Example of Gurdjieff's exposition of knowledge being material?

T.C.

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
I've been thinking today on this quote from Gurdjieff:

(Knowledge) is material, and this means that it possesses all the characteristics of materiality. One of the first characteristics of materiality is that matter is always limited, that is to say, the quantity of matter in a given place and under given conditions is limited. Even the sand of the desert and the water of the sea is a definite and unchangeable quantity. So that, if knowledge is material, then it means that there is a definite quantity of it in a given place at a given time.

It may be said that, in the course of a certain period of time, say a century, humanity has a definite amount of knowledge at its disposal. But we know, even from an ordinary observation of life, that the matter of knowledge possesses entirely different qualities according to whether it is taken in small or large quantities.

Taken in a large quantity in a given place, that is by one man, let us say, or by a small group of men, it produces very good results; taken in a small quantity (that is, by every one of a large number of people), it gives no results at all; or it may give even negative results, contrary to those expected.

Thus if a certain definite quantity of knowledge is distributed among millions of people, each individual will receive very little, and this small amount of knowledge will change nothing either in his life or in his understanding of things. And however large the number of people who receive this small amount of knowledge, it will change nothing in their lives, except, perhaps, to make them still more difficult.

I'm thinking about it in relation to the recent revelations to the masses about Turkey's dealings with ISIS.

I mean the situation is absolutely outrageous, and now, there must be tens of thousands of people who know about this, but where's the outrage?

I know the shooting in San Bernardino has helped to distract people, but still - this hasn't erased the info about Turkey from existence; it IS possible to be outraged by more than one thing at one time.

I know the sleeping populace just don't care about anything other than what's going on in their own lives, and that their minds are so literally fried by sugar and microwaves, but the G. quote seems pretty appropriate to the matter, IMO. Disseminate a piece of truly objective, hard data to the masses, and it has little to no effect on them whatsoever.
 
T.C. said:
I've been thinking today on this quote from Gurdjieff:

(Knowledge) is material, and this means that it possesses all the characteristics of materiality. One of the first characteristics of materiality is that matter is always limited, that is to say, the quantity of matter in a given place and under given conditions is limited. Even the sand of the desert and the water of the sea is a definite and unchangeable quantity. So that, if knowledge is material, then it means that there is a definite quantity of it in a given place at a given time.

It may be said that, in the course of a certain period of time, say a century, humanity has a definite amount of knowledge at its disposal. But we know, even from an ordinary observation of life, that the matter of knowledge possesses entirely different qualities according to whether it is taken in small or large quantities.

Taken in a large quantity in a given place, that is by one man, let us say, or by a small group of men, it produces very good results; taken in a small quantity (that is, by every one of a large number of people), it gives no results at all; or it may give even negative results, contrary to those expected.

Thus if a certain definite quantity of knowledge is distributed among millions of people, each individual will receive very little, and this small amount of knowledge will change nothing either in his life or in his understanding of things. And however large the number of people who receive this small amount of knowledge, it will change nothing in their lives, except, perhaps, to make them still more difficult.

I'm thinking about it in relation to the recent revelations to the masses about Turkey's dealings with ISIS.

I mean the situation is absolutely outrageous, and now, there must be tens of thousands of people who know about this, but where's the outrage?

I know the shooting in San Bernardino has helped to distract people, but still - this hasn't erased the info about Turkey from existence; it IS possible to be outraged by more than one thing at one time.

I know the sleeping populace just don't care about anything other than what's going on in their own lives, and that their minds are so literally fried by sugar and microwaves, but the G. quote seems pretty appropriate to the matter, IMO. Disseminate a piece of truly objective, hard data to the masses, and it has little to no effect on them whatsoever.

I think this an interesting observation T.C.

To develop the idea a bit further, within the context of the work of this network, large amounts of data have been gathered, which, upon 'digestion'...or if you prefer, pieces having been 'put in their place', a very definite picture starts to form as to possible objective reality. Those who ingest this 'food', in large quantities, generally are coming to a similar, if not the same, understanding of things.

I have had the experience ,many a time, of attempting to communicate this general understanding of the world with those who don't 'feed on this food', and the result is usually just what G mentions about small bits changing nothing and possibly making things worse.

Connected with this, it seems to me, is G's idea about associative vs formal mentation as discussed in Beelzebub's Tales - Chapter one "The Arousal of Thought". Any statement made to 'junk food consumers' contains a whole boatload of 'inner data', around which said statements are formed, which inner data is absent from those with whom I have tried (and, failed) to communicate. Make sense?

Kris
 
I think this is fundamentally about "receivership capacity." I can understand where knowledge is material in a sense, Gurdjieff talks all about acquiring finer impressions which the body can use to accumulate finer energies which gradually transform the organism. In his scale of hydrogens, he assigns these impressions a degree of materiality relative to things we experience in physical reality, even though he's fundamentally talking about different types of spiritual energies. In a factory where the equipment has not been tooled to work with these higher energies, the hydrogens basically pass straight through without really going anywhere. I think this is what he was trying to show in his food octave with no conscious shocks. Once one can recognize the shocks, and apply them to further the working of the organism, these higher energies have something to plug into and awareness is expanded.

One thing that has always bothered me is that knowledge is "limited;" it has never set well with me and it's been niggling in the back of mind. What if this is true? How would you go about demonstrating it? My position has been that knowledge is infinite and receivership capacity is limited. Receivership capacity is limited by pop culture, compulsory schooling, genetic alterations by 4D STS, GMOs, pollution, laziness, bad choices, and so on. If one's receivership capacity is opened by approaching the Work, then knowledge can stream in up to the person's maximum threshold, and all this talk about rationing it and "not enough to go around" is silly nonsense. It does seem that due to the way our realm is managed, there is only a small percentage of people who are strong enough to get over all of the hurdles and it is relatively consistent, so that acts as a sort of artificial limit. So in a practical sense, the world functions as if Gurdjieff's limit is real, but I don't think it's real in an absolute sense. All of this is merely my opinion, however.
 
Neil said:
One thing that has always bothered me is that knowledge is "limited;" it has never set well with me and it's been niggling in the back of mind. What if this is true? How would you go about demonstrating it?

G was quoted as saying
[quote author=ISOTM]
(Knowledge) is material, and this means that it possesses all the characteristics of materiality. One of the first characteristics of materiality is that matter is always limited, that is to say, the quantity of matter in a given place and under given conditions is limited. Even the sand of the desert and the water of the sea is a definite and unchangeable quantity. So that, if knowledge is material, then it means that there is a definite quantity of it in a given place at a given time.
[/quote]

"Given place and given time" suggests that G is treating knowledge as belonging to the domain of actualization in space-time or facts. JG Bennett stated that knowledge can be looked at as "functional correspondence between elements of experience". Elements of actualized experience can be very large, but still limited like G's examples of sand of the desert or water of the sea. In that sense, knowledge is limited.

[quote author=Neil]
My position has been that knowledge is infinite and receivership capacity is limited.
[/quote]

If you define knowledge to include all possible elements of experience, then it will be some kind of infinity. However, that is not how G used the term knowledge.

[quote author=Neil]
If one's receivership capacity is opened by approaching the Work, then knowledge can stream in up to the person's maximum threshold, and all this talk about rationing it and "not enough to go around" is silly nonsense.
[/quote]

That maximum threshold is limited. That limit is perhaps related to the realm one occupies. For example, the sum total of all knowledge available to a bigger whole, the biosphere, which includes human beings, the flora, fauna on earth, may have a maximum limit. In the cosmology of the C's, it would be limit of the "3D Earth". If one's consciousness/receivership capacity grows to an extent which begins to approach the limits of 3D Earth, then that person will no longer fit in 3D earth but will need to belong to a different bigger whole - 4D Earth or some other planet or Sun. The space-time reality of such a bigger whole will be different from 3D earth, and it will have a different maximum knowledge according to G's cosmology. This is related to the study of laws of a world.

Still, if our individual quota of knowledge is much much smaller than what can be theoretically reached at our current level, the talk about rationing and not having enough to go around does not have practical significance. It is like a small pond wondering if there is enough water in the earth to fill it up.
 
RflctnOfU said:
T.C. said:
I've been thinking today on this quote from Gurdjieff:

(Knowledge) is material, and this means that it possesses all the characteristics of materiality. One of the first characteristics of materiality is that matter is always limited, that is to say, the quantity of matter in a given place and under given conditions is limited. Even the sand of the desert and the water of the sea is a definite and unchangeable quantity. So that, if knowledge is material, then it means that there is a definite quantity of it in a given place at a given time.

It may be said that, in the course of a certain period of time, say a century, humanity has a definite amount of knowledge at its disposal. But we know, even from an ordinary observation of life, that the matter of knowledge possesses entirely different qualities according to whether it is taken in small or large quantities.

Taken in a large quantity in a given place, that is by one man, let us say, or by a small group of men, it produces very good results; taken in a small quantity (that is, by every one of a large number of people), it gives no results at all; or it may give even negative results, contrary to those expected.

Thus if a certain definite quantity of knowledge is distributed among millions of people, each individual will receive very little, and this small amount of knowledge will change nothing either in his life or in his understanding of things. And however large the number of people who receive this small amount of knowledge, it will change nothing in their lives, except, perhaps, to make them still more difficult.

I'm thinking about it in relation to the recent revelations to the masses about Turkey's dealings with ISIS.

I mean the situation is absolutely outrageous, and now, there must be tens of thousands of people who know about this, but where's the outrage?

I know the shooting in San Bernardino has helped to distract people, but still - this hasn't erased the info about Turkey from existence; it IS possible to be outraged by more than one thing at one time.

I know the sleeping populace just don't care about anything other than what's going on in their own lives, and that their minds are so literally fried by sugar and microwaves, but the G. quote seems pretty appropriate to the matter, IMO. Disseminate a piece of truly objective, hard data to the masses, and it has little to no effect on them whatsoever.

I think this an interesting observation T.C.

To develop the idea a bit further, within the context of the work of this network, large amounts of data have been gathered, which, upon 'digestion'...or if you prefer, pieces having been 'put in their place', a very definite picture starts to form as to possible objective reality. Those who ingest this 'food', in large quantities, generally are coming to a similar, if not the same, understanding of things.

I have had the experience ,many a time, of attempting to communicate this general understanding of the world with those who don't 'feed on this food', and the result is usually just what G mentions about small bits changing nothing and possibly making things worse.

Connected with this, it seems to me, is G's idea about associative vs formal mentation as discussed in Beelzebub's Tales - Chapter one "The Arto explain ousal of Thought". Any statement made to 'junk food consumers' contains a whole boatload of 'inner data', around which said statements are formed, which inner data is absent from those with whom I have tried (and, failed) to communicate. Make sense?

Kris

Well, I was talking about a certain amount of information being released to a very large number of people. In what you're talking about, do you mean you've tried your best to explain things to people when they've asked you about it, or that you've tried to explain things to people under your own impetus?
 
T.C. said:
RflctnOfU said:
T.C. said:
I've been thinking today on this quote from Gurdjieff:

(Knowledge) is material, and this means that it possesses all the characteristics of materiality. One of the first characteristics of materiality is that matter is always limited, that is to say, the quantity of matter in a given place and under given conditions is limited. Even the sand of the desert and the water of the sea is a definite and unchangeable quantity. So that, if knowledge is material, then it means that there is a definite quantity of it in a given place at a given time.

It may be said that, in the course of a certain period of time, say a century, humanity has a definite amount of knowledge at its disposal. But we know, even from an ordinary observation of life, that the matter of knowledge possesses entirely different qualities according to whether it is taken in small or large quantities.

Taken in a large quantity in a given place, that is by one man, let us say, or by a small group of men, it produces very good results; taken in a small quantity (that is, by every one of a large number of people), it gives no results at all; or it may give even negative results, contrary to those expected.

Thus if a certain definite quantity of knowledge is distributed among millions of people, each individual will receive very little, and this small amount of knowledge will change nothing either in his life or in his understanding of things. And however large the number of people who receive this small amount of knowledge, it will change nothing in their lives, except, perhaps, to make them still more difficult.

I'm thinking about it in relation to the recent revelations to the masses about Turkey's dealings with ISIS.

I mean the situation is absolutely outrageous, and now, there must be tens of thousands of people who know about this, but where's the outrage?

I know the shooting in San Bernardino has helped to distract people, but still - this hasn't erased the info about Turkey from existence; it IS possible to be outraged by more than one thing at one time.

I know the sleeping populace just don't care about anything other than what's going on in their own lives, and that their minds are so literally fried by sugar and microwaves, but the G. quote seems pretty appropriate to the matter, IMO. Disseminate a piece of truly objective, hard data to the masses, and it has little to no effect on them whatsoever.

I think this an interesting observation T.C.

To develop the idea a bit further, within the context of the work of this network, large amounts of data have been gathered, which, upon 'digestion'...or if you prefer, pieces having been 'put in their place', a very definite picture starts to form as to possible objective reality. Those who ingest this 'food', in large quantities, generally are coming to a similar, if not the same, understanding of things.

I have had the experience ,many a time, of attempting to communicate this general understanding of the world with those who don't 'feed on this food', and the result is usually just what G mentions about small bits changing nothing and possibly making things worse.

Connected with this, it seems to me, is G's idea about associative vs formal mentation as discussed in Beelzebub's Tales - Chapter one "The Arousal of Thought". Any statement made to 'junk food consumers' contains a whole boatload of 'inner data', around which said statements are formed, which inner data is absent from those with whom I have tried (and, failed) to communicate. Make sense?

Kris

Well, I was talking about a certain amount of information being released to a very large number of people. In what you're talking about, do you mean you've tried your best to explain things to people when they've asked you about it, or that you've tried to explain things to people under your own impetus?

I realize that is what you meant, and I was referring to speaking with individual members of a 'very large number of people' - the point being what G said about people not wanting what little is allotted to them anyway. The experiences in talking with 'junk-fooders' - it happens during casual conversation if a topic is broached...giving the lie truth etc. :)

Kris
 
I've often been thinking about what was discussed in the thread "The frequency ratio in humanity and the times to come". Basically, that things ultimately move "forwards" in a more drastic way because those aligned with subjectivity (willful ignorance, wishful thinking, and hubris) die off, so that those aligned with objective reality carry greater 'weight' in terms of the proportion of influences active in this world.

Knowledge which becomes the property of all increases the action of all the influences at work through everyone, so that in the end, nothing changes except that the intensity of everything increases.

The alchemists wrote about 'spiritual fission', the separation of the higher from the lower. In this regard, as within, so without - those who align with non-being become a "dream in the past" while those aligned with being become "the reality of the future".

There are a few ideas I've been considering that would each have to be examined in relation to the others:

- Ultimately, the small group of people who are sincerely interested in objective reality will have to counterbalance the collective ignorance and lack of consciousness of billions. Only then is there 'balance'. And the 'splitting of realities' then involves ending up in different existences as those who choose non-being die off and end up elsewhere.

- Things 'heating up' means that both currents active in this world, positive and negative, both increase in strength. At the end/beginning of the grand cycle, there would probably be infinite energy flow. The currents are active in each being in the proportion determined by its alignment to STO vs. STS. As such, each being either goes one way or the other, or 'burns out', turning into a short-lived, living short-circuit. The last option would be the fate of most people, since most people are stuck in what Ra called 'the sinkhole of indifference', i.e. they have not made an active choice to move in either direction; as such they become food, though they might also end up serving some kind of creative role in a passive way, and this might both be something we do not understand at present, and also something which 4D STS are not able to anticipate.

- The C's mentioned that there is an infinite number of possible STS agendas, which are often conflicting. Perhaps higher-density STS agendas splinter more and more the further the beings progress, each being branching out into an infinite number of existences, each with its own increasingly narrow consciousness and subjective perception of reality, and its own attempts to control and dominate everything. Then, if this is the case for the 4D STS hierarchy, and they begin acting more and more intensively, the 'signals' they send would increasingly mix into chaotic noise which ultimately becomes so 'balanced' that it turns into silence, the conflicting STS agendas cancelling themselves out in the 'end'. This would be perfect entropy, in the sense of a complete absence of information - it would all add up to 'a mere thought'. On the other 'side', there would instead be increasing convergence of understanding and ultimately a perfect negentropy.

This also ties into something I posted earlier, about the nature of wishful thinking and how the STS hierarchy might ultimately end up working in perfect opposition to what they hope to achieve:
Psalehesost said:
Regarding 4D STS and their wishful thinking, I've been considering the implications of them only seeing what they want to see. I think it means that they are literally incapable of ever believing in anything which would contradict their plans. Perhaps, whenever anything unexpected occurs, what happens is that their 'plans' - and in turn their warped perception of reality - instantly changes so as to 'explain' (explain away) the unexpected.

Over time, as things heat up, and more and more unexpected things happen, perhaps the 'plans' of 4D STS will become so outright contradictory as a result that it all falls apart, as more and more bogus 'explanations' pile up in their minds?

I think that ultimately, what may happen is that they succeed in perfecting their wishful thinking, so that black becomes white and vice versa, without there being anything left to connect them to reality. And then, perhaps the wishful thinking perception of reality would disappear, and all that would remain would be blackness and their hunger for darkness, which would then have nowhere to be turned but inwards.

If their wishful thinking moves them closer and closer to that, then it would follow that, in acting according to an inverted understanding, their actions would actually, at the very end, unwittingly end up perfectly serving those of the opposite orientation, while the STS hierarchy would believe that the exact opposite was the case.

However, I think a lot would happen first in the world before things reached such extremes of polarity. If both 'currents' at work in the world reached such intensity (inifinite flow of energy), things would probably be so different at that point that our entire old frame of reference would be obsolete, and it would probably become obsolete at an ever-increasing rate over time before the 'end'. And the changes would probably involve an increase in the nonlinearity of our experience, such that the concept of an 'end' would, in itself, be obsolete in the 'end'.
 
Thanks Obyvatel, that cleared up some things in my mind.
Psalehesost said:
Ultimately, the small group of people who are sincerely interested in objective reality will have to counterbalance the collective ignorance and lack of consciousness of billions. Only then is there 'balance'. And the 'splitting of realities' then involves ending up in different existences as those who choose non-being die off and end up elsewhere.
I've thought about that too, and how much does the average consciousness in this group "weigh" in comparison to the world in general. 10x? 100x? I would think that some people who are presently below the "First Threshold" who have some potential might be piggybacked once the totally entropic "dead end" people have died off and stopped diluting the signal. The Cassiopaeans have hinted that this is sort of what happens, but I don't think it can really be known where the cutoff is. If only a few hundred to a few thousand people "make the grade," the planet is going to seem like an awfully big place. I find myself thinking more and more that that is actually going to be the final outcome...
 
Psalehesost]- Ultimately said:
I think this is fundamentally about "receivership capacity." I can understand where knowledge is material in a sense, Gurdjieff talks all about acquiring finer impressions which the body can use to accumulate finer energies which gradually transform the organism. In his scale of hydrogens, he assigns these impressions a degree of materiality relative to things we experience in physical reality, even though he's fundamentally talking about different types of spiritual energies. In a factory where the equipment has not been tooled to work with these higher energies, the hydrogens basically pass straight through without really going anywhere. I think this is what he was trying to show in his food octave with no conscious shocks. Once one can recognize the shocks, and apply them to further the working of the organism, these higher energies have something to plug into and awareness is expanded.

One thing that has always bothered me is that knowledge is "limited;" it has never set well with me and it's been niggling in the back of mind. What if this is true? How would you go about demonstrating it?

I think the control system itself as outlined by Laura, Keel and others is a strong indication of knowledge being limited. In human history, there is largely just misinformation, or at best half-truths, about science, human origins, religion and spirituality, and even what happened in the next villa a century ago. I think this is because this level (or density) of truth in our reality is in a dynamic equilibrium between the hyperdimensional STS and STO forces. The set point for this (why this level of knowledge and not another) is determined, I think (I know so little) from the karmic profiles of the beings currently incarnated, and who wish to incarnate. Having an earth that moves too much in the STO direction deprives certain lower level beings from an ideal learning environment, and the opposite is true for an earth becoming too STS. I think this is what is behind the Eighth Tower phenomenon as outlined by John Keel. The appearance of the C's, of Caesar, or of false prophets and gods are basically infusions of either information or noise into human consciousness to maintain the equilibrium. I think this stability goes out the window during transition phases (like during the approach of a wave), since chaos is a strong marker for the branching and transiting of realities. Then again, what do I know?
 
Hi everybody,
interesting subject, thank you for all your input.

Another issue which limits knowledge is one's state of health. As long as someone's "receiver of higher energies" is tinkered with viruses, etc., that person cannot use neither their innate capabilities, nor can they asses the messages from within-or from the environment.

Not to mention total disinterest, so blatant in many circumstances, as TC remarked. Numbness is a characteristic of an under-functioning entity - how could one become sensitive when there is a lack of healthy inner force and clear mind? The best some can come up with is pity and self pity.

But the healthier one becomes (and I mean here overall health/physical-mental-spiritual) the more valuable services can render.
I recall one observation described in Lynne McTaggart's book, The Field, chapter IV - a situation where certain person's presence influenced the outcome of the biochemical reaction in a most significant way.
Also, there was some observation made in relation to kinesiology, that the presence of toxicity in the healer clearly disturbed the result.

So, how could one gather reliable knowledge when distortion exist within? Here, I think the importance of the group is most evident in helping the members to clarify what they know.

Being able to do something with your knowledge is also important. There's not much value in a huge amount of data gathered, but seldom put to use. I would gather information for each case I deal with, even if is similar to other cases, I do look for differences. And this way I manage to remain alert and open-minded and succeed in making a difference.

Just my 2 cents,
Joy
 
Well, my take on it is that when G. talks about "knowledge" here, he really means what he later defines as "understanding", that is knowledge and being. And this is limited in a given world (such as ours) in the sense that in order to grow, we need to Work against a background of ignorance, we need the challenge of acting against the control system/the general law. Otherwise, there can't be progress, and this also explains why progress is only possible on an individual basis/for a small group.

As he said:

ISOTM said:
"But, at the same time, possibilities of evolution exist, and they may be developed in separate individuals with the help of appropriate knowledge and methods. Such development can take place only in the interests of the man himself against, so to speak, the interests and forces of the planetary world. The man must understand this: his evolution is necessary only to himself. No one else is interested in it. And no one is obliged or intends to help him. On the contrary, the forces which oppose the evolution of large masses of humanity also oppose the evolution of individual men. A man must outwit them. And one man can outwit them, humanity cannot. You will understand later on that all these obstacles are very useful to a man; if they did not exist they would have to be created intentionally, because it is by overcoming obstacles that man develops those qualities he needs.

Also consider the passage before your quote T.C.:

ISOTM said:
"In the first place, this knowledge is not concealed; and in the second place, it cannot, from its very nature, become common property. We will consider the second of these statements first. I will prove to you afterwards that knowledge" (he emphasized the word) "is far more accessible to those capable of assimilating it than is usually supposed; and that the whole trouble is that people either do not want it or cannot receive it.

"But first of all another thing must be understood, namely, that knowledge cannot belong to all, cannot even belong to many. Such is the law. You do not understand this because you do not understand that knowledge, like everything else in the world, is material. It is material, and this means that it possesses all the characteristics of materiality.

So clearly, G. is not talking about knowledge that is abstract or that belongs to another realm or whatever, he talks about actualized knowledge in this world of ours, i.e. understanding/knowledge and being.

Interestingly however, he also said that at certain periods of time (such as now!), large amounts of knowledge are released that need to be gathered (here, I think he speaks about a more abstract definition of knowledge than before, i.e. information). I think T.C.'s example of the ISIS-Turkey connection may be a case in point: something that is hard to ignore, but which the control system still tries to cover up of course. The same goes for earth changes I guess, and if there will be a bombardment with comets, a beginning ice age etc. this means even larger amounts of knowledge/information are released to our world. But still, most people won't listen even then, but the knowledge is there and can be "gathered", for example by this group, which documents all these events and focuses/re-distributes this knowledge, so that it also stimulates being and thus leads to understanding. In other words, maybe "gathering knowledge" means to transduce information/potential knowledge - that reaches us from another realm - to this reality.

In G's words:

ISOTM said:
"The fact is that the enormous majority of people do not want any knowledge whatever; they refuse their share of it and do not even take the ration allotted to them, in the general distribution, for the purposes of life. This is particularly evident in times of mass madness such as wars, revolutions, and so on, when men suddenly seem to lose even the small amount of common sense they had and turn into complete automatons, giving themselves over to wholesale destruction in vast numbers, in other words, even losing the instinct of self-preservation. Owing to this, enormous quantities of knowledge remain, so to speak, unclaimed and can be distributed among those who realize its value.

"There is nothing unjust in this, because those who receive knowledge take nothing that belongs to others, deprive others of nothing; they take only what others have rejected as useless and what would in any case be lost if they did not take it.

"The collecting of knowledge by some depends upon the rejection of knowledge by others.


"There are periods in the life of humanity, which generally coincide with the beginning of the fall of cultures and civilizations, when the masses irretrievably lose their reason and begin to destroy everything that has been created by centuries and millenniums of culture. Such periods of mass madness, often coinciding with geological cataclysms, climatic changes, and similar phenomena of a planetary character, release a very great quantity of the matter of knowledge. This, in its turn, necessitates the work of collecting this matter of knowledge which would otherwise be lost. Thus the work of collecting scattered matter of knowledge frequently coincides with the beginning of the destruction and fall of cultures and civilizations.

So actually, I think G.'s analogy of knowledge as "material" is quite on point if we talk about real, applied knowledge in our world. There really is only a finite amount available and it cannot be any other way. It is something you can "take", in the sense of acting on it, which leads to growth; but for this to happen, others must reject the knowledge, because if everyone took their share of knowledge, everyone would only receive a little amount, and no real individual/group progress would be possible.

Also, I thought that if 4D is a blend of thoughts and physical reality, maybe knowledge indeed looks like something "material" there? Maybe "true thoughts" look like a specific "material" in 4D?

Just some thoughts...
 
The experiences in talking with 'junk-fooders' - it happens during casual conversation

Not so casual topics in casual conversation would turn the majority of people off especially if it came from the other person doing the esoteric serious talking in a casual setting.

Having an earth that moves too much in the STO direction deprives certain lower level beings from an ideal learning environment, and the opposite is true for an earth becoming too STS.

This is very true and brings to mind a picture of a scale. If I put 1,000lbs on one side it will start to shift the other side of the scale. But how about the other 999lbs? I believe the above statement takes a big tipping point and many can advance without affecting the balance of STO to STS learning environments. Meaning many can benefit in a STO direction without ruining the game IMO

it is by overcoming obstacles that man develops those qualities he needs.

I was going to create a new thread about this but might as well say it here. IMO in the work, when trying to achieve an aim/goal its about avoiding the A influences, the nonsense, the "obstacles" if one can avoid getting side tracked then one is on their way to success. However it takes getting sidetracked to know.

So clearly, G. is not talking about knowledge that is abstract or that belongs to another realm or whatever, he talks about actualized knowledge in this world of ours, i.e. understanding/knowledge and being.

It seems a constant theme is that in order to learn and grow we have to grow from the dirt however if everyone received B influences and was able to assimulate them in their being how would people progress how would people know what a B influence is if there were no longer A influences if there were no longer differences how can ones sword get sharp if their is nothing to sharpen it against. How can you recognize truth if there is no untruth? In order for the balance on 3D to exist their must be a certain amount of mis understanding/lack of knowledge and un being mixed with understanding/knowledge and being with the universe and the 3D earth ready to re calibrate when they feel like it.

It is something you can "take", in the sense of acting on it, which leads to growth; but for this to happen, others must reject the knowledge, because if everyone took their share of knowledge, everyone would only receive a little amount, and no real individual/group progress would be possible.

Believe me there is plenty of rejection going on :cool:
 
Much of this discussion of awareness counterbalancing ignorance, etc. and the effects of knowledge, objectivity, emotion, etc is covered beautifully in a book called "Power Vs. Force" by Dr. David R. Hawkins. He discusses the exponential influence of certain actions after a "threshold". The book had an instrumental influence on me and continues to. It is about the hidden determinants of human behavior and how certain actions such as courage and compassion have a tremendous power.

If the book has been recommended previously, mea culpa. I did a search over the entire forum and did not see it. It is the science of spiritual kinesiology. A truly remarkable book.
 
Villival said:
Much of this discussion of awareness counterbalancing ignorance, etc. and the effects of knowledge, objectivity, emotion, etc is covered beautifully in a book called "Power Vs. Force" by Dr. David R. Hawkins. He discusses the exponential influence of certain actions after a "threshold". The book had an instrumental influence on me and continues to. It is about the hidden determinants of human behavior and how certain actions such as courage and compassion have a tremendous power.

If the book has been recommended previously, mea culpa. I did a search over the entire forum and did not see it. It is the science of spiritual kinesiology. A truly remarkable book.

There are a few discussions on David Hawkins.
Here is a mention of "Power vs Force".
http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,31625.msg422768.html#msg422768

Here is a discussion on a different book by the same author.
http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,22804.0.html
 
Thank you Obyvatel. The actual physical testing of Hawkins book completely escapes me. Unfortunately, I find it very difficult to follow logic and reason. I DID, however, resonate very deeply with the premise of a physical reaction on a gut instinct level because that seems to be how I personally best operate. I have often wished I could be rational and logical. I seem to resonate on a streets smart level. Split second decisions, etc. I just trust it. What I did understand was getting rid of fear and lying which helps us to break free of the b.s. Being objective as regards the world is easy. The science behind it all escapes me except on a very deep, gut level. I can't explain. I just know. I thought the whole "testing" part of his theory was just way too much work and there's too much to see and do. I do believe what he puts forth has a basis in truth, based on my own experience.
 
Back
Top Bottom