Friction and Fusion

T.C.

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Hi everyone.

It's said that, to fuse the little I's, friction is needed.

My question is, does the friction itself fuse the I's, or does the fusion come from the work that the friction inspires? I'm almost at the conclusion that it's the latter, or even that the two are inseparable, but I think I need some feedback.

Is it right to do the Work because we're tired of the friction, and in the hope that fusion will make things "easier" inside?

Thanks
 
T.C. said:
Hi everyone.

It's said that, to fuse the little I's, friction is needed.

My question is, does the friction itself fuse the I's, or does the fusion come from the work that the friction inspires? I'm almost at the conclusion that it's the latter, or even that the two are inseparable, but I think I need some feedback.

I've found it's a bit of both which are in a loop. Friction ("Do what "it" does not like" as Gurdjieff quotes) seems to clump these little i's together. The resulting fusion causes other little i's to be undergo more friction. It's a continuous process.

Is it right to do the Work because we're tired of the friction, and in the hope that fusion will make things "easier" inside?

Thanks

For me, I do the work because I'm tired of the little i's and encourage friction and make things harder inside. If it was easy, it wouldn't be "work". :)

Nevertheless there's a sense of relief or ease that comes with this....... as light is shed on lies that one once held such high esteem.
 
Hi Johnno.

Thanks for your post. I've been doing a bit of thinking and reading on the subject and I think I have a pretty accurate way of wording the process.

Little i's exist because we're unaware of them/ourselves, we aren't self aware. When we self observe, we get shocked by what we see. Those shocks encourage us to observe more and more, so we can catch the little i's in motion and identify them.

So, shocks make us more aware of ourselves, which gives us more control, which can be interpreted as fusing a larger number of i's into a smaller number.

Does that make sense?
 
Little i's exist because we're unaware of them/ourselves, we aren't self aware.
Hi TC,
My understanding is that little i's are like personality traits that we have. External events cause one or more of these little i's to be activated and when this process happens mechanically, we say that we are running a "program". As we are unaware, the little i's run around uncontrolled.

From ISOTM
Thus, in one teaching, man is compared to a house in which there is a multitude of servants but no master and no steward. The servants have all forgotten their duties; no one wants to do what he ought; everyone tries to be master, if only for a moment; and, in this kind of disorder, the house is threatened with grave danger. The only chance of salvation is for a group of the more sensible servants to meet together and elect a temporary steward, that is, a deputy steward. This deputy steward can then put the other servants in their places, and make each do his own work: the cook in the kitchen, the coachman in the stables, the gardener in the garden, and so on. In this way the 'house' can be got ready for the arrival of the real steward who will, in his turn, prepare it for the arrival of the master.

In the context of the above analogy, the process of fusion can perhaps be likened to a group of "more sensible" servants (slightly "bigger i's" :)) meeting together to form a committee which starts controlling the other servants and together they work towards a common goal. As more little i's join the committee, the process of fusion is enhanced. OSIT.

Best regards
 
obyvatel said:
In the context of the above analogy, the process of fusion can perhaps be likened to a group of "more sensible" servants (slightly "bigger i's" :)) meeting together to form a committee which starts controlling the other servants and together they work towards a common goal. As more little i's join the committee, the process of fusion is enhanced. OSIT.

Yes, but I think the main issue here asks the question about the relationship of friction and shocks to the fusion process.
I see my little I's as self-contained "behavior cycles" that exist to generate certain "results" under a variety of situations and circumstances. The I's can be very simple or very elaborate "personalities" unto themselves, depending on the person.
So, how to get more and more of the Little I's to join the committee?

The only thing I have to work with right now, in terms of this question, is self-discipline to follow a path or goal. I'm suspecting, however, that the answer lies in the heat generated between the overall goal of 'unity' and the constant struggle of observing, questioning and identifying the various programs from the viewpoint of the 'Observer I'. I seem to experience various magnitudes of near-constant discomfort the more I try to understand about myself.
A large part of my time is still spent simply observing, though.
 
Buddy wrote:
Yes, but I think the main issue here asks the question about the relationship of friction and shocks to the fusion process
………
The only thing I have to work with right now, in terms of this question, is self-discipline to follow a path or goal.
Hi Buddy,
I think that the process of friction and eventual fusion can progress only with a goal and a path to that goal. At first this goal may not be very well-defined. It is my experience that the path chosen can fine-tune the goal which gradually becomes more concrete. In the 4th Way, the process of self-observation brings the previously unconscious manifestations of little I’s into awareness. The seeker starts to see him/herself as a divided entity. The work I’s (little I's inclined towards B influences - which brings one to the path in the first place) are typically weak to start with specially in the domain of action. They want to follow the goal but the other I’s resist. This brings friction into play. Mindfulness of the goal and persistent efforts at self observation constantly generate the friction and can result in what you called “various magnitudes of near-constant discomfort”. So far my understanding is that the consistent efforts put in to generate the friction to light this fire inside is what we can “do”. The process of fusion “happens” as a result of the interaction of this fire with the various I’s inside us. In the beginning with a very small work-committee (new-born magnetic centre), the fusion resulting from friction will encourage more friction in the future and the process proceeds in a loop as Johnno indicated.
Buddy wrote:
I see my little I's as self-contained "behavior cycles" that exist to generate certain "results" under a variety of situations and circumstances. The I's can be very simple or very elaborate "personalities" unto themselves, depending on the person.
I understand the little I’s as personality traits and the mechanical manifestations of one or more of these little I’s under internal or external stimuli as “programs”. The elaborate personalities could be what Mouravieff (Book One Exoteric Cycle) called groupings or lumps where some of the little I’s have joined together. If these groupings are not conducive to the work, then intense friction generated between the work committee and these groupings (when unmasked through self-observation) will break them down into constituent little I’s to be eventually fused with the work committee (magnetic center). OSIT

Apart from self-observation, another practical tool that I continue to work with regarding “programs” is what Gurdjieff called active reasoning which is based on knowledge. Here is an example quote from Views From The Real World :
M. called me a fool. Why should I be offended? Such things do not hurt me, so I don't take offense—not because I have no self-love; maybe I have more self-love than anyone here. Maybe it is this very self-love that does not let me be offended.
I think, I reason in a way exactly the reverse of the usual way. He called me a fool. Must he necessarily be wise? He himself may be a fool or a lunatic. One cannot demand wisdom from a child. I cannot expect wisdom from him. His reasoning was foolish. Either someone has said something to him about me, or he has formed his own foolish opinion that I am a fool—so much the worse for him. I know that I am not a fool, so it does not offend me. If a fool has called me a fool, I am not affected inside.
But if in a given instance I was a fool and am called a fool, I am not hurt, because my task is not to be a fool; I assume this to be everyone's aim. So he reminds me, helps me to realize that I am a fool and acted foolishly. I shall think about it and perhaps not act foolishly next time.
So, in either case I am not hurt.

FWIW
 
Hi obyvatel;

Thanks for your post.

We see "programs" basically the same way.
For example, the behavior of my "impatient i" was to 'snap' at someone whatever number of times seemed necessary. The expected result was to restore what the false personality saw as 'equality of standing' or even 'superiority' in relationship to a 'victimizer'. 'impatient i' used to respond whenever the false personality perceived unreasonable demands on its attention, time, resources...or even if it is aroused from sleep in a 'rude' manner.
This was linked to earlier fears of not moving fast enough, or not working hard enough, or not thinking about enough things at one time...in order to please someone.
The 'wake-up issue' was based on narcissistic expectations of others to somehow know when I've not had enough sleep, or was feeling bad, or wanted to sleep in.

'impatient i' is not completely gone, but it is no longer expressed. In fact, any given instance usually dissolves into happiness when I face it squarely, constate as much of what I can see of it and make the effort to create a win-win situation for everyone.


obyvatel said:
M. called me a fool. Why should I be offended? Such things do not hurt me, so I don't take offense—not because I have no self-love; maybe I have more self-love than anyone here. Maybe it is this very self-love that does not let me be offended.
I think, I reason in a way exactly the reverse of the usual way. He called me a fool. Must he necessarily be wise? He himself may be a fool or a lunatic. One cannot demand wisdom from a child. I cannot expect wisdom from him. His reasoning was foolish. Either someone has said something to him about me, or he has formed his own foolish opinion that I am a fool—so much the worse for him. I know that I am not a fool, so it does not offend me. If a fool has called me a fool, I am not affected inside.
But if in a given instance I was a fool and am called a fool, I am not hurt, because my task is not to be a fool; I assume this to be everyone's aim. So he reminds me, helps me to realize that I am a fool and acted foolishly. I shall think about it and perhaps not act foolishly next time.
So, in either case I am not hurt.

FWIW

A certain part of me felt sadness reading this quote. The part I bolded is very familiar to me. I realize now, that many years ago, I had discovered the reasoning that leads to achieving this state of non-identification in the midst of unreasonable criticism. I never knew what this state was called, though. Not knowing about the Work, I eventually lost this ability or simply gave up.
Thank you for that quote.
 
I view little "I's not as personality traits, but as arbitrary divisions of our consciousness (which in our "normal" state is paralyzed into passivity by being controlled by mechanical activity external to it - the "foreign installation" - that it has "given in" to by identification - believing that it is the activity in reality external to it, whose "image" in reality merely moves across its surface like a projection - it thus being piecewise contorted, bent out of shape, distended, going out in "thin threads" that participate in the mechanical activity, "sucked stuck" to it by their identification. the breaking of identification then results in these displaced "threads" of consciousness snapping back into the whole, restoring proportionally an amount of conscious awareness). (in an abstract way, I've near-literally "viewed" it like this. would be good to know if this indicates stepping close to baked noodleness and/or the idea is wrong, since it has long been a fundamental part of my way of thinking about this whole issue)

A good way, in my understanding, to describe its effect - what little "I"s become in effect - is "self-elements". That is, of our inner perception and functioning. (otherwise, a general example of a "self-element" in thinking would be to think that the sun revolves around us - the imagined relation of the sun to us being the self-element. as Ouspensky quotes from another book in Tertium Organum: "The worst about a self-element [in perception] is, that its presence is never dreamed of till it is got rid of.")

If for example you react emotionally to something, say become irritated at someone, there seem to be two major things present in the identification: A subjective "image" or "conception" of the object, and a self-element of inner perception, this being something far less "visible", the "point" from which the imagining of the irritating person being irritating is "seen" and experienced (though both these things can also be seen from "outside" the construct if examined with awareness, which is how they are discerned) and which includes a subjective "relation" (which may be subtle and non-obvious until discovered) between this "I" and the dreamed-up mental object.

In short, these "inner self-elements" seem to me to be little "I"s, and program activity revolving around them and their subjective "relation" to things.

If the mental object that the self-element "relates to" is "countered" or "refuted" in an attempt to dispel program activity, this seems merely to result in more program response, since the "self-element" itself is untouched and in fact seems to be strengthened by the focus directed in its direction.

But if the inner self-element is discerned and "countered" with awareness, it begins to crumble under the pressure and eventually "pops", and with it the program activity ceases.

Ideally, it would be best to have zero of these inner self-elements, since they reduce the amount of awareness available for conscious use (much like useless programs running on a computer use up CPU power - and also memory, also a side effect in the case of little "I"s; program activity seems to clutter working memory, leaving less for focused thinking, and so it seems to improve with Work - leaving less for important things) and distort and limit perception.

The result of "Thinking with a Hammer" seems to be a reduction in the number of inner "self-elements", meaning less subjective conceptions present in the mind in relation to the world. The habitual mental activity "wears thinner", in short. I don't think fusion is so much "I's banding together as "I"s literally being destroyed - culminating, at a point I have yet to reach, in the death of the "false personality".

OSIT.


EDIT2: And if I am being a confused twit, I would very much like to know!
EDIT3: Trimmed last paragraph for signal/noise ratio.
 
Csayeursost said:
The result of "Thinking with a Hammer" seems to be a reduction in the number of inner "self-elements", meaning less subjective conceptions present in the mind in relation to the world. The habitual mental activity "wears thinner", in short. I don't think fusion is so much "I's banding together as "I"s literally being destroyed - culminating, at a point I have yet to reach, in the death of the "false personality".

To my understanding, this is pretty much it. I think the key is the understanding that when a program is running, when one of the '987 little i's' is in control, we take it AS ourselves, we cannot tell the difference, it 'is' us, to our perception. Until we go through a bankruptcy, burn and begin to self-observe and recognize the flavor of certain programs/i's. I think this is the aspect that cannot be ignored - we take these things AS ourselves - until we have burned away enough of them to form a part of ourselves who can stand as an observer of the rest - the magnetic center, which grows with more heat and fusion/thinking with a hammer and destruction of the 'i's - until, ultimately, only that fused singular I is left. Of course, that is a huge simplification, but... fwiw.
 
Hi Csayeursost;

Allow me to paraphrase your essential points to see if I understand.


Csayeursost said:
I view little "I's not as personality traits, but as arbitrary divisions of our consciousness

I'm with you here.

Csayeursost said:
A good way, in my understanding, to describe its effect - what little "I"s become in effect - is "self-elements". That is, of our inner perception and functioning.

self-elements = elements of our inner perception and functioning.

Csayeursost said:
otherwise, a general example of a "self-element" in thinking would be to think that the sun revolves around us - the imagined relation of the sun to us being the self-element.

I'm unable to grok the meaning here. Maybe I just need to see it written another way.

Csayeursost said:
If for example you react emotionally to something, say become irritated at someone, there seem to be two major things present in the identification: A subjective "image" or "conception" of the object, and a self-element of inner perception, this being something far less "visible", the "point" from which the imagining of the irritating person being irritating is "seen" and experienced (though both these things can also be seen from "outside" the construct if examined with awareness, which is how they are discerned) and which includes a subjective "relation" (which may be subtle and non-obvious until discovered) between this "I" and the dreamed-up mental object.

Given an example of someone, say me, who is irritated at someone, the identification consists of an inner viewpoint, a mental analog model of the person I am irritated at and a relation between the two.


Csayeursost said:
If the mental object that the self-element "relates to" is "countered" or "refuted" in an attempt to dispel program activity, this seems merely to result in more program response, since the "self-element" itself is untouched and in fact seems to be strengthened by the focus directed in its direction.


If the mental analog model of the person I am irritated at is the focus of my efforts and attention, it will only lead to more programs because it's the 'inner viewpoint' that has to be dealt with.


Csayeursost said:
But if the inner self-element is discerned and "countered" with awareness, it begins to crumble under the pressure and eventually "pops", and with it the program activity ceases.

By 'awareness', I assume you mean the same as what I refer to when I say..."I see you, and I am aware that I see you?" - THAT awareness? If so, then you are saying to discern this inner viewpoint and that my awareness can be applied until the inner viewpoint eventually 'pops'.


Csayeursost said:
Ideally, it would be best to have zero of these inner self-elements, since they reduce the amount of awareness available for conscious use (much like useless programs running on a computer use up CPU power - and also memory, also a side effect in the case of little "I"s; program activity seems to clutter working memory, leaving less for focused thinking, and so it seems to improve with Work - leaving less for important things) and distort and limit perception.

Since all the 'inner viewpoints' are divisions of my consciousness, the less of these I have, the more consciousness I have available for the Work. Also, all these inner viewpoints distort and limit perception.


Csayeursost said:
The result of "Thinking with a Hammer" seems to be a reduction in the number of inner "self-elements", meaning less subjective conceptions present in the mind in relation to the world. The habitual mental activity "wears thinner", in short. I don't think fusion is so much "I's banding together as "I"s literally being destroyed - culminating, at a point I have yet to reach, in the death of the "false personality".

The process of "Thinking with a Hammer" destroys some of these inner viewpoints and due to having been connected by 'relation' to the analog models, the analog models, go as well.

Regarding this last paragraph, anart basically agrees and adds the key of understanding that WHEN the programs are running, our perception cannot tell the difference between the program and 'ourselves'.
In addition, the 'bankruptcy phase' can help us to burn away enough 'i's' so that what's left can stand as an observer of the rest.


So, if I'm understanding the way this information is being presented, I use the knowledge I am gaining from the four books I am studying (you know, the fundamental four) in order to identify what to look for in myself, but when it comes down to it, the I's cannot actually be burned away until they can be caught just before activating...or thereabouts. Otherwise, the only other way is basically dismantling some preemptively, through new, objective understandings of beliefs, sacred cows, etc.

I think I'll stop here. I'm too tired to think straight. Please, somebody, correct whatever I have got wrong. Thank you.
 
Hi Csayeursost, Anart,
The concept that I am having trouble with is the process of fusion destroying the I's. The analogies used by Gurdjieff (house full of servants without a master), Mouravieff (iron filings displaced randomly by external shocks) etc seem to indicate that the fusion process is more about bringing order to a chaotic system by stopping the internally uncontrolled independent actions/movements of the constituent elements. I can understand that after the process of fusion, the independent existence/action of the constituent elements (little I's) is no longer possible. In that sense the little I's are destroyed - but their properties are retained in the fused product (is "transformed" a better word to use here?). Using the orchestra analogy used in one of the C's sessions, can we look at the little I's before integration/fusion producing a cacophony due to their uncontrolled independent actions and after fusion, producing harmonious music under the direction of a conductor (magnetic center/master of the house) ? Getting rid of individual players seems to limit the richness of the music which could be generated if those players could be integrated appropriately.
Analogies are useful to understand complex processes but they may not tell the whole story. It is possible I am taking the analogies further than they can go. However in practical terms, most character traits have positive and negative roles - which role they are playing depends on the specific situation. Buddy mentioned an "impatient I" in his post above. Impatience can be useful in certain situations. If unreasonable demands are being made on the time, attention and resources from what is recognized as a parasitic entity, then impatience may be the appropriate response - osit. That is why I think destruction of such I's limits the available range of responses to a situation in practical terms. In this context, thinking with a hammer ( or active reasoning) helps us choose what the appropriate response to a given situation should be, instead of automatically running a program.
Csayeursost, what I understood from your post is that you relate the little I's (self elements) to subjective conception of reality. Hence less self-elements, less subjectivity. These subjective mental images that you talk about are formed due to (mostly traumatic) incidents in childhood. In such a situation, usually I's related to negative emotional center (anger, fear etc) are activated to protect the undeveloped psyche. Later on while doing work, the subjectivity due to engraved memory patterns (leading to the uncontrolled activation of some little I's) is reduced by gaining knowledge about the situation and the cause for mechanical response and subsequently by active reasoning (thinking with a hammer) which may use I's connected to the intellectual center to respond to the situation instead of I's related to the negative emotional center if that is appropriate.
Maybe I am being dense or obstinate about this - I am here to learn - so please feel free to correct the flaws in my thinking.

Thanks
 
Csayeursost said:
otherwise, a general example of a "self-element" in thinking would be to think that the sun revolves around us - the imagined relation of the sun to us being the self-element.

Buddy said:
I'm unable to grok the meaning here. Maybe I just need to see it written another way.

I think Csayeursost's analogy is very nice. Think about the mentality of a person who believes we are at the centre of the solar system. Their view is egocentric, and so, subjective.

The self element distorts the truth.
 
To facilitate our understanding of the human condition we could keep in mind that through Mouravieff and Gurdieff we have been presented with three models.

One uses the perspective of differentiation of the psyche as a result of the improper functioning of the centers, mirroring the non-colinearal influences under the general law. This necessitates an alignment with an influence outside the general law which can have a correcting effect on the usage of the centers. This model relies on the concepts of colinearity/non-colinearity, and thereby seems to imply that "fusion" means "integration" of the differentiated elements of self.

Another model focuses on the nature vs nurture theme. From day one a person's concept of self (personality) develops as a result of being part of a group whose influence can go against the grain of what the person has to begin with - his/her "essence." This model stresses that true knowledge is obtained only through the growth of essence, which is dependent on the destruction of the false personality. This model also emphasizes the need of an outside influence in the form of a teacher who is able to discern what is the false personality of the student.

The third model is a multidimensional view of a person's being. The higher centers are functioning perfectly and independently from the lower centers. The horror of the human condition is the result of the fact that all knowledge of self and environment is experienced through the lower centers which are functioning while being veiled form the higher. This model stresses the need for the union of the lower (illusionary "Is") with the higher (true "I")

Mixing concepts from any model may present difficulties at times. The question is whether there is a need to? The mind may not always need the linear trappings we often impose upon it.
 
If you think about the many "little *i*s as just programmed thought loops - buffers as Gurdjieff called them - then it is easy to understand that you just have to re-wire your brain.

I talked about this in the Wave when I discussed the fact that we have been made addicts inside our own skins. We tend to run these thoughtloops and programs because they fulfill a need or a perceived need, even if they are detrimental to us in the long run. Martha Stout talks about it in "Myth of Sanity" when she discusses dissociation. The many i problem is a problem of dissociation.

In "Life is Real," Gurdjieff exposed his realization of the problem quite clearly:

Gurdjieff said:
Namely, here on this small singular piece of the hard surface of our Earth the air of which, that is, our second food, originates and is transformed between the forces of paradise and hell, in me there had proceeded at the end of my first visit there, then also in an almost delirious condition, just that same self-reasoning concerning which, in my consciousness, on the evening of November 6th, as I have mentioned above, there flashed an idea which appeared to me then entirely absurd.
The first time, my friends brought me here in an unconscious condition, soon after I had been wounded by the second stray bullet.

At the beginning, near me were many friends among whom were also the five mentioned physicians. And when, after the return of consciousness, I began to improve, all of them gradually went away, and I remained there with only one Tibetan and one very young Kara-Kirghiz.

Living there, far from people of all sorts, attended by these two sympathetic people who treated me almost maternally, and all the time nourished by the above-mentioned "cleansing air," I, within six weeks, recovered so that I already wished and was able at any moment to leave this salutary place.

Everything was already gathered and packed and we awaited the coming of the young Kara-Kirghiz' father, with his three camels, in order to proceed on the journey.

As I had information that in one of the valleys of the mountain, then called "the peak of Alexander III," there were at that time several Russian officers, topographers of the Turkestan Topographical Administration, among whom was one of my very good friends, I intended first to go to them, and from there to join some large caravan and travel first to Andijan, then to the Transcaucasian region to see my relatives.

I was by that time, though not yet entirely, as it is said, "strong on my feet," and already feeling quite well.

It was night; the full moon was out. Thinking along paths of current associations, unnoticeably my thoughts passed again to the question which by this time had become finally transformed into the idee fixe of my inner world.

Continuing to think about this under the influence, from one side, of a distant hollow din formed from sounds of milliards of lives of all possible outer forms and, from the other side, of an awesome silence, in me gradually rose in relation to myself a critical faculty of unprecedented strength.

At the beginning there were recollected in me all my blunders in my former searches.

While from one side I constated my blunders and in general the imperfections of the methods previously applied by me, from the other side it became clear how I ought to have acted in this or that instance. I remember very well how my strength waned from these tense thoughts and, during this, some part of me time and again ordered me to get up quickly and rouse myself in order to stop such thoughts, but this I could not do, so strongly had I been involved in these same thoughts.

I don't know with what this would have ended if at the moment when instinctively I began to feel that I must lose consciousness, the three camels near me had not sat down.

At this I came to myself and got up.

By this time day was already dawning. Awake also were my young companions, who were already busying themselves with the usual preparations for morning life in the desert.

After talking with the old man, we decided to take advantage of the moonlight and set out in the evenings. Moreover, the camels could rest well during the day.

Instead of lying down to sleep awhile, I took with me a rifle and a traveling pail made of canvas, and went to a nearby spring of very cold water on the very edge of the desert.

Undressing, I began very slowly to pour this cold water over me.

After this, though I felt quite well mentally, physically I became so weak that after dressing I was compelled to lie down there near the spring.

And then, being so weak physically and very well refreshed mentally, there proceeded in me that same self-reasoning, the essence of which became impressed in my consciousness forever and concerning which, on the evening of November 6th, 1927, flashed the mentioned idea.

Due to its remoteness, I do not remember the exact words of that first self-reasoning so discordant with my usual general state.

But, having preserved in myself the, so to say, "taste" of it, I can recollect it exactly, though in different words. It consisted of the following:

Gurdjieff's idea said:
Judging by my fitness during the last few days, it seems I again have come to life and willy-nilly will have to drag on and drudge as before.

My God! Is it possible that I will have to experience again all that I lived through during periods of my fully collected active state, for the half-year before this last misfortune of mine?

Not only to experience feelings alternating, almost regularly, between remorse for the inner and outer manifestations of my ordinary waking state, and loneliness, disappointment, satiety, and the rest, but primarily to be everywhere haunted by the fear of "inner emptiness"?

What also have I not done, what resources have I not exhausted in my determination to reach a state where the functioning of my psyche in my usual waking state would flow in accordance with the previous instructions of my active consciousness, but all in vain!

In my past life, being forever merciless to my natural weaknesses, and almost all the time jealously keeping watch over myself, I could attain almost anything within the limits of man's possibilities, and in some fields attained even to such a degree of power as not one man, perhaps not even in any past epoch, had ever attained.

For instance, the development of the power of my thoughts had been brought to such a level that by only a few hours of self-preparation I could from a distance of tens of miles kill a yak; or, in twenty-four hours, could accumulate life forces of such compactness that I could in five minutes put to sleep an elephant.

At the same time, in spite of all my desires and endeavors, I could not succeed in "remembering myself in the process of my general common life with others so as to be able to manifest myself, not according to my nature but according to the previous instructions of my "collected consciousness."

I could not attain the state of "remembering myself even sufficiently to hinder the associations flowing in me automatically from certain undesirable hereditary factors of my nature.

As soon as the accumulation of energy which enabled me to be in an active state was exhausted, at once associations of both thoughts and feelings began to flow in the direction of objects diametrically opposite to the ideals of my consciousness.

When I found myself in a state of complete dissatisfaction with food and sex, the leading factor of these associations of mine appeared to be primarily vindictiveness and, in a state of full satisfaction, they proceeded on a theme of the forthcoming pleasure of a meal and sex or of the gratification of self-love, vanity, pride, jealousy and other passions.

I thought deeply myself and tried to find out from others about the reasons for such a terrible situation within my inner world, but could not clarify anything at all.

From one side it is clear that it is necessary to "remember myself" during the process of ordinary life also, and from the other side that there is a necessity for the presence of attentiveness which is able to merge, in case of contact, with others.

Though in my past life I had tried everything, even had worn reminding factors of all kinds on my person, nothing helped. Perhaps these did help a little, while I carried them on me, but if so it was only at the beginning, as soon as I stopped carrying them or got used to them, in a moment it was as if before.

There is no way out whatsoever. . . .

However, there is; there is one exit only—to have outside myself, so to say, a "never-sleeping-regulating-factor."
Namely, a factor which would remind me always, in my every common state, to "remember myself."

But what is this!!! Can it be really so??!! A new thought!!!

Why hitherto could there not have come to my head such a simple thought?

Did I have to suffer and despair so much in order only now to think of such a possibility? . . .

Why could I not, in this instance also, look to a "universal analogy"?

And here also is God!!! Again God! . . .

Only He is everywhere and with Him everything is connected.

I am a man, and as such I am, in contrast to all other outer forms of animal life, created by Him in His image!!!

For He is God and therefore I also have within myself all the possibilities and impossibilities that He has.

The difference between Him and my self? must lie only in scale.

For He is God of all the presences in the universe! It follows that I also have to be God of some kind, of presence on my scale.
He is God and I am God! Whatever possibilities He has in relation to the presences of the universe, such possibilities and impossibilities I should also have in relation to the world subordinate to me. He is God of all the world, and also of my outer world.

I am God also, although only of my inner world. He is God and I am God!

For all and in everything we have the same possibilities and impossibilities!

Whatever is possible or impossible in the sphere of His great world should be possible or impossible in the sphere of my small world.

This is as clear as that after the night must inevitably come the day.

But how could I have failed to notice such a startling analogy?

I had thought so much about world creation and world maintenance, and in general about God and His deeds; and also had discoursed with many others about all these matters; but never once had there come to my mind this simple thought.

Buffers are discussed in ISOTM also:

Gurdjieff in ISOTM said:
"You often think in a very naive way," he said.

"You already think you can do. To get rid of this conviction is more difficult than anything else for a man.

"You do not understand all the complexity of your organization and you do not realize that every effort, in addition to the results desired, even if it gives these, gives thousands of unexpected and often undesirable results, and the chief thing that you forget is that you are not beginning from the beginning with a nice clean, new machine.

"There stand behind you many years of a wrong and stupid life, of indulgence in every kind of weakness, of shutting your eyes to your own errors, of striving to avoid all unpleasant truths, of constant lying to yourselves, of self-justification, of blaming others, and so on, and so on. All this cannot help affecting the machine. The machine is dirty, in places it is rusty, and in some places artificial appliances have been formed, the necessity for which has been created by its own wrong way of working.

"These artificial appliances will now interfere very much with all your good intentions.

"They are called 'buffers.'

" 'Buffer' is a term which requires special explanation. We know what buffers on railway carriages are. They are the contrivances which lessen the shock when carriages or trucks strike one another. If there were no buffers the shock of one carriage against another would be very unpleasant and dangerous. Buffers soften the results of these shocks and render them unnoticeable and imperceptible.

"Exactly the same appliances are to be found within man. They are created, not by nature but by man himself, although involuntarily.

"The cause of their appearance is the existence in man of many contradictions; contradictions of opinions, feelings, sympathies, words, and actions.

"If a man throughout the whole of his life were to feel all the contradictions that are within him he could not live and act as calmly as he lives and acts now. He would have constant friction, constant unrest. We fail to see how contradictory and hostile the different I's of our personality are to one another.

"If a man were to feel all these contradictions he would feel what he really is. He would feel that he is mad. It is not pleasant to anyone to feel that he is mad. Moreover, a thought such as this deprives a man of self-confidence, weakens his energy, deprives him of 'self-respect.'

"Somehow or other he must master this thought or banish it. He must either destroy contradictions or cease to see and to feel them. A man cannot destroy contradictions. But if 'buffers' are created in him he can cease to feel them and he will not feel the impact from the clash of contradictory views, contradictory emotions, contradictory words.

"'Buffers' are created slowly and gradually. Very many 'buffers' are created artificially through 'education.' Others are created under the hypnotic influence of all surrounding life. A man is surrounded by people who live, speak, think, and feel by means of 'buffers.' Imitating them in their opinions, actions, and words, a man involuntarily creates similar 'buffers' in himself.

'Buffers' make a man's life more easy. It is very hard to live without 'buffers.' But they keep man from the possibility of inner development because 'buffers' are made to lessen shocks and it is only shocks that can lead a man out of the state in which he lives, that is, waken him. 'Buffers' lull a man to sleep, give him the agreeable and peaceful sensation that all will be well, that no contradictions exist and that he can sleep in peace. 'Buffers' are appliances by means of -which a man can always be in the right. 'Buffers' help a man not to feel his conscience.

Now, consider being faced with the truth about all your contradictions via a "mirror," either one that naturally arises in life, or such as we often set up in QFS or even, in very mild contexts, here on this forum. It is a very unpleasant situation. You are being told things about yourself that you do not like... you suddenly realize that other people do not perceive you the way you perceive yourself. Say, for example, you think you are witty and clever but suddenly you are being faced with the fact that other people do not perceive you as "witty and clever," but rather as mean and nasty and sarcastic and offensive. You never understood before why other people did not remain friends with you for very long, why people repeatedly betrayed you or abandoned you since, after all, you are such a witty and clever guy! But now you are hearing that other people do NOT perceive you this way. This *I* of yours that creates snappy comebacks and does droll commentary on everything and everybody as a way of making you feel good and right (because inside, you feel rather helpless and downtrodden), is NOT liked. It is hardly tolerated, and that is the real reason that so many of your friends throughout life have come and gone and begun to avoid you... because, quite simply, you have developed a very unpleasant personality and the thought loops that make it run are defensive, created in childhood, for survival, perhaps, and so on. Your "snappy comebacks", your "wittiness," your ability to make clever comments endlessly on everything and everybody are nothing more than buffers and un-likeable ones at that.

So, what happens? Do you deny the mirror? Do you think: "well, I'm just not appreciated" and go and hide behind another buffer?

Or do you sit there, feeling the heat and really begin to examine yourself, your life, your experiences? Do you count up how many times you have experienced bad results from your witty comments and snappy comebacks? Do you begin to try to look at yourself carefully, from the outside, from an "observing" perspective?

Some people have an almost infinite capacity to buffer themselves against such shocks as having to face the fact that there is something about they way they act in the world that is a big turn-off to other people. They get angry, they sulk, they feel self-pity, they reject the people who are trying to point out the facts to them.

However, if you REALLY LOOK IN THE MIRROR and allow yourself to feel the shock, and use that information for self-examination, and then resolve to constantly watch yourself for any similar actions or reactions and to attempt to nip them in the bud, to NOT make what you think are "witty remarks" or snappy comebacks, to instead think about the other person and how they might really feel, or to ask them how they really feel, then you are using the heat of that shock to eliminate all that is not the real YOU. Because, remember, you think you are a nice guy... you INTEND to be a nice guy. So, you have to remove all from your personality that is not REALLY a "nice guy."

This amounts to "disintegrating" the false self that is composed of buffers, automatic reactions that are programmed into your brain based on childhood experiences or role-models.

You may want to start reading the Wave from this chapter: http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/wave13f.htm for a review of some of the basic concepts.
 
T.C. said:
Think about the mentality of a person who believes we are at the centre of the solar system. Their view is egocentric, and so, subjective.

This was helpful, so thanks. Reminds me of history, when society had such difficulty changing from the ego-centric view of the solar system, to the helio-centric view. Everyone had to eventually give up their investments in the old view and the struggle to do this lasted quite a while.


Mountain Crown said:
To facilitate our understanding of the human condition we could keep in mind that through Mouravieff and Gurdieff we have been presented with three models.
...
Mixing concepts from any model may present difficulties at times.

This a difficulty us newbies can get into easily. Trying to grok mixed concepts without realizing we are mixing them. One symptom: "Dang, I thought understood, but now it's back to the books!"


Laura said:
If you think about the many "little *i*s as just programmed thought loops - buffers as Gurdjieff called them - then it is easy to understand that you just have to re-wire your brain.
...
You may want to start reading the Wave from this chapter: http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/wave13f.htm for a review of some of the basic concepts.

Mountain Crown stated somewhere that understanding is often facilitated with re-reading, and I agree. I think I'll spend some time in review to strengthen and clarify some things.
 

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom