Conscious Attention

[Nick_A]

Anyone familiar with the basic ideas of the Work has read on the importance of "attention" including divided attention. It does seem easy intellectually but in practice many experience the need to avoid it in favor of self justifying imagination. Have you ever wondered why it is so? Simone Weil provides important input. Have you experienced it and if you have, what does it say about our rationalizations? She wrote:


"Attention is an effort, the greatest of efforts perhaps, but it is a negative effort, and as such does not include fatigue. When fatigue sets in, attention is almost not possible anymore, unless one is already well exercised; it is better in that case to abandon oneself, to search for a break, and to start again a little later, to ungrasp oneself and grasp oneself like one inhales and exhales.

There is something in our soul that loathes true attention much more violently than flesh loathes fatigue. That something is much closer to evil than flesh is. That is why, every time we truly give our attention, we destroy some evil in ourselves. If one pays attention with this intention, fifteen minutes of attention is worth a lot of good works."

 

[Buddy]

...
Have you ever wondered why it is so? Simone [says]...

Why don't you stand in for Simone Weil here and share those efforts and struggles you've experienced that makes your questions meaningful to your personal work?

 

[Nick_A]

...
Have you ever wondered why it is so? Simone [says]...

Why don't you stand in for Simone Weil here and share those efforts and struggles you've experienced that makes your questions meaningful to your personal work?

I know it to be true through my experience of deep resistance and the tendency to lose direction. I was curious how those including you dealt with it if you have experienced it. For example, I don't justify it. Yet I know there are many who justify a change in direction promoted by this strange tendency as progress.

 

[Vic]

...
Have you ever wondered why it is so? Simone [says]...

Why don't you stand in for Simone Weil here and share those efforts and struggles you've experienced that makes your questions meaningful to your personal work?

I know it to be true through my experience of deep resistance and the tendency to lose direction. I was curious how those including you dealt with it if you have experienced it. For example, I don't justify it. Yet I know there are many who justify a change in direction promoted by this strange tendency as progress.

Enough of Simone already ;) I agree with Buddy - share those efforts and struggles you've experienced that makes your questions meaningful to your personal work? - then we can have a discussion with the potential for growth, rather than a purely intellectual one.

 

[Minas Tirith]

"There is something in our soul that loathes true attention much more violently than flesh loathes fatigue.

I do not want to give any more "intellectual" input, but this starts with a wrong concept. According to Gurdjieff et al. it is not our soul, but our machines putting up the resistance. I am aware that Simone was not familiar with Fourth Way concepts, so she just chose a term that came to her mind, but still, I think it's important to make this distinction.

Yet I know there are many who justify a change in direction promoted by this strange tendency as progress.

What exactly do you mean?

If one pays attention with this intention, fifteen minutes of attention is worth a lot of good works."

Agreed, but, huh, good luck with that. ;)

And I agree, it is a strange tendency. I guess, if we wouldn't have it, we would be more or less awake.

Regarding my own work I have felt a kind of relaxation during dividing attention for a very very short while (before my thoughts moved elsewhere again).

M.T.

 

[obyvatel]

Anyone familiar with the basic ideas of the Work has read on the importance of "attention" including divided attention. It does seem easy intellectually but in practice many experience the need to avoid it in favor of self justifying imagination. Have you ever wondered why it is so?

In Beelzebub's Tales, Gurdjieff referred to the "crystallized properties of the accursed organ kundabuffer" which as once put into the human beings of planet earth that led them to prefer fantasy and imagination over reality. In Castaneda's terms, it was the predator's mind . Laura goes into hyperdimensional influences and possible neurobiological and psychological mechanisms by which this phenomenon occurs in the Wave series.

Some aspects of the "why" question are difficult to verify directly. Investigation of the "how" question is more practical and opens up the potential for Work and development. Along with the Wave series, the psychology and cognitive science board has interesting topics and discussions on this theme.

 

[Ollie]

...

Some aspects of the "why" question are difficult to verify directly. Investigation of the "how" question is more practical and opens up the potential for Work and development. Along with the Wave series, the psychology and cognitive science board has interesting topics and discussions on this theme.

Another way of looking at 'why' is to replace it with: 'For what purpose?'

 

[Nick_A]

"There is something in our soul that loathes true attention much more violently than flesh loathes fatigue.

I do not want to give any more "intellectual" input, but this starts with a wrong concept. According to Gurdjieff et al. it is not our soul, but our machines putting up the resistance. I am aware that Simone was not familiar with Fourth Way concepts, so she just chose a term that came to her mind, but still, I think it's important to make this distinction.

Yet I know there are many who justify a change in direction promoted by this strange tendency as progress.

What exactly do you mean?

If one pays attention with this intention, fifteen minutes of attention is worth a lot of good works."

Agreed, but, huh, good luck with that. ;)

And I agree, it is a strange tendency. I guess, if we wouldn't have it, we would be more or less awake.

Regarding my own work I have felt a kind of relaxation during dividing attention for a very very short while (before my thoughts moved elsewhere again).

M.T.

Hello Minas

My guess is that Simone was familiar with Work concepts to a certain degree. She was very close with Rene Daumal and referred to Madam de S in her notebooks in relation to forces. Simone's work was a loner and was considered clumsy so movements didn't attract her. Her body served ideas.

What do you have against intellectual ideas? Jacob Needleman reports in Lost Christianity that there are no esoteric thoughts but there is esoteric thinking. How does one come to esoteric thinking without first being capable of the thoughts necessary to produce it? Associative thought is one thing while esoteric thinking is something else.

Changing direction comes from justifying buffers. Impartial self observation is not only difficult but unpleasant. How many want to experience what they are in the cause of truth? Only a rare few. that is why people make a fortune selling "improvements." For example, a person can write a book called I'm Ok, You're OK and make a fortune. But suppose someone writes a book called "I'm an idiot, You're an idiot," how many copies will they sell?

Of course we're limited in conscious attention. That is the point. I do believe Thomas Merton was right in saying regarding Simone that "without her non-conformism and mysticism we remain not human." It isn't just her but a minority of people like Gurdjieff who were able to communicate an awakening influence into society. Suppose a student reads the following from Simone and feels it but doesn't understand it:

"The combination of these two facts — the longing in the depth of the heart for absolute good, and the power, though only latent, of directing attention and love to a reality beyond the world and of receiving good from it — constitutes a link which attaches every man without exception to that other reality.

Whoever recognizes that reality recognizes also that link. Because of it, he holds every human being without any exception as something sacred to which he is bound to show respect.
This is the only possible motive for universal respect towards all human beings. Whatever formulation of belief or disbelief a man may choose to make, if his heart inclines him to feel this respect, then he in fact also recognizes a reality other than this world's reality. Whoever in fact does not feel this respect is alien to that other reality also." ~ Simone Weil

"Attention is the rarest and purest form of generosity. It is given to very few minds to notice that things and beings exist. Since my childhood I have not wanted anything else but to receive the complete revelation of this before dying." ~Simone Weil

What but the Work can make sense out of our inability for divided attention which simultaneously receives the external world as is while remaining open to a conscious contact with the above? Of course we are incapable of it as we are but does it have to be?

It is an intellectual idea but if it leads someone to appreciate the value of efforts to "know thyself" as opposed to imagining oneself, is it really so horrible?

By writing "good luck with that" you are the only one to admit inability for conscious attention which IMO is a necessary admittance and more important than condemning the intellect.

 

[Vic]

"There is something in our soul that loathes true attention much more violently than flesh loathes fatigue.

I do not want to give any more "intellectual" input, but this starts with a wrong concept. According to Gurdjieff et al. it is not our soul, but our machines putting up the resistance. I am aware that Simone was not familiar with Fourth Way concepts, so she just chose a term that came to her mind, but still, I think it's important to make this distinction.

Yet I know there are many who justify a change in direction promoted by this strange tendency as progress.

What exactly do you mean?

If one pays attention with this intention, fifteen minutes of attention is worth a lot of good works."

Agreed, but, huh, good luck with that. ;)

And I agree, it is a strange tendency. I guess, if we wouldn't have it, we would be more or less awake.

Regarding my own work I have felt a kind of relaxation during dividing attention for a very very short while (before my thoughts moved elsewhere again).

M.T.

Hello Minas

My guess is that Simone was familiar with Work concepts to a certain degree. She was very close with Rene Daumal and referred to Madam de S in her notebooks in relation to forces. Simone's work was a loner and was considered clumsy so movements didn't attract her. Her body served ideas.

What do you have against intellectual ideas? Jacob Needleman reports in Lost Christianity that there are no esoteric thoughts but there is esoteric thinking. How does one come to esoteric thinking without first being capable of the thoughts necessary to produce it? Associative thought is one thing while esoteric thinking is something else.

Changing direction comes from justifying buffers. Impartial self observation is not only difficult but unpleasant. How many want to experience what they are in the cause of truth? Only a rare few. that is why people make a fortune selling "improvements." For example, a person can write a book called I'm Ok, You're OK and make a fortune. But suppose someone writes a book called "I'm an idiot, You're an idiot," how many copies will they sell?

Of course we're limited in conscious attention. That is the point. I do believe Thomas Merton was right in saying regarding Simone that "without her non-conformism and mysticism we remain not human." It isn't just her but a minority of people like Gurdjieff who were able to communicate an awakening influence into society. Suppose a student reads the following from Simone and feels it but doesn't understand it:

"The combination of these two facts — the longing in the depth of the heart for absolute good, and the power, though only latent, of directing attention and love to a reality beyond the world and of receiving good from it — constitutes a link which attaches every man without exception to that other reality.

Whoever recognizes that reality recognizes also that link. Because of it, he holds every human being without any exception as something sacred to which he is bound to show respect.
This is the only possible motive for universal respect towards all human beings. Whatever formulation of belief or disbelief a man may choose to make, if his heart inclines him to feel this respect, then he in fact also recognizes a reality other than this world's reality. Whoever in fact does not feel this respect is alien to that other reality also." ~ Simone Weil

"Attention is the rarest and purest form of generosity. It is given to very few minds to notice that things and beings exist. Since my childhood I have not wanted anything else but to receive the complete revelation of this before dying." ~Simone Weil

What but the Work can make sense out of our inability for divided attention which simultaneously receives the external world as is while remaining open to a conscious contact with the above? Of course we are incapable of it as we are but does it have to be?

It is an intellectual idea but if it leads someone to appreciate the value of efforts to "know thyself" as opposed to imagining oneself, is it really so horrible?

By writing "good luck with that" you are the only one to admit inability for conscious attention which IMO is a necessary admittance and more important than condemning the intellect.

Nobody is condemning intellect, Nick_A. Only focus on it to the detriment of our other centres. Once again you bring Simone into it. Are you not able to discuss existence without putting Simone Weil at the centre of it?

 

[Nick_A]

Anyone familiar with the basic ideas of the Work has read on the importance of "attention" including divided attention. It does seem easy intellectually but in practice many experience the need to avoid it in favor of self justifying imagination. Have you ever wondered why it is so?

In Beelzebub's Tales, Gurdjieff referred to the "crystallized properties of the accursed organ kundabuffer" which as once put into the human beings of planet earth that led them to prefer fantasy and imagination over reality. In Castaneda's terms, it was the predator's mind . Laura goes into hyperdimensional influences and possible neurobiological and psychological mechanisms by which this phenomenon occurs in the Wave series.

Some aspects of the "why" question are difficult to verify directly. Investigation of the "how" question is more practical and opens up the potential for Work and development. Along with the Wave series, the psychology and cognitive science board has interesting topics and discussions on this theme.

I understand a crystallized property to be what Simone means. By soul she is referring to the Platonic and neo-Platonic conceptions. I may be wrong but higher and lower parts of the soul she refers to I would know in the Work as related to "centers." If so, it is reasonable that we have acquired a crystallized property that relies on the denial of reality for its survival. A formidable obstacle.

 

[Nick_A]

Pj

Nobody is condemning intellect, Nick_A. Only focus on it to the detriment of our other centres. Once again you bring Simone into it. Are you not able to discuss existence without putting Simone Weil at the centre of it?

I could but what do you have against it since her top down life is related to the Work? People who can communicate from the top down are very rare and very important for humanity. When Jacob Needleman writes of his contact with lord Pentland, he isn't complaining about intellect. Rather his questions are received in a way that brings an additional dimension to them. I have a great respect for this ability and importance. for example

http://www.gurdjieff.org/needleman6.htm

I will begin by saying that what I experienced from Lord Pentland was an attitude toward me that I had never encountered from anyone or even imagined. He seemed bewilderingly unimpressed by almost everything I said or did, and yet at the same time he seemed greatly interested in me. He responded to my questions often by showering down insights based on the Gurdjieff ideas that were clairvoyantly relevant to my personal life and which one after another erased or eclipsed everything I thought I had understood. I—Professor Jacob Needleman, who could, so to say, hold my own more or less with Plato, Hume, Kant and even the God of the Bible—I could not hold my own with the mind of this strangely intelligent man. Almost every time I spoke with him I experienced—on my very own turf of the intellect—the simultaneous deflation of my mind and exhilaration of the taste of Truth, the glimpse of a higher understanding. That was one aspect of my repeated encounters with Lord Pentland.

No emotional outbursts or arguments over right and wrong. Just an ability to create a conscious context where it previously didn't exist.

 

[Buddy]

Pj

Nobody is condemning intellect, Nick_A. Only focus on it to the detriment of our other centres. Once again you bring Simone into it. Are you not able to discuss existence without putting Simone Weil at the centre of it?

I could but what do you have against it since her top down life is related to the Work? People who can communicate from the top down are very rare and very important for humanity. When Jacob Needleman writes of his contact with lord Pentland, he isn't complaining about intellect. Rather his questions are received in a way that brings an additional dimension to them. I have a great respect for this ability and importance. for example

http://www.gurdjieff.org/needleman6.htm

I will begin by saying that what I experienced from Lord Pentland was an attitude toward me that I had never encountered from anyone or even imagined. He seemed bewilderingly unimpressed by almost everything I said or did, and yet at the same time he seemed greatly interested in me. He responded to my questions often by showering down insights based on the Gurdjieff ideas that were clairvoyantly relevant to my personal life and which one after another erased or eclipsed everything I thought I had understood. I—Professor Jacob Needleman, who could, so to say, hold my own more or less with Plato, Hume, Kant and even the God of the Bible—I could not hold my own with the mind of this strangely intelligent man. Almost every time I spoke with him I experienced—on my very own turf of the intellect—the simultaneous deflation of my mind and exhilaration of the taste of Truth, the glimpse of a higher understanding. That was one aspect of my repeated encounters with Lord Pentland.

No emotional outbursts or arguments over right and wrong. Just an ability to create a conscious context where it previously didn't exist.

I think I see now. You're looking for an experience like Needleman had with Lord Pentland? I see nothing wrong with that. Nor do I see anything 'wrong' with Simone Weil. What might be 'off' here might be described like the contrast between your topic title and your apparent lack of awareness that an insistence on a top-down discussion with people indicates you didn't do due diligence on how people generally want and prefer to work here: all centers coming into balance as opposed to intellect-only work which consumes lots of conservable energy.

That's one point of view.

 

[Vic]

Please note that the issue regarding 'Simone' actually started in another thread, so if it seems as though I am overreacting to Nick_A's use of Simone Weil then please take a look here http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,33433.45.html starting with the fifth post down.

 

[Minas Tirith]

What do you have against intellectual ideas?

Nothing, on the contrary!

I was refering to PJs post here:

Enough of Simone already ;) I agree with Buddy - share those efforts and struggles you've experienced that makes your questions meaningful to your personal work? - then we can have a discussion with the potential for growth, rather than a purely intellectual one.

What might be 'off' here might be described like the contrast between your topic title and your apparent lack of awareness that an insistence on a top-down discussion with people indicates you didn't do due diligence on how people generally want and prefer to work here: all centers coming into balance as opposed to intellect-only work which consumes lots of conservable energy.

Yes, I was drawn to the topic, but didn't expect so much insistence on Simone in the thread. Generally I think its always beneficial to have an emotional third force to do the Work, and in your case it's Simone, Nick. If you chose the title you did chose, however, expect that posters also want to share on a more personal level. Otherwise it might be good to somehow indicate in the title that it's Simone's Work (with capital W) you would like to discuss.

M.T.

 

[Nick_A]

What do you have against intellectual ideas?

Nothing, on the contrary!

I was refering to PJs post here:

Enough of Simone already ;) I agree with Buddy - share those efforts and struggles you've experienced that makes your questions meaningful to your personal work? - then we can have a discussion with the potential for growth, rather than a purely intellectual one.

What might be 'off' here might be described like the contrast between your topic title and your apparent lack of awareness that an insistence on a top-down discussion with people indicates you didn't do due diligence on how people generally want and prefer to work here: all centers coming into balance as opposed to intellect-only work which consumes lots of conservable energy.

Yes, I was drawn to the topic, but didn't expect so much insistence on Simone in the thread. Generally I think its always beneficial to have an emotional third force to do the Work, and in your case it's Simone, Nick. If you chose the title you did chose, however, expect that posters also want to share on a more personal level. Otherwise it might be good to somehow indicate in the title that it's Simone's Work (with capital W) you would like to discuss.

M.T.

You've confused me. First of all, how would you include the body on an internet site other than sitting up straight, Secondly, a lot of posts exude negative emotion so where is the Work? thirdly, conscious attention isn't limited to Simone but is a Work idea. It would good to agree upon what it actually is and what within us struggles against it so much. That is the question of the OP. Fourthly this idea of the emotional reconciling IMO is about the worst thing we can do. Without detachment, pondering leads to idolatry inspiring emotion which defeats the purpose of the Work.

Have you considered the difference between meditation and contemplation? I see meditation contributing to the process of aligning centers and the process of contemplation touching our higher parts. What then is contemplation and active mentation?

From A&E

"They did this because at that time two facts had become clearly manifest the decline of the Christian religion, and the disappearance in ordinary people of the capacity for "contemplation," that is, for the state in which alone the truths indicated in detail by genuine religious teachings can be understood."

"through active mentation, there should proceed more intensively in you the proper elaboration of the sacred substances 'abrustdonis' and 'helkdonis,' required for coating and perfecting both your higher being-parts."

Simone's being dedicated to truth inspires the human urge to "ponder" rather than self justify which IMO is essential for the Work. Some are sensitive to it and this pondering as opposed to self justifying will lead to the Work. I want to be part of this connection for the sake of those who need it.

I've experienced that some consider the Work a cult and others believe Simone thought too much. IMO, They are both foolish. Yet there are some who appreciate the natural connection. For example, Henry Leroy Finch who had written on Gurdjieff was also a founder of the American Weil Society. His book "The Intellect of Grace" includes both Gurdjieff and Simone Weil.

The experienced lack of ability for conscious attention and what it means is part of it.