Conscious Attention

[Buddy]

Nick, have you honestly considered the possibility that you are currently sitting in Plato's cave - facing the back wall, without even the shadows to awaken you?

I have a similar perception. Accusing the fish of having some contrary "agenda" just because the fish aren't biting makes a poor fisherman.

Conscious attention can be verified through attempts to "Know Thyself" or it cannot.

A person can either ponder what she means by the results of imagination, detachment, and conscious attention or they can avoid it.

A person either feels questions not limited by acquired perceptions of right and wrong or they won't.

It's the black/white, either/or thinking trap that's a problem, I think.

[quote author=Nick_A]
Open minded people are rare...
[/quote]

That's not been my experience. There are variables involved. Maybe your truth bell just rings hollow.

Why not just show people this image and be done with it? People will get the message, I think, and you can get on with your personal Work, Nick_A.

Simone's Cave:

Besides, Plato's Cave allegory serves an agenda itself if you understand one of the main ideas the Republic seeks to justify: Philosophers as cream of the human crop (elitists) who deserve an easy contemplative life while laborers do all the menial work society depends on because that is the lot of a mere political animal born to 'low class' who will never do any better for themselves.

Talk about an agenda...

 

[Nick_A]

My advantage here is the humility to admit to being in Plato's Cave. This means being asleep as described by Gurdjieff.

'Man's possibilities are very great. You cannot even conceive a shadow of what man is capable of attaining. But nothing can be attained in sleep. In the consciousness of a sleeping man his illusions, his 'dreams' are mixed with reality. He lives in a subjective world and he can never escape from it. And this is the reason why he can never make use of all the powers he possesses and why he lives in only a small part of himself.'

I don't sense those here with the humility to admit the human condition so what does this professed open-mindedness really mean?

Certain concepts are black and white. Sleep is one and conscious attention is another. You may deny it and dismiss it as black and white thinking but regardless, a person can verify their states through attempts to know thyself.

You minimize sleep which is why you limit Plato's cave analogy to secular governments. You don't see how it can relate to "sleep." King Appolis' experience in A&E reveals the necessity for a Philosopher King. It may seem unfair and elitist to you but for those appreciating what "sleep" actually means, it is just common sense more easily experienced when one isn't defending an agenda.

 

[Buddy]

My advantage here is the humility to admit to being in Plato's Cave. This means being asleep as described by Gurdjieff.

This strikes me as an odd thing to say, or perhaps an odd way to express it. Sort of like how someone (not you) might say: I have the humility to admit I've been certified as a moron by the world's leading authority, so let's now move on to our lesson on Kant's Critique of Pure Reason and see if we may distill new insight about whether Gurdjieff's cosmology satisfied the requirement of Kant's 'time' antimony. (Hint: it did)

You minimize sleep which is why you limit Plato's cave analogy to secular governments. You don't see how it can relate to "sleep." King Appolis' experience in A&E reveals the necessity for a Philosopher King. It may seem unfair and elitist to you but for those appreciating what "sleep" actually means, it is just common sense more easily experienced when one isn't defending an agenda.

Yes, I'm aware of Thomism, Aristotle's "man as various characters of political animal" and the Aristotlian-Thomist Concept of Nature. This ideology also serves as the religious philosophy of Roman Catholicism as well as seemingly underpinning and guiding what you say next.

Perhaps I was being too literal in my previous comments. I have no problem with any specific King, Philosopher-King or whatever, nor does the concept represent the problem. What represents the problem best, I think, is the entire imaginary framework of thought that first starts with the smallest entitlement and then grows exponentially until it makes a wasteland of "Iraniranumange." That's what I was intuiting about this dialog, so, thanks for the conversation.

 

[Amy]

Nick_A, have you wondered why you get the response you get while promoting Weil? You seem to have the idea (so it seems to me) that people get offended because Weil raised uncomfortable questions about human existence which you have grasped but others cannot - so they "growl". The reality could be different and maybe it is your self-importance that keeps you from seeing it. In other words, it may have little to do with Weil and more to do with how you come across to others.

Maybe starting a website or a blog promoting Weil's work would be more in keeping with your aim? At least then you can be clear about your agenda and people who are attracted to it would have the choice to participate?

Again you are thinking in terms of an agenda. But I am referring to the value of reality that must be offensive. As is said in Christianity In the presence of the Word, Hell rises up in fury" This is by law.

Gurdjieff's grandmother on her death bed whispered into the ear of the young Gurdjieff: "Eldest of my grandsons! Listen and always remember my strict injunction to you: In life never do as others do. Either do nothing or do something nobody else does."

The individuals she refers to are used. Their ideas must be distorted. I prefer to talk to people who respect these individuals and awakening influence rather than use them for the purposes of their agenda. The only two I know of who fit into Gurdjieff's grandmother's injunction are Gurdjieff and Simone. Of course there are others but since Simone is both so vital and little known regardless that she is gradually becoming more known, I will serve the process of introducing the results she achieved as a seeker of truth. She is unimportant though what she brings is. A person can either ponder what she means by the results of imagination, detachment, and conscious attention or they can avoid it. But at least it is out there. No agenda's, just the need for truth which is the most offensive need in Plato's cave. Open minded people are rare and deserve a chance. I will not be part of what denies them for the sake of an agenda.

I can see I don't belong here and there is nothing wrong with that.

I'd like to say My opinions :

When you mention someone's NAME and how great they are with their theories ,
first you depend on the person to do the thinking for you,
second, you use the person's name to make yourself look better, as to have become their 'loyal follower'
third , you don't have ability to take someone's juice to transform in into your own

if you can think on your own, you wouldn't need to use someone's name to back you up
if you are confident that you are the best (in your own right) ,
you don't need to mark yourself with this or that label, by becoming certain special follower.
if you have the ability to absorb other people's knowledge and become wise for that, you would write every idea
by your own expression and understanding, without the need to write someone's name.

Unless you want to acknowledge someone's ideas that are not of your own,
that you don't want to steal their work.

But trying to promote names, just because you don't like the OTHERS, is kind of SILLY,
you are wasting your time to fight for someone , which you may never about him/her - not even meet or make friend with.

Also humankind is at the moment with a great effort to offset / remove the energy of slaving (labouring)
the so called gods ,
why should we again try to make ourselves LOWER than certain 'so called special people' ?
unless you don't believe in your own ability.

I also understand that , by becoming followers of certain group, people can gather and learn with each other,
but the negative part of side of this is:
I see there is ALWAYS the tendency that , when we are strongly BACKED up (agreed with) by many many people
it makes us so easy to become bullier , controller, manipulator , with certain (unconscious) agenda
that is TOO STRONG , and as a result this force will be calling /atracting for an opposite force NATURALLY.

When something is too positive or too negative, it is immediately calling the opposite force to balance it out.
Unless we consciously make the balance within ourselves, within each of us.

----------------------

Even with the Cs' words,
they are correct in certain perspectives,
with they are NOT of the WHOLE picture!
When I read the Pleidian's words,
they are also with all different perspectives and points of view
which is again NOT of the whole picture!

Then
Why should we go on pretending that certain people's theories are the perfect one ?
why should we go on creating conflict and separateness ?

Why don't we save those time and energy to learn further?


"to open your mind and heart, for within your body and Earth herself lie the answers to the great mysteries you seek
to reevaluate the purpose of your life,
to redefine the forces that rule you
to resurrect the codes of consciouness STORED in your being
to restore beauty through VALUE of life."

( from the ancestors)

 

[Nick_A]

Buddy

This strikes me as an odd thing to say, or perhaps an odd way to express it. Sort of like how someone (not you) might say: I have the humility to admit I've been certified as a moron by the world's leading authority, so let's now move on to our lesson on Kant's Critique of Pure Reason and see if we may distill new insight about whether Gurdjieff's cosmology satisfied the requirement of Kant's 'time' antimony. (Hint: it did)

I've read the work described as the science of idiocy. What is so bad about being an idiot by cave standards? Socrates knew he knew nothing. Those putting him on trial believed he knew nothing so Socrates was a real idiot.

Jesus was considered an idiot. The experts considered him such a dangerous idiot that he should be crucified.

Perhaps I was being too literal in my previous comments. I have no problem with any specific King, Philosopher-King or whatever, nor does the concept represent the problem. What represents the problem best, I think, is the entire imaginary framework of thought that first starts with the smallest entitlement and then grows exponentially until it makes a wasteland of "Iraniranumange." That's what I was intuiting about this dialog, so, thanks for the conversation.

How does moving from slavery to 48 laws to slavery to 24 laws served by bottom up reason other than by producing its contradictions?

 

[SeekinTruth]

Nick_A, you are so blind to the most basic feedback given to you that you can't see some quite simple things:

YOU have an agenda to promote Simone Weil. YOU don't like that it's quite obvious to others from your interaction that YOU have this agenda and it's been pointed out that YOU have this agenda. That not liking it doesn't change anything essentially. But you, not liking it, begin to accuse others of having an agenda - namely this forum - which is common psychological projection.

You keep admitting that Simone Weil wasn't IN the Fourth Way Work, but keep insisting that she somehow "GOT" or grokked the Work, which is pretty much meaningless from the point of view and understanding OF the Fourth Way Work. You assume that both yourself and Simone Weil could somehow achieve anything of value about the human condition (some insight) and DOing the Work to get out of the prison on your own. Which is clearly contradicting what Gurdjieff said about it all.

You agreed to the forum rules when you signed up, but you simply disregard those rules and want to impose your own agenda on the rest of the forum. This is simply unacceptable. It is so basic a problem, that you can't seem to interact with others without being banned on other forums because of your agenda to promote Weil - your one track mind, so to speak. All this taken together points to you being in that all-too-common situation Gurdjieff warned about: you came upon some information that may have stirred you from your sleep momentarily; then you immediately fell back to sleep and started dreaming that you're awake. And since this doesn't take any effort, which the Work demands (super efforts, actually) you've remained in this "new, improved" dream ever since.

 

[Nick_A]

Amy, Simone Weil fought against man's inclination towards idolatry all her life. Plato's cave is governed by idolatry. Some people serve the cause of idolatry while others like Simone serve to free the human psyche from dependence on idolatry.

I learn from such people. Kasparov dwarfs me in chess. I'm not insulted. Gurdjieff and simone Weil dwarf me in their understanding, in the real meaning of the word, of the human condition. I'm not offended but instead willing to learn rather than assert my own self importance. I'm furthering contemplation. For some reason you cannot see this as distinct from idolatry

I don't promote Simone because I believe others are wrong. I promote her because she brings something that is very rare today. She writes from her being with complete sincerity. A person can sense it and it arouses genuine contemplation. Suppose a person reads these remarks about imagination from Simone. What but the Work can respond with the energy of the questions aroused

"Imagination is always the fabric of social life and the dynamic of history. The influence of real needs and compulsions, of real interests and materials, is indirect because the crowd is never conscious of it.” ~ Simone Weil

“Imagination and fiction make up more than three-quarters of our real life” ~ Simone Weil

I admit that I am lower than "special people." You don't. It is a basic difference between us.

It isn't a matter of being a blind follower but inviting help for the capacity of vertical reason which reveals the human condition and arouse conscience. It may not be your thing but I welcome this humility which makes understanding possible

 

[Nick_A]

Nick_A, you are so blind to the most basic feedback given to you that you can't see some quite simple things:

YOU have an agenda to promote Simone Weil. YOU don't like that it's quite obvious to others from your interaction that YOU have this agenda and it's been pointed out that YOU have this agenda. That not liking it doesn't change anything essentially. But you, not liking it, begin to accuse others of having an agenda - namely this forum - which is common psychological projection.

You keep admitting that Simone Weil wasn't IN the Fourth Way Work, but keep insisting that she somehow "GOT" or grokked the Work, which is pretty much meaningless from the point of view and understanding OF the Fourth Way Work. You assume that both yourself and Simone Weil could somehow achieve anything of value about the human condition (some insight) and DOing the Work to get out of the prison on your own. Which is clearly contradicting what Gurdjieff said about it all.

You agreed to the forum rules when you signed up, but you simply disregard those rules and want to impose your own agenda on the rest of the forum. This is simply unacceptable. It is so basic a problem, that you can't seem to interact with others without being banned on other forums because of your agenda to promote Weil - your one track mind, so to speak. All this taken together points to you being in that all-too-common situation Gurdjieff warned about: you came upon some information that may have stirred you from your sleep momentarily; then you immediately fell back to sleep and started dreaming that you're awake. And since this doesn't take any effort, which the Work demands (super efforts, actually) you've remained in this "new, improved" dream ever since.

This is just silly. There is no Simone Weil Agenda. The American Weil Society has dues of a whopping $12 a year. No one makes money off of that. It goes out for stamps. People like Albert Camus and T.S Eliot used their own money to organize and publish her letters and essays. They did so because they knew it was needed. The heading of the Board says the Work and includes other names. Simone was friendly with Rene Daumal who was in the Work. They translated the Gita together.

As I've said, there is nothing more offensive for Plato's Cave then when something real is introduced. It is the way it is.

But the bottom line is that the negativity here is too thick to allow for anything meaningful. There is no longer a reason for me to be here.

 

[Amy]

Amy, Simone Weil fought against man's inclination towards idolatry all her life. Plato's cave is governed by idolatry. Some people serve the cause of idolatry while others like Simone serve to free the human psyche from dependence on idolatry.

I learn from such people. Kasparov dwarfs me in chess. I'm not insulted. Gurdjieff and simone Weil dwarf me in their understanding, in the real meaning of the word, of the human condition. I'm not offended but instead willing to learn rather than assert my own self importance. I'm furthering contemplation. For some reason you cannot see this as distinct from idolatry

I don't promote Simone because I believe others are wrong. I promote her because she brings something that is very rare today. She writes from her being with complete sincerity. A person can sense it and it arouses genuine contemplation. Suppose a person reads these remarks about imagination from Simone. What but the Work can respond with the energy of the questions aroused

"Imagination is always the fabric of social life and the dynamic of history. The influence of real needs and compulsions, of real interests and materials, is indirect because the crowd is never conscious of it.” ~ Simone Weil

“Imagination and fiction make up more than three-quarters of our real life” ~ Simone Weil

I admit that I am lower than "special people." You don't. It is a basic difference between us.

It isn't a matter of being a blind follower but inviting help for the capacity of vertical reason which reveals the human condition and arouse conscience. It may not be your thing but I welcome this humility which makes understanding possible

Nick A, I did not mean 'YOU' is you, I am sorry I didn't clarify this earlier,
I was addressing the you(s) in general here in this forum, in the Work section,
in this thread,
it just happened that your words triggered me to make the response above,
but NO, Never, I was not aiming at you personally ...
I have learned not to point finger at any one, but only give GENERAL observation , as a contribution !

 

[obyvatel]

As I've said, there is nothing more offensive for Plato's Cave then when something real is introduced. It is the way it is.

Yes, you have repeated what you wish to say so many times that it sounds like a broken record. You have also refused to answer simple direct questions that were posed to you. The difference between the way you perceive yourself and how you are perceived by others is quite big and it could have been an opportunity for learning.

[quote author=Nick_A]
But the bottom line is that the negativity here is too thick to allow for anything meaningful. There is no longer a reason for me to be here.
[/quote]

You wrote this about 12 hours ago

[quote author=Nick_A]
I can see I don't belong here and there is nothing wrong with that.
[/quote]

Given the inability to stop and question yourself that has been displayed so far, especially for a person promoting the Work, I would agree with the above statement.

 

[SeekinTruth]

Your definition of "agenda," Nick_A, is as narrow as many of your other thoughts. Is this intentional or is it just another of your deflections, which can simply be unconscious - you keep pointing to these things, but as usual, can't see it in yourself? That's the whole point you've been missing. There's nothing new in your posts about Plato's Cave / the human condition. If one can't do anything about it, and the practical ways of escaping are the only thing for real to be done about it, perhaps it's better one never encounters this idea?

 

[Nick_A]

Your definition of "agenda," Nick_A, is as narrow as many of your other thoughts. Is this intentional or is it just another of your deflections, which can simply be unconscious - you keep pointing to these things, but as usual, can't see it in yourself? That's the whole point you've been missing. There's nothing new in your posts about Plato's Cave / the human condition. If one can't do anything about it, and the practical ways of escaping are the only thing for real to be done about it, perhaps it's better one never encounters this idea?

I'm willing to admit that I am in Plato's cave. I am the wretched man as described by St. Paul in Romans 7. Do you? What is narrow about referring to a foundation which allows for experiential reality? Without it, nothing positive can result? Why do you consider it a deflection? A deflection from what?

A question for you. What is so attractive about negativity?

 

[Nick_A]

As I've said, there is nothing more offensive for Plato's Cave then when something real is introduced. It is the way it is.

Yes, you have repeated what you wish to say so many times that it sounds like a broken record. You have also refused to answer simple direct questions that were posed to you. The difference between the way you perceive yourself and how you are perceived by others is quite big and it could have been an opportunity for learning.

[quote author=Nick_A]
But the bottom line is that the negativity here is too thick to allow for anything meaningful. There is no longer a reason for me to be here.

You wrote this about 12 hours ago

[quote author=Nick_A]
I can see I don't belong here and there is nothing wrong with that.
[/quote]

Given the inability to stop and question yourself that has been displayed so far, especially for a person promoting the Work, I would agree with the above statement.
[/quote]


Yes, you have repeated what you wish to say so many times that it sounds like a broken record. You have also refused to answer simple direct questions that were posed to you. The difference between the way you perceive yourself and how you are perceived by others is quite big and it could have been an opportunity for learning.

I agree. I do learn from it. I can easily become Mr. Wonderful by use of a lie. Salesmanship sells. Give me a direct question and I'll answer it. there is nothing to hide. The other side of course is if you can accept it.

For some reason there is a war against thought. It is an ancient war which was even the cause of the "noble lie" The last place this war should take place is in the Work especially if the search for truth is valued and respected. Yet it is there when the Work is used for an agenda.

 

[mkrnhr]

Hi Nick_A, nobody asks you to lie or anything, just to be clear and use plain English.

Imagine this situation: A child goes to a assembly of mathematicians and says: "Hey, 2+2=4!". So they ask him to go on because they expect him to point at something new they didn't notice before. But he just keeps repeating "you don't understand, 2+2=4!". That's a broken record.

You see, you don't have to lie or anything, just to get into the level at which you can understand and make yourself understood.

Two buddies in Plato's cave:
-Hey, we are in a cave.
-Yeah we are in a cave.
-Come on, let's find a way to get out of here.
-But we are in a cave.
-Yes, maybe we can use that stone to cut our ropes of subjectivity. Let's try.
-But we are in a cave.
-If we get rid of the ropes we can at least try to see what beyond the cave.
-But we are in a cave.
etc.
One tries, can succeed or fail. The other does nothing, a broken record.

 

[Buddy]

I'm willing to admit that I am in Plato's cave. I am the wretched man as described by St. Paul in Romans 7. Do you?

Maybe we can make a point from a different angle? Nick_A, your description of the 'human condition' is a bit too simplistic compared to my understanding. There is something a bit funny about someone walking around saying how asleep he is and how stuck in a cave he is, and so on. It just doesn't come across like you even believe it. Where is the experiential manifestation of this so-called understanding, and what has thus been learned from personal experience, for someone who wants to teach others?

You misunderstand my earlier post. The first part was less about any 'science of idiocy' than it was about a certain contradiction similar to what would be involved in teaching about 'time' before Kant's antimony is addressed: a contradiction coming from a mind trying to fathom what is beyond it.

I suggest that until you can share your personal process of awakening from this 'sleep' you describe or your experience of 'coming out of the cave', then you have naught but speculation to offer where people need 'hands-on' help or real substantive food to eat and digest for which they might gladly offer you something in return (my second point re: "Iraniranumange").

You are obviously intelligent and aware of Gurdjieff's work but I sense you lack the whole picture and you are being very selective about choosing what seems to match up with Weil's words.

If you had the whole picture of G's work you might know how to help people resolve contradictions by shifting their modes of thought, e.g.,

How did physicists resolve the following contradictions:

The photon is a wave.
The photon is a particle.

This basic example of contradictory thought process caused a lot of consternation and even led to cries that the universe isn't rational, but it was all an unnecessary waste of energy because it was the human 'thinkers', insisting on a "single 'universal' Aristotelian essence of photon" who were being irrational.

The answer that resolves the apparent contradiction above is found by letting go of a 'singularity-based' mindset. The photon behaves as a wave when constrained and measured by certain instruments. The photon appears as a particle when constrained and measured by other instruments. The key to understanding this as analogy: The entire set up, including the measuring instruments and all interconnected interactions between observer and observed is important.

And that's the network connection. And understanding the role of measuring instruments and the human urge to 'measure' everything in sight is important. The good news, IMO, is that in some areas, like in quantum biology, science is beginning to mature it's understanding of reality as a network or networks of structural relationships, not just an 'assembly' of 'things.'

It's really very simple, in a way.