Gurdjieff on Expressions of Sympathy/Condolences

[CrimsonEagle]

I think that's not being externally considerate. The externally considerate thing to do would be to answer "Doing well! How 'bout you?" To the formulaic "How are you?"

Also, I find when I respond that way it makes me think that I really am doing well, despite the fact that I might have been feeling blah, or worried about something.

I think it's best to respond to what people are really asking for, instead of reading their words literally.

I'm not doubting you here, just asking and returning back to the quoted section in the original post, if this is in fact the case, then why would G be so seemingly annoyed with people who are expressing their condolences?

 

[CrimsonEagle]

I think I will stop responding here, unless someone convinces me otherwise that this discussion, no matter how interesting I find it, is not a derailment of the original intent of the reason for the original post.

The important part here is exactly what Laura put in bold.

"It would be desirable for all, for God, for the deceased, for you, for me and even for the whole of humanity, if, at the death of any person, instead of the process of the expression of senseless words, the process of the real grasping of your own forthcoming death would take place in you.

This is not to say that the discussion was wrong or right, but that at least for myself, I was losing focus on what was truly important.

 

[Palinurus]

I think it's best to respond to what people are really asking for, instead of reading their words literally.

I beg to differ. In my experience most of these formulaic expressions --when uttered not completely routinely, as the specific situation would reveal-- are used by people in lack of something authentic to say and frequently in the (usually vain) hope of starting some meaningful interaction without knowing how to go about such a thing.

I think you overlooked the "as if" in my first sentence (which I did put in bold). I'm not advocating at all to mechanically take some one's words literally in all circumstances. On the contrary I would say. Nor would I opt for an automatic going with the flow as to not disturb some one's slumber. That way may be more comfortable in the short run but leaves many opportunities unused in advance, I think. It's only seemingly forthcoming in many (most?) cases per my view.

But I concede by all means that there are some intricacies around this 'policy' to navigate consciously and carefully.

My gentle provocation is used --when perceived as appropriate-- as some sort of a (distortion) mirror to open up an opportunity for some one else to get a real interaction going. Take it or leave it, all in good spirit and in a detached mode of operation. No strings attached and no self importance involved. That's all. OSIT.

 

[Mr. Premise]

So, Pailinurus, it seems that what you are saying is that you like to try to wake up people who might prefer to keep sleeping. Not trying to make a big deal of this or anything, but it doesn't seem externally considerate to me.

Gurdjieff on the other hand was mostly dealing with people who at least claimed they wanted to wake up. I think if you and I met or any two group members we would actually really want to know how the other was doing.

 

[Palinurus]

So, Pailinurus, it seems that what you are saying is that you like to try to wake up people who might prefer to keep sleeping. Not trying to make a big deal of this or anything, but it doesn't seem externally considerate to me.

You're right in so far as I tend at first instance to give almost everybody the benefit of the doubt as to whether they really are in deep slumber without recourse or only pretending to be because that's what is socially conditioned to be expected of everybody, especially of complete strangers.

I like to keep things open as long as possible until further notice to the contrary, and I try to signal in this little, inconspicuous way that people can talk with me in stead of to me only. Some times it works, some times it doesn't; there is no way of knowing beforehand without trying. At least that's what I have found out.

The externally considerate thing to do would be to answer "Doing well! How 'bout you?" To the formulaic "How are you?"

Also, I find when I respond that way it makes me think that I really am doing well, despite the fact that I might have been feeling blah, or worried about something.

It escapes me how this could work without self deception nor do I understand what would be the worth of this outcome. Could you elaborate, please?

 

[Mr. Premise]

So, Pailinurus, it seems that what you are saying is that you like to try to wake up people who might prefer to keep sleeping. Not trying to make a big deal of this or anything, but it doesn't seem externally considerate to me.

You're right in so far as I tend at first instance to give almost everybody the benefit of the doubt as to whether they really are in deep slumber without recourse or only pretending to be because that's what is socially conditioned to be expected of everybody, especially of complete strangers.

Well that explains the difference in our approaches. I assume people want to remain asleep unless they really, really indicate the opposite. And that's rare. Also, in American vernacular if someone wants you to answer honestly, they will usually say, "No, how are you really doing."

The externally considerate thing to do would be to answer "Doing well! How 'bout you?" To the formulaic "How are you?"

Also, I find when I respond that way it makes me think that I really am doing well, despite the fact that I might have been feeling blah, or worried about something.

It escapes me how this could work without self deception nor do I understand what would be the worth of this outcome. Could you elaborate, please?

It's because if I look at it objectively and without internally considering, I really am doing well. So being forces by convention to say I'm doing well makes me realize that I am and that any complaints I have are usually trivial or are complaints that arise from internal consideration. Like that quote in your signature about the present being a gift. How can I complain about being stick in traffic or having my sleep interrupted my my neighbor's dog or something.

Like, for example, I don't like to shop but clerks at stores are trained to ask, "How's you day going, Sir?" And I answer "Going well, how's yours?" For some reason that makes me think about the bigger picture, that my complaints are trivial. Bottom line, though, if something really bad was going on for me that day, the clerk doesn't want to know and I wouldn't really want to get into it.

 

[Palinurus]

Thanks for your extra explanations, Mr. Premise. They helped a lot.

I think there may be some cultural and social differences involved in this as well. Where I live (Amsterdam, The Netherlands) social interaction isn't all that rigorously ritualized as to not having some room to maneuver if you dare to create an opening for it, but one always has to tread carefully and consciously as I have already said before.

Staying with your example, when I answer on: "How you're doing?" with: "Well, that depends on how I look at it, you know: half full or half empty; but definitely half if you get my drift. Hope you do better than me?", then there would be some room for leniency on the part of my opposite fellow man. When they would state: "Yes, I'm fine; in fact couldn't do any better!" I then could riposte with: "Good for you and I'm glad for you too. In fact, it even makes my day a little bit brighter to hear that; so thanks for that!".

In this way I try to re-personalize an almost defunct and depersonalized social ritual with a little bit of a real life's spark as it were. You just have to be flexible enough to be able to improvise a little around the beaten and worn paths of those formulaic automatisms. It's no big deal, I think, but it definitely seems worthwhile enough to me to keep trying to inject tiny bits of freedom or small particles of breathing space into societal interactions when possible and appropriate.

 

[Buddy]

My gentle provocation is used --when perceived as appropriate-- as some sort of a (distortion) mirror to open up an opportunity for some one else to get a real interaction going. Take it or leave it, all in good spirit and in a detached mode of operation. No strings attached and no self importance involved. That's all. OSIT.

That's an interesting way of describing what, to me, just sounded like being friendly in an open way although it could also be internal considering. As a practice, it does seem safe in a limited way even in some places within robotized America.

In this way I try to re-personalize an almost defunct and depersonalized social ritual with a little bit of a real life's spark as it were. You just have to be flexible enough to be able to improvise a little around the beaten and worn paths of those formulaic automatisms.

Like an on-the-spot negotiation in the sense of having to feel your way through it based on the others responsiveness? I recommend also noticing whether their eyes dilate and to notice their body language for signs or a sense of being open to spontaneous, non-ritualized communication. Many people do seem to be amenable to this sort of interaction, at least temporarily.

It's no big deal, I think, but it definitely seems worthwhile enough to me to keep trying to inject tiny bits of freedom or small particles of breathing space into societal interactions when possible and appropriate.

I don't know how it could seem worthwhile and I wouldn't know how to evaluate any benefit to them, but I was reminded of the example when (was it Gurdjieff?) said (paraphrasing): if you ask a man if he is conscious, he will reply: "of course I'm conscious" and for the moment he will be until he identifies with the next thing that comes up and forgets that moment. So, maybe the next time he becomes conscious for a moment, he will also remember that moment of being conscious and will accrete some beneficial experiences for contrasting purposes? Consciousness accretion? Conscious creep? I don't know the rules for that game, so I rarely attempt it. :)

In situations where I and another person are bored or whatever, any kind of communication within reason seems to be welcomed by others, but when passing people on the street, in a store, etc, and at least in the U.S., I think, when people ask "how're you doing?" they're not so much interested in you at all as they are in not appearing rude.

It's kind of funny when I think about it. As kids, we are told not to point at people, it's rude. We're told not to stare (sustained looking) at people, it's rude. We're told not to say out loud that someone is really really fat, it's rude. We're told not to ask personal questions, it's rude. Eventually we get the message to show no interest in people, yet we're also taught not to ignore or refuse to acknowledge people because that's also rude. Poor kids.

 

[Palinurus]

<snip>

It's no big deal, I think, but it definitely seems worthwhile enough to me to keep trying to inject tiny bits of freedom or small particles of breathing space into societal interactions when possible and appropriate.

I don't know how it could seem worthwhile and I wouldn't know how to evaluate any benefit to them, but I was reminded of the example when (was it Gurdjieff?) said (paraphrasing): if you ask a man if he is conscious, he will reply: "of course I'm conscious" and for the moment he will be until he identifies with the next thing that comes up and forgets that moment. So, maybe the next time he becomes conscious for a moment, he will also remember that moment of being conscious and will accrete some beneficial experiences for contrasting purposes? Consciousness accretion? Conscious creep? I don't know the rules for that game, so I rarely attempt it. :)

In situations where I and another person are bored or whatever, any kind of communication within reason seems to be welcomed by others, but when passing people on the street, in a store, etc, and at least in the U.S., I think, when people ask "how're you doing?" they're not so much interested in you at all as they are in not appearing rude.

It's kind of funny when I think about it. As kids, we are told not to point at people, it's rude. We're told not to stare (sustained looking) at people, it's rude. We're told not to say out loud that someone is really really fat, it's rude. We're told not to ask personal questions, it's rude. Eventually we get the message to show no interest in people, yet we're also taught not to ignore or refuse to acknowledge people because that's also rude. Poor kids.

The worthwhile thing refers mainly to my recent reassessment of this practice (which started as stated very long ago) under the influence of the exchange with Mr. Premise in particular. I could stop doing this of course when I felt it would be dead wrong to continue but I didn't come to that conclusion as of yet.

Funny you went on to mention kids and the way in which they suffer a continuous curtail of their spontaneity while young. My behavior stems from exactly that: an attempt to reintroduce some (tiny) form of spontaneous interaction among adults with the aim to increase the awareness of the harness and straitjacket quality of societal ritualisms and to show in direct example that one could loosen up a bit without irreparable harm done like losing face or being rude.

Maybe it's just an old hippie relic I've grown accustomed to and still relish? ;)

 

[happyliza]

Quote from: Palinurus on December 15, 2013, 04:32:29 PM

In this way I try to re-personalize an almost defunct and depersonalized social ritual with a little bit of a real life's spark as it were. You just have to be flexible enough to be able to improvise a little around the beaten and worn paths of those formulaic automatisms.

I think what could be missing here is honest feeling, the true self?, the genuine heart to heart communication. After all, to get to the depths in people - make true honest communication is about how they are feeling? Depending on the situation - a chance encounter (someone in a hurry - most people are always in a hurry nowadays), a cafe where people have come to relax for a while, or grief. The situation is always different.

I think it would be inconsiderate to ask someone with acute grief how they are feeling - it is obvious and according to 'Redirect' only imprints the grief, trauma further on the brain. Though further along in time it is a genuinely caring thing to ask, and I personally appreciated this, though many people are too afraid to possibly open those floodgates, but people grieving do need to talk about their 'loss' and most appreciate being genuinely asked. Especially 'long after everyone has gone home'.

By asking about feelings you are genuinely trying to communicate - and 'everyone' has them to express (well some do not have empathy).
It is a genuine way of breaking the ice, though for some it may be a bit intrusive and they can say so, however very few people genuinely ask about peoples feelings yet this is our common denominator. Yes, there are other floodgates you may commonly open this way. That is that most people just love to talk about their ailments, problems etc BUT they are still opening up to you. This can eventually build on trust. Which can lead to the chance to really get to know someone by asking open ended questions and listening intently. (Self remembering and Observation).

Few people take the time or feel 'brave' enough to do this possibly through fear of rejection. Or it is not my 'business'. Are not our relationships so important - for learning even?

The 'formalities' are your chance encounter. An opportunity for learning service to others. Cities especially have become so anonymous - possibly intentionally! But they are also the best places to learn to interact and self remember on this planet. 100 years ago a farmer or shepherd would be lucky if they communicated with a few people a day. Today we have ample opportunities to meet people and interact. Is not that partly why we are in physicality? To me the 'social formalities' prevent socializing of a genuine kind. Did not hunter-gatherers have more 'time' on their hand to socialize and interact with each other?

Are we not all here for the same reasons to be STS or STO candidates? Does not our social conditioning purposely hinder such genuine contact? Rejection isn't about us necessarily when enquiring how someone is feeling, there can be many reasons, however I do not feel it should be a barrier. Many people can actually be glad you cared to ask, they may feel lonely or isolated or needed to talk - everyone has 'problems'. Isn't this networking after all? Is this not a chance to SHARE, including possibly introducing and discussing topics on some aspects of our work if the chance arises? (Without sounding like missionaries :)

Is this not a chance to listen and learn from/about others? (Though vigilance and awareness also applies here)

If someone is in a hurry I tend to say 'Hopefully we can catch up later' so that the door is left open.

I feel better about being genuine and to respect a person's 'excuses' - which they are free to give at any time, than to
conform to 'social norms'.

I don't wish to sound like the new agey 'be the change you wish to be in the world' here, but I do think some of it applies. I also have to admit that some of these ideas I have not put into practice yet, but will, because they have been sparked from reading this thread FWIW.

Gurdjieff did say that the 4th way was about living IN the world.

I may have this totally upsidedown so feedback is greatly appreciated

 

[obyvatel]

It is a genuine way of breaking the ice, though for some it may be a bit intrusive and they can say so, however very few people genuinely ask about peoples feelings yet this is our common denominator. Yes, there are other floodgates you may commonly open this way. That is that most people just love to talk about their ailments, problems etc BUT they are still opening up to you. This can eventually build on trust. Which can lead to the chance to really get to know someone by asking open ended questions and listening intently.

I came across this recently - suppose someone you know has been promoted at work or come into some good fortune. You say "congratulations" - then what do you say? Standard responses include

"I am happy for you"
" No one deserved it more than you"
"That is great news"
............

None of these responses are bad - but they all come from an assumption of what I would possibly think/feel if I were in the position of the other person - which is what empathy is basically about. Samuel Colbert of UCLA says however that there is a "right response" in this situation which is to ask

"what does it mean for you?"

There can be situations where a promotion at work may not be the happiest thing to happen to a person. It could mean more responsibilities, more hours at work etc - and all this may not be in keeping with the priorities of the person who has struck the "good fortune". So the open ended question that Colbert suggests is quite appropriate imo.

I think we could "empathize" too fast, too automatically at times - and taking a step back and asking open ended questions is a good way to understand where the other person is coming from. Then we are closer to practicing external consideration.

 

[HowToBe]

Like, for example, I don't like to shop but clerks at stores are trained to ask, "How's you day going, Sir?" And I answer "Going well, how's yours?" For some reason that makes me think about the bigger picture, that my complaints are trivial. Bottom line, though, if something really bad was going on for me that day, the clerk doesn't want to know and I wouldn't really want to get into it.

There are exceptions. ;) This discussion is interesting to me because I recently became a store clerk (my first job). It was simply the job that had an opening as I was searching. It seems to me that one of the main advantages of this position is that I meet people of all kinds and in all kinds of states constantly, so it seems a great opportunity for observing the self and others, self-remembering, practicing/learning external consideration and strategic enclosure, basically learning on a practical level how to interact with people. Much like what happyliza said about cities.

In school and after, I was usually somewhat of an outcast or withdrawn, so I've taken this job as an interesting challenge and opportunity to develop social skills I may not have had the chance to before, as well as learn about people and myself when the situation grants it.

I was trained just as you say. "Hello, how are you today, sir/mam." Or variations on this. To which the most common reply is, "Good./Pretty good. (How are you?)" Some say, "I can't complain." Some say their day is NOT going well, and I may ask about it if the circumstances seem right. Some reply with, "Old." with or without humor. Some say they are tired (that's a relatively common one, and often they say they just got off work). Some enthusiastically say they are doing "great!" or "very well, sir!" A few give a bit more of a "personalized" reply, which actually gives a little tidbit about their day, or maybe their thoughts on the weather, or really anything at all.

Anyway, the question of how to best behave in these exchanges is an important one for me. So far, I mostly try to keep to the conventions, but put out a little extra effort to connect if the opportunity arises. Making humor from my occasional mistakes, making a kind of neutral comment about something that happens or the weather. If someone is buying for a birthday I may make a comment like, "Looks like someone's having a party!" (One lady bought only graham crackers, marshmallows, and chocolate bars - s'mores ingredients - so I said, "I know where this is going!" and she grinned and said, "Yup!") When I check out children I try to treat them respectfully, using the terms "sir" or "miss", and avoid ways of talking or behaving that might suggest a "superior" attitude as children often deal with.

If they volunteer their name I try to remember it and use it if I see them again. Same with other details about them, although it's hard for me to remember faces sometimes when I've only met someone once. Self-remembering and paying specific attention to what their unique features are helps. This is all a challenge as the line is always moving.

So I guess I'm interested to hear if someone's day is going badly, if they're interested to tell it. As long as it doesn't hold up the line. ;)

It is a genuine way of breaking the ice, though for some it may be a bit intrusive and they can say so, however very few people genuinely ask about peoples feelings yet this is our common denominator. Yes, there are other floodgates you may commonly open this way. That is that most people just love to talk about their ailments, problems etc BUT they are still opening up to you. This can eventually build on trust. Which can lead to the chance to really get to know someone by asking open ended questions and listening intently.

I came across this recently - suppose someone you know has been promoted at work or come into some good fortune. You say "congratulations" - then what do you say? Standard responses include

"I am happy for you"
" No one deserved it more than you"
"That is great news"
............

None of these responses are bad - but they all come from an assumption of what I would possibly think/feel if I were in the position of the other person - which is what empathy is basically about. Samuel Colbert of UCLA says however that there is a "right response" in this situation which is to ask

"what does it mean for you?"

There can be situations where a promotion at work may not be the happiest thing to happen to a person. It could mean more responsibilities, more hours at work etc - and all this may not be in keeping with the priorities of the person who has struck the "good fortune". So the open ended question that Colbert suggests is quite appropriate imo.

I think we could "empathize" too fast, too automatically at times - and taking a step back and asking open ended questions is a good way to understand where the other person is coming from. Then we are closer to practicing external consideration.

That is very interesting. I've wondered about this: some conventional expressions like this make assumptions about the other person.

I'm not sure that empathy is about assumptions, though. Maybe to a certain degree, but there is an important aspect of information transfer - communication. It seems to me it is purely internal considering to assume the other would feel as you might about an event, and no information about the other is required to make this assumption. It is easy.

On the other hand, if you read the information present in how they convey the news to you, combined with the context of what you know about this person, THEN you may be able to empathize, but only if you have read the information correctly. So if you fail to mirror the actual feeling of the other, empathy has failed, and you may behave inconsiderately or mistakenly. At least this is my understanding. So to one person you might ask, "Are you worried?" because they slouched subtly when they said it or had a lack of enthusiasm to their voice, to another you might say, "Good news! I know you've been looking forward to this for a long time." because you know that it is a position they have been working toward ever since they joined the company. I suppose the assumption comes in when one decides that their interpretation is accurate and acts on it.

So maybe when empathy functions correctly you can say something appropriate to the situation, but asking "What does it mean to you?" allows for the fact that your "reading instrument" may have some error to it. If they then confirm what your feelings were telling you, then you can continue conversation along those lines if appropriate. OSIT.

 

[Thor]

...

"It would be desirable for all, for God, for the deceased, for you, for me and even for the whole of humanity, if, at the death of any person, instead of the process of the expression of senseless words, the process of the real grasping of your own forthcoming death would take place in you.

"Only the complete realization by man of the inevitability of his own death can destroy those factors, implanted thanks to our abnormal life, of the expression of different aspects of our egoism, this cause of all evil in our common life.

"Only such a realization can bring to birth again in man those formerly present, divine proofs of genuine impulses-faith, love and hope."

A couple of years ago my yogi suggested that I spend some time with dying people. He said that when we are face to face with death the subconscious can't avoid also reflecting on our own mortality and in the end all fear has its root in our own death an undoing.

So I signed up to be a Night Nurse (not sure if this is the correct term in English) and sit with dying people in their last hours. Now, it's hard to know exactly when people die so what it translates to is sitting with people in the last couple of days. On one occasion I was there when the patient died but on my other shifts I was just sitting there, holding the old person's hand or simply being present on four-hour shifts.

One thing that's interesting is the transition that happens shortly after you arrive. To begin with you enter the room and it's most likely a bit smelly. There's an old person lying in bed and the body is decaying and the person often looks ugly or even scary. However, after only 5-10 minutes these outer characteristics fade away and what comes to the fore is a human being in the one of the most vulnerable situations of an entire lifetime and to be able to be there and make them feel less alone is meeting a very basic human need.

The people I sit with have all been very old. They are at a state when they're just waiting for the mechanics of the body to stop functioning and to be released. They're not able to talk, although some will reply with a squeeze of the hand or looking me in the eyes from time to time. All of a sudden death goes from being something to be feared to actually being the release from pain or burden of remaining alive. They've had their time in life and now they're just waiting to let go.

The watch is four hours and then the next Night Nurse shows up. There's not a lot to do but just sit there, hold their hand or maybe read a little. Since reading the recommended literature on spirit release and attachments I've started praying that they will be able to go to the right place when it's their time.

However, the ego is still there and while it's embarrassing to admit it's quite common to have the the thought "I hope she dies on my shift". It's as if, in the reckoning of the ego, being the person on watch when the patient dies is a point scored and the goal is to get as many points as possible. And even worse, sometimes a thought pops up "maybe I should help her along and just press the pillow over her face". It's terrible when it happens, because I feel so embarrassed. Like, what I monster I am that I could have such a thought. I've discussed this with the other Night Nurses and almost everyone has had these thoughts and also the same reaction to them.

One way to look at it is that some of the little "i's" that make up the ego are really vicious and very strongly STS oriented. In this case the "little i" that suggests helping the person to die is so attracted to the "glory" of being the person who was sitting with the old person when he/she died that it justifies murder!

I've been on about 10 shifts so far and while I can't say that I've experienced any huge differences internally, it is definitely the case that death is slowly becoming demystified and I look at death as something increasingly natural as a part of life, rather than something to be feared.