions to this or that category. And at first he must take mental note of only such observations as regards which he has no doubt whatever, that is, those where he sees at once to what category they belong. He must reject all vague or doubtful cases and remember only those which are unquestionable. If the work is carried on properly, the number of unquestionable observations will rapidly increase. And that which seemed doubtful before will be clearly seen to belong to the first, the second, the third center. Each center has its own memory, its own associations, its own thinking. As a matter of fact each center consists of three parts: the thinking, the emotional, and the moving. But we know very little about this side of our nature. In each center we know only one part. Self-observation, however, will very quickly show us that our mental life is much richer than we think, or in any case that it contains more possibilities than we think.

"At the same time as we watch the work of the centers we shall observe, side by side with their right working, their wrong working, that is, the working of one center for another; the attempts of the thinking center to feel or to pretend that it feels, the attempts of the emotional center to think, the attempts of the moving center to think and feel. As has been said already, one center working for another is useful in certain cases, for it preserves the continuity of mental activity. But in becoming habitual it becomes at the same time harmful, since it begins to interfere with right working by enabling each center to shirk its own direct duties and to do, not what it ought to be doing, but what it likes best at the moment. In a normal healthy man each center does its own work, that is, the work for which it was specially destined and which it can best perform. There are situations in life which the thinking center alone can deal with and can find a way out of. If at this moment the emotional center begins to work instead, it will make a muddle of everything and the result of its interference will be most unsatisfactory. In an 'unbalanced' kind of man the substitution of one center for another goes on almost continually and this is precisely what 'being unbalanced' or 'neurotic' means. Each center strives, as it were, to pass its work on to another, and, at the same time, it strives to do the work of another center for which it is not fitted. The emotional center working for the thinking center brings unnecessary nervousness, feverishness, and hurry into situations where, on the contrary, calm judgment and deliberation are essential. The thinking center working for the emotional center brings deliberation into situations which require quick decisions and makes a man incapable of distinguishing the peculiarities and the fine points of the position. Thought is too slow. It works out a certain plan of action and continues to follow it even though the circumstances have changed and quite a different course of action is necessary. Besides, in some cases the interference of the thinking center gives rise to entirely wrong reactions, because the thinking center is simply incapable of understanding the shades and distinctions of many events. Events that are quite different for the moving center and for the emotional center appear to be alike to it. Its decisions are much too general and do not correspond to the decisions which the emotional center would have made. This becomes perfectly clear if we imagine the interference of thought, that is, of the theoretical mind, in the domain of feeling, or of sensation, or of movement; in all three cases the interference of the mind leads to wholly undesirable results. The mind cannot understand shades of feeling. We shall see this clearly if we imagine one man reasoning about the emotions of another. He is not feeling anything himself so the feelings of another do not exist for him. A full man does not understand a hungry one. But for the other they have a very definite existence. And the decisions of the first - that is of the mind - can never satisfy him. In exactly the same way the mind cannot appreciate sensations. For it they are dead. Nor is it capable of controlling movement. Instances of this kind are the easiest to find. Whatever 'work' a man may be doing, it is enough for him to try to do each action deliberately, with his mind, following every movement, and he will see that the quality of his work will change immediately. If he is typing, his fingers, controlled by his moving center, find the necessary letters themselves, but if he tries to ask himself before every letter: 'Where is "k"?' 'Where is the comma?' 'How is this word spelled?' he at once begins to make mistakes or to write very slowly. If one drives a car with the help of one's mind, one can go only in the lowest gear. The mind cannot keep pace with all the movements necessary for developing a greater speed. To drive at full speed, especially in the streets of a large town, while steering with the help of one's mind is absolutely impossible for an ordinary man.

"Moving center working for thinking center produces, for example, mechanical reading or mechanical listening, as when a man reads or listens to nothing but words and is utterly unconscious of what he is reading or hearing. This generally happens when attention, that is, the direction of the thinking center's activity, is occupied with something else and when the moving center is trying to replace the absent thinking center; but this very easily becomes a habit, because the thinking center is generally distracted not by useful work, by thought, or by contemplation, but simply by daydreaming or by imagination. Imagination' is one of the principal sources of the wrong work of centers. Each center has its own form of imagination and daydreaming, but as a rule both the moving and the emotional centers make use of the thinking center which very readily places itself at their disposal for this purpose, because daydreaming corresponds to its own inclinations. Daydreaming is absolutely the opposite of 'useful' mental activity. 'Useful' in this case means activity directed towards a definite aim and undertaken for the sake of obtaining a definite result. Daydreaming does not pursue any aim, does not strive after any result. The motive for daydreaming always lies in the emotional or in the moving center. The actual process is carried on by the thinking center. The inclination to daydream is due partly to the laziness of the thinking center, that is, its attempts to avoid the efforts connected with work directed towards a definite aim and going in a definite direction, and partly to the tendency of the emotional and the moving centers to repeat to themselves, to keep alive or to recreate experiences, both pleasant and unpleasant, that have been previously lived through or 'imagined.' Daydreaming of disagreeable, morbid things is very characteristic of the unbalanced state of the human machine. After all, one can understand daydreaming of a pleasant kind and find logical justification for it. Daydreaming of an unpleasant character is an utter absurdity. And yet many people spend nine tenths of their lives in just such painful daydreams about misfortunes which may overtake them or their family, about illnesses they may contract or sufferings they will have to endure. Imagination and daydreaming are instances of the wrong work of the thinking center.
 
I think In Search of the Miraculous (ISOTM) would be a good start, especially the first half. The first parts of the first volume of Boris Mouravieff's Gnosis are very clear as well. But the two Ouspensky books you have are a good start.

I am just starting Beelzebub's Tales and am finding it a bit hard going. It's enjoyable but I am only able to read a few pages at a time. People say it picks up steam as you go along.
 
"It's enjoyable but I am only able to read a few pages at a time."

If you have an interested and willing partner, try reading it aloud with him or her, tongue twisters and all, to share the experience. Swap over every few pages.
 
EsoQuest. Brent. Craig. Thank you so much for your input. My initial concerns are thoroughly satisfied, and since yesterday I read your replys, I am in a state of silence/contemplation for so many things you have shared.
Lots to read indeed.
Brent: I finally manage to finish the secret history. My technique was loosing all hopes of to get to finish it some day and, suddenly.... I got to the last page! And thank you for your exmaples. I realized some mind strategies of mine are, well, are not mine. I suspected this but just could not find a way to trap the tail of one of them -this kick-start was great, thanks!
EsoQuest: Yeah I knew it! hehe it is not a "voice"! Now I know what NOT to look for, and, although a small step for many of you, thats a great step for Arturo. I am applying your examples. To "touch" the letters or things in genereal... It is like a visual or optic meditation! Waw great eye-openers!
Craig: Well I thank you too! My main concern to start this thread was this worry about the "first step", I really needed some concrete particulars so I could be able to understand where is the button: Observation starts with the functions.
I suggested to the all encompassing egg to get into spiders. Now I will medicate for my self "Functions".
All encompasing Egg: Now I am on "Functions", man! :)
Thanks Craig.
 
Cyre2067 said:
And a few questions for any who care to answer:
At what point does one make the transition from observing physical phenomena to observing emotions/thoughts? It was probably in the thread, and i read it through, but i might have missed the concept as some of the material is quite thick.
At the point, IMO, when you can observe emotion/thoughts in the same way as physical phenomena. Physical phenomena iminge on you as stimuli generating responses. Perception/sensation is a response. And when it comes from physical phenemena the mechanical nature of response is evident. It is not so evident for emotion/thoughts. So we are learning about the nature of our responses by experiencing them where we can get a handle on them.

Then, we discover at some point that we begin to view emotions/thoughts in the same manner. The transition is usually spontaneous, occuring when when learning saturates itself within us. You will know when it happens because all of the sudden your frame of reference regarding emotions/thoughts will be different.

Personally, I like to differentiate the meaning of the word "mechanical" from "physical/organic". The real nature of response/sensation and thought/emotion is physical/organic. When we are not centered on the real I, this physical/organic nature becomes "mechanical" because the real "us" is not present so our body is running on programs.

Our early conditioning discourages the true I, so all the programs are compensatory. After all, something has to be running the show we call "us". I do not think the programs "took over", but rather filled a gap that reinforcement dynamics from our environment created. I think it helps a bit when you look at all the false I's as a failsafe compensating for true I suppression, and not as the enemy.

Of course, the predatory mind inserts itself in all of this, but this cannot exist when the true I runs the show since it hides nested within the programs.

The resistance tends to decrease when it becomes a matter of sending a message that those false I's are not needed anymore to sustain the body's life-processes, and the predatory mind will stick out as something that tries to work against you, while compensatory programs will not when they get the message as you shift perspectives.

To me, the point is to work with your natural organic nature to elliminate its mechanistic compensations, and the predatory mind dependent on them, not against it. You know, its like going back to how you precieved as an infant on the purely sensate level, which gives the true I a foundation upon which to establish its conscious presence as you.

BTW Brent, don't worry about the tingle in the third eye zone. The brain does not give us sensations. What you are feeling is a surface meridian being stimulated. Spreading the energy around and circulating it to the lower body can help balance it.
 
Here are some more extracts on this discussion from Ouspensky's The Fourth Way. Although pretty much the same as what has already been posted, there may be a few smaller details that are made clearer:

Ouspensky said:
If we begin to study ourselves we first of all come up against one word which we use more than any other and that is the word 'I'. We say 'I am doing', 'I am sitting', 'I feel', 'I like', 'I dislike' and so on. This is our chief illusion, for the principal mistake we make about ourselves is that we consider ourselves one; we always speak about ourselves as 'I' and we suppose that we refer to the same thing all the time when in reality we are divided into hundreds and hundreds of different 'I's. At one moment when I say 'I', one part of me is speaking, and at another moment when I say 'I', it is quite another 'I' speaking. We do not know that we have not one 'I', but many different 'I's connected with our feelings and desires, and have no controlling 'I'. These 'I's change all the time; one suppresses another, one replaces another, and all this struggle makes up our inner life.
'I's which we see in ourselves are divided into several groups. Some of these groups are legitimate, they belong to right divisions of man, and some of them are quite artificial and are created by insufficient knowledge and by certain imaginary ideas that man has about himself.

To begin self-study it is necessary to study methods of self-observation, but that again must be based on a certain understanding of the divisions of our functions. Our ordinary idea of these divisions is quite wrong. We know the difference between intellectual and emotional functions. For instance, when we discuss things, think about them, compare them, invent explanations or find real explanations, this is all intellectual work; whereas love, hate, fear, suspicion and so on are emotional. But very often, when trying to observe ourselves, we mix even intellectual and emotional functions; when we really feel, we call it thinking, and when we think we call it feeling. But in the course of study we shall learn in what way they differ. For instance, there is an enormous difference in speed, but we shall speak more about that later.

Then there are two other functions which no system of ordinary psychology divides and understands in the right way-instinctive function and moving function. Instinctive refers to the inner work of the organism: digestion of food, beating of the heart, breathing-these are instinctive functions. To instinctive function belong also ordinary senses-sight, hearing, smell, taste, touch, the feeling of cold and warmth, things like that; and this is all, really. Of outer movements, only simple reflexes belong to instinctive function, because more complicated reflexes belong to moving function. It is very easy to distinguish between instinctive and moving functions. We do not have to learn anything that belongs to instinctive function, we are born with the capacity to use all the instinctive functions. Moving functions, on the other hand, all have to be learned- a child learns to walk, to write and so on. There is a very great difference between the two functions, since there is nothing inherent in moving functions, and instinctive functions are all inherent.

So in self-observation it is necessary first of all to divide these four functions and to classify at once everything that you observe, saying, 'This is intellectual function', 'This is emotional function' and so on.
Just a note to remember what Gurdjieff said about this:

". . . to be able to define them exactly and at once; and the definition must not be a verbal but an inner definition; by taste, by sensation, in the same way as we define all inner experiences."
This observation combined with self-remembering is what Mouravieff calls "constation". There was a bit of confusion over this in another thread, to which Laura responded: "[it] more or less means 'observing with awareness,' or observing and being aware of observing and inwardly 'stating' (conceptually, not in words) what one is observing."

If you practise this observation for some time you may notice some strange things. For instance, you will find that what is really difficult in observing is that you forget about it. You start to observe, and your emotions connect with some kind of thought and you forget about self-observation.

Again, after some time, if you continue this effort to observe, which is a new function not used in the same way in ordinary life, you will notice another interesting thing-that generally you do not remember yourself. If you could be aware of yourself all the time, then you would be able to observe all the time, or in any case as long as you liked. But because you cannot remember yourself, you cannot concentrate; and this is why you will have to admit that you have no will. If you could remember yourself, you would have will and could do what you liked. But you cannot remember yourself, you cannot be aware of yourself and so you have no will. You may sometimes have will for a short time, but it turns to something else and you forget about it.

This is the situation, the state of being, the state from which we have to start selfstudy. But very soon, if you continue, you will come to the conclusion that almost from the very beginning of self-study you have to correct certain things in yourself which are not right, to arrange certain things which are not in their right places. The system has an explanation for this.

We are made in such a way that we can live in four states of consciousness, but such as we are we use only two: one when we are asleep, and the other when we are what we call 'awake'-that is to say, in this present state, when we can talk, listen, read, write and so on. But these are only two out of four possible states. The third state of consciousness is very strange. If people explain to us what the third state of consciousness is, we begin to think that we have it. The third state can be called self-consciousness, and most people, if asked, say, 'Certainly we are conscious!' A sufficient time or repeated and frequent efforts of self-observation is necessary before we really recognize the fact that we are not conscious; that we are conscious only potentially. If we are asked, we say, 'Yes, I am', and for that moment we are, but the next moment we cease to remember and are not conscious. So in the process of self-observation we realize that we are not in the third state of consciousness, that we live only in two. We live either in sleep or in a waking state which, in the system, is called relative consciousness. The fourth state, which is called objective consciousness, is inaccessible to us because it can only be reached through self-consciousness, that is, by becoming aware of oneself first, so that much later we may manage to reach the objective state of consciousness.

So, at the same time as self-observing, we try to be aware of ourselves by holding the sensation of 'I am here'-nothing more. And this is the fact that all Western psychology, without the smallest exception, has missed. Although many people came very near to it, they did not recognize the importance of this fact and did not realize that the state of man as he is can be changed-that man can remember himself, if he tries for a long time.
It is not a question of a day or a month. It is a very long study, and a study of how to remove obstacles, because we do not remember ourselves, we are not conscious of ourselves, owing to many wrong functions in our machine, and all these functions have to be corrected and put right. When most of these functions are put right, these periods of self-remembering will become longer and longer, and if they become sufficiently long, we shall acquire two new functions. With self-consciousness, which is the third state of consciousness, we acquire a function which is called higher emotional, although it is equally intellectual, because on this level there is no difference between intellectual and emotional such as there is on the ordinary level. And when we come to the state of objective consciousness we acquire another function which is called higher mental. Phenomena of what I call supernormal psychology belong to these two functions; and this is why, when I made those experiments twenty-five years ago, I came to the conclusion that experimental work is impossible, because it is not a question of experiment but of changing one's state of consciousness.
For those that haven't got a copy of this book: it actually consists wholly of verbatim extracts from talks and answers to questions given by Ouspensky between 1921 and 1946. Chapter 1 is a general survey of the fundamental ideas, which in subsequent chapters are amplified subject by subject in the specific order followed by Ouspensky himself.

So now, I'll post a little bit more which consists of a few questions from people on the concepts that they don't understand:

Q: To attain the higher state of consciousness is it necessary to be permanently aware of oneself?
A: We cannot do that, so there is no question of being permanently aware. We can only talk now about the beginning. We must study ourselves in connection with this division of different functions when we can-when we remember to do it-because in this we depend on chance. When we remember, we must try to be aware of ourselves. This is all we can do.

Q. Must you be able to be conscious of your instinctive functions?
A. Only of the senses. Inner instinctive work does not need to become conscious. It is conscious for itself, independently of the intellectual function, and there is no need to increase this. We must try to become conscious of ourselves as we see ourselves, not of our inner functions. After some time we may become aware of certain inner functions of which it is useful to be aware; but not yet. You see, we do not acquire any new feelings. We only classify better our ordinary impressions, the ordinary things we get from life, from people, from everything.

Q. Would it be correct to say that when learning anything like driving a car, intellectual function tells moving function what to do and that, when proficient, moving function works by itself?
A. Quite right. You can observe many things like that. First you learn by intellectual function.

Q. How important is the knowledge gained by watching our physical actions? Is this merely an exercise for watching our minds?
A. No, it is very important because we mix many things and do not know the causes of many things. We can understand causes only by constant watching for a long time.

Q. May we have instruction about how to work on each of the four functions?
A. All that will be explained, but for the present, and for a long time, you can only observe.

Q. Would it be an example of different 'I's working when one goes to bed late and fully decides to go to bed early next night and, when night comes, does otherwise?
A. Quite right, one 'I' decides and another has to do it.

Q. How do we set about trying to be more conscious of ourselves?
A. This is quite simple to explain, although it is very difficult to achieve. There are no roundabout ways. A better state can only be achieved by direct effort, just by trying to be more conscious, by asking oneself as often as possible, 'Am I conscious or not?'

Q. But how does one attain any certainty that your method is right?
A. Just by comparing one observation with another. And then we talk when we meet. People speak about their observations; they compare them; I try to explain what they cannot understand; there are other people who help me; and in that way one becomes sure of ordinary things, just as one knows that grass is green.
There is no question of faith or belief in all this. Quite the opposite, this system teaches people to believe in absolutely nothing. You must verify everything that you see, hear and feel. Only in that way can you come to something.

At the same time you must realize that our machine docs not work perfectly; it works far from perfectly, because of many wrong functions, so that a very important part of self-study is connected with the study of these wrong functions. We must know them in order to eliminate them. And one of the particularly wrong functions, which we sometimes like in ourselves, is imagination. In this system imagination does not mean conscious or intentional thinking on some subject or visualisation of something, but imagination that turns without any control and without any result. It takes very much energy and turns thinking in a wrong direction. [Ouspensky, The Fourth Way, pp. 3-7]
 
Back
Top Bottom