François: Gurdjieff and Mouravieff

Hi Palinurus,

I like the way you argue, it makes me think better...


However, let me express simply the question I wish the answer today :


Who, and why, fix the number of densities (identified as so) to 7 ?


and these are below possible answers


1) there is nothing to explain, final dot

2) this can not be explained because of the Third Density situation where we are presently

3) there is no answer from the C's

4) this is open, and the C's let us find why

5) the question was not yet asked to the C's so that the answer is definitive



This question for which I would like to get the answer is not directly related to the topic titled 'Gurdjieff and Mouravieff', but this is following a quote of C's transcript excerpt on Gurdjieff and discussing the number of densities too...
 
Palinurus said:
The choices one makes and the decisions one takes are the 'input' so to speak which attest to the real level of consciousness displayed in practice. This concurs with the sayings about the inner esoteric circle, as far as I understand these. In that sense we all are co-creating reality, I think. fwiw.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't understand how did you come to the conclusion that in choosing we are co-creating, care to elaborate?
 
Well François, why limit the possible answers to a sort of multiple choice question? Reality seldom is an either/or thingy with only limited possibilities as far as I know and I suppose as you know as well.

The C's have stated that there are seven densities and seven densities only - so let us start from there. This number isn't 'fixed' by anybody - it just seems to be the adequate way to describe the whole of reality under its aspect of densities. So I surmise that your stumbling block would be the assumption that this number is in any way chosen arbitrarily or something like that. And it isn't for what I know about it.

There are quite some extensive discussions about this topic, but they are scattered throughout the forum in several diverse threads and in the transcripts too. We will have to use the search function first to collect those, before we can farther delve into this. That will have to wait until a later date as far as I'm concerned, because it's near bedtime at the moment for me.

The whole system of Gurdjieff implies the same basic sevenfolded structure of the whole of reality and it was expanded upon in the texts of Mouravieff, Ouspensky, Laura of course, and other writers. Currently I don't have any matching quotes at hand, so that has to wait too if you don't mind. I'm sorry about that.

The only thing I can add just now would be the remark that there are three densities where physicality prevails (1, 2 and 3) and three densities where ethereal qualities reign (5, 6 and 7) - while 4th density constitutes some sort of 'middle ground' with variability of physicality and ethereality as common denominator. May that be sufficient for now to keep you going...

@Ana
I do care to elaborate, but cannot do that now as just stated. I will get back to this as soon as I'm able to.
The short answer would be that choosing our alignments and acting upon those via our decisions 'shapes' the reality of the future we will be part of. Maybe "co-creating" is too strong a word for that - I'll have to reconsider.
 
Hi Palinarus,

Great answer! This satisfies me, and this is finely expressed...


Palinurus said:
The whole system of Gurdjieff implies the same basic seven folded structure of the whole of reality and it was expanded upon in the texts of Mouravieff, Ouspensky,...
Click to expand...


Again, this stimulates my curiosity, and I have to focuse on a personal research about, ...very interesting answer, indeed...
 
Palinurus,

You are describing the on Tree of Life as deduced from what said the C's:

Palinurus said:
The only thing I can add just now would be the remark that there are three densities where physicality prevails (1, 2 and 3) and three densities where ethereal qualities reign (5, 6 and 7) - while 4th density constitutes some sort of 'middle ground' with variability of physicality and ethereality as common denominator. May that be sufficient for now to keep you going...
Click to expand...

quantumfuture.net picture:
arbre02.jpg
 
Palinurus said:
@Ana
I do care to elaborate, but cannot do that now as just stated. I will get back to this as soon as I'm able to.
The short answer would be that choosing our alignments and acting upon those via our decisions 'shapes' the reality of the future we will be part of. Maybe "co-creating" is too strong a word for that - I'll have to reconsider.
Click to expand...
Thanks, it is an elusive and complicated issue, because we easily fall into the assumption that we are the ones creating, and I agree it has more to do with how much we can acces via knowledge and being, shaping awareness so that we get aligned with the creative process of the Mind. In this sense the creative process takes expression through us but not because of us.

Why You Don't Create Your Own Reality -an antidote to fatuous New Age paradigms
No. Man does not live by "commission" alone. This is why you do not create your own reality, but merely generate reality-hypotheses or scenarios which are continuously reflected and tested against the Whole; and the Whole, being inseparable from the Potential of your own innate-global Being, is constituted by the explicit and implicit alike, by that which is produced through active or positive commission and that which results from the gaps, blind-spots and vacuums of interpretive omission. All the lines, potential and actual, exist within one's being and are inevitably calculated into the total account! This is what it means when we say there's a context in which all our desire-formulation and "decreeing" takes place.
Click to expand...


Since such general deficiency with respect to a given area of being produces a massive potential for precipitating "experience" involving just those gapped elements (therefore usually a jarring experience), we may indeed be justified in concluding that such doctrines as "you create your own reality" serve unwittingly to irritate the probability of so eruptive an experience taking place. Experiences "foreign" and out-of-left-field in nature do manifestly characterize the things that sometimes befall us; they can't just be "owned" by arbitrarily identifying some active or positive thought-structure which by tortured interpretation can be teased into disgorging some vague parallelism ("Oh yes, I must have gotten that dysentery because of my dislike for Mexican architecture!").

It is, then, the standard of the Whole which weighs the balance of thought and Rules on the quality of experience. As long as one is taking an interpretive perspective on that whole which isn't directly aligned with It, the resultant reflection of one's personal self- estimates in the form of experience will resemble a maze of fractionated mirrors, first one side and then the other of one's total Presence being represented in the medium first the overt and then the hidden phase of the overall figure being shown to view.

The converse implication of this, of course, is that only in alignment and integral consonance with the Whole-value of Being may Reality be accurately manifested through the medium of "personal expression" for then there is no discrepancy between "personal" and Universal, the perspectival "part" and the indeterminate Whole. It is under this condition that the "impossible" can be manifested (i.e. that which is self-evidently beyond the power of anyone to "personally" manipulate or control).
Click to expand...
 
François said:
Hi Palinurus,

I like the way you argue, it makes me think better...


However, let me express simply the question I wish the answer today :


Who, and why, fix the number of densities (identified as so) to 7 ?
Click to expand...

Probably not a "who" or a "why" but a "just is" because that is the magic of numbers.
 
François said:
Co-creating reality makes sense for me.
But how you explain that each one, as particular entity, agrees that 7 densities is the right number of densities to be fixed in common during the eternal co-creation.
Ok, you could answer this is because we are One,
then why the One fixes to 7 the number of densities, why He does not "add" a super 8?
I mean natural numbers make really sense for describing physical realities,
but regarding non physical realities...
Click to expand...

Imagine, if you will, a student in the third level of elementary education questioning the structural order of the school he is in, proposing an alternative.
 
Hi,

Thanks for all comments shared here...

magic, yes

the Natural Numbers (Mathematics meaning) are specifically important, and in addition some of them seem to be more important.. with a 'magic' aura...

I have to do a personal research, with as start point, that following:

Palinurus said:
The whole system of Gurdjieff implies the same basic seven folded structure of the whole of reality and it was expanded upon in the texts of Mouravieff, Ouspensky
Click to expand...
 
François said:
...let me express simply the question I wish the answer today :


Who, and why, fix the number of densities (identified as so) to 7 ?
Click to expand...

Hi François,

I have had interesting conversations with people who find it hard to accept that, from the point of view of the linear human intellect, the universe was here first so there is guaranteed to be a level where there is no "why" - there is just what is there. If we keep going down, we get reductio ad absurdum, and get lost in the imagination, OSIT.

Fascinating, no? Thank you for a very interesting thread. :)
 
magic 7 you say?

"The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information" is one of the most highly cited papers in psychology.[2][3][4] It was published in 1956 by the cognitive psychologist George A. Miller of Princeton University's Department of Psychology in Psychological Review. It supposedly argues that the number of objects an average human can hold in working memory is 7 ± 2
Click to expand...
 
... so unseless to think about 8 (density, whatever) as this is enough to apprehend 7 (more or less 2) [joke here]


... but yes I am going to continut to investigate on the 7...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom