Gurdjieff On the Nature of Man

[Buddy]

Was how Buddy related it to Gurdjieff's cognitive/communicative field off the mark?

Just to offer a bit of clarification here in case it's needed, what is being described as "Gurdjieff's cognitive/communicative field" is what I'm positing as the cosmic equivalent of the same thing at any scale where a 'system' of any relative size can be distinguished - like at a local scale in our own organism.

In short, I suggest that G's cosmological vision is that the universe we know of is a massive (by our standards) living being (The Most Holy Sun Absolute) and of course that would necessitate communication lines everywhere and everywhen. And why not? The fundamental force coming from Source and the fundamental force rising to Source exist side by side, just like our (descending) catabolic and (ascending) anabolic processes exist side by side.

 

[Mal7]

True petty tyrants in principle are rare, compared to the common people who are simply mechanical.

I think of petty tyrants, maybe with the emphasis on "petty", as being a common everyday occurrence. If most people are asleep or mechanical in nature, then anyone of those people could fulfill the role of being a petty tyrant to someone who is working on waking up. I think it is both easy and desirable to find a few people in one's life whom one could think of as petty tyrants. If there aren't any, it could be a sign one has stopped paying attention to other people and what they do and say, and become an introvert or a hermit. I think petty tyrant is a relational concept, by which I mean you couldn't say something like "35% of the population have the intrinsic psychological make-up of being a petty tyrant", but rather one person might be a petty tyrant to someone who is trying to "awake", while at the same time in relation to most people, they are just an ordinary mechanical person going about their ordinary everyday affairs. In their role as a petty tyrant, they may be strengthened by "downloads" from the General Law.

 

[Mal7]

"Such is the nature of man, that for your first gift—he prostrates himself;
for your second—kisses your hand;
for the third—fawns;
for the fourth—just nods his head once;
for the fifth— becomes too familiar; for the sixth—insults you;
and for the seventh—sues you because he was not given enough."

Taken on its own, I think it is easy too misread the intended meaning of that quote as something like "Don't bother trying to help people, they will only be ungrateful. If you haven't realized that yet, just keep helping someone a few more times and you will soon come to the same conclusion."

"A man is not a pig to forget good, nor is he a cat to remember evil."

"The first refusal to a person who is devoid of conscience or consideration will destroy the results of even thousands of good deeds formerly manifested toward him by you."

"Only that person is worthy to be a follower of any religion who, although he remembers the wrong done to him by someone, will not manifest any evil toward him."

"You will be reasonable only then when you will learn to distinguish your future good or evil from that of your present."

In the context of the other quotes, I think the intended meaning would include something about continuing to act in a way that is good, without expecting gratitude or results.

 

[CrimsonEagle]

Ahhhh, but we don't have recourse to spoken word do we??

Let me ask you a question Perceval. Were you ever involved in music in juinior/high school or further?? Band? Orchestra? Did you acquire a proficiency on a musical instrument?? Do you think it likely that that skill set could be acquired by being told about it?

The dancing man looks the fool to those who cannot hear the music.

That's just more wiseacreing. In modern parlance it's called a 'straw man argument'. Of course a person cannot learn an instrument by being told how to do it, but what has that got to do with the point? A person who learns to play an instrument can teach another person how to learn it, by telling them what they need to do and that person can then practice and become as proficient as the first. You're talking about something that cannot be verified as being a shared knowledge between two people because it cannot be put into words. Two people who play an instrument can verify that they have learned the same skills, understood the same concepts, by playing in harmony together, in front of millions of witnesses sometimes.

Hello. I am sorry, It has been awhile. If I may, I would like to say something here.
It seems to me as if you are proving the point that you are arguing against.

(I had initially written here that an experience cannot be described accurately in words, that words cannot convey the actual experience. I have to change this because that would be stating an absolute and I recognize that in my current condition it would be foolish to do that. I will instead state that I cannot comprehend how an experience can be properly expressed and relayed with full understanding and agreement through words.)

There are however exercises that "can" lead to similar experiences. I stress the word "can" here because I have to reason that it also depends on the individual.

Using the pineapple analogy first, because I love pineapple. Man, it is one of the most delicious things I have ever eaten. The texture, the juiciness, the flavor. It is simply divine. At least to my mind.

How can I explain to you the experience I have while eating this delicious fruit? It is an experience, is it not?

Then, to complicate things even more. What if for instance, you had never had pineapple? You hear me talking in near ecstasy about this strange fruit you have never had and you think that you should try this fruit. You take a bite and think that it is one of the most horrid things you have ever tasted.

How this could be would be beyond my comprehension. You could try to explain it to me in words all you wanted, it simply would not compute.

Even in your example of two musicians. Yes, mechanically and theoretical concepts may be equally understood and they can play flawlessly together. Does this mean that they both have the same experience while up on that stage? What if one has a touch of stage fright, yet has learned to keep it under control, while the other one is fully in his element up on stage? At what point can we say that they both had the same experience?

I guess what I am asking is this. Is the pineapple the experience, or is experience something more? Same with the music? Is it the music that is the experience, or is there something more?

Please understand where I am coming from with this. It is not out of arrogance, nor thinking that I know something, or anything for that matter. I am coming from a state of pure ignorance and I am attempting to understand. I am not saying that you are wrong. I am saying that I can not see it. I do not understand.

I guess in the end, the real problem that I am having is that I cannot see words themselves as being the experience if that makes any sense.

If I am way off on this, please forgive me. In this essence I am new. A child if you will.
Crimson

 

[Menna]

How can I explain to you the experience I have while eating this delicious fruit? It is an experience, is it not?

Then, to complicate things even more. What if for instance, you had never had pineapple? You hear me talking in near ecstasy about this strange fruit you have never had and you think that you should try this fruit.

If someone has had a strawberry and said to you I don't like it its too sweet too much sugar then even though they have never had the experience of eating a pineapple from their own experience you can take from your experience of the (sweeter) pineapple and tell the person you won't like it. Even if two people go through the same experience is it really ever the same? People have difference beings two people can watch the same movie and have difference views. Also prior experiences can affect current experiences

At what point can we say that they both had the same experience?

we can't

Is it the music that is the experience, or is there something more?

There is alot more the music is the result. The expeirence IMO would be researching to find a good teacher, meeting interacting with the teacher, the learning process, exercising ones will to practice, dealing with wishful thinking/day dream/ negative introject, overcoming and learning from mistakes getting better little by little then maybe regressing and pushing forward until you are proficient. Learning about yourself.

It is important to note that in G's writing I believe he talked about digging a whole and then telling people to fill it in and dig again. The experience isn't the finished whole or filling it in it would be the act of digging and learning proper form, maybe through self remembering you discover a more efficient way to dig protecting your back and then working on self importance/negative emotions when being told to fill the whole back up. Learning about yourself.

I believe its important to note that if one has tried a strawberry and one has tried a pineapple even though they are a different fruits an experience isn't one thing its bits and pieces of a whole and through the different experiences two people can relate to one of the pieces.

 

[Mal7]

The nature of experience, whether one person's experience is like another's, and whether we can communicate an experience in words to another person are perennial philosophical questions about which whole libraries of arguments have probably been written. Thomas Nagel's 1974 essay "What it is like to be a bat" is one example.

For everyday purposes of communication, I think we assume that most of our experiences and knowledge can be formulated in language and communicated to another person. The language is not the same as the experience, but it is not mere gibberish either, or else what would be the point of reading text A rather than text B?

Skeptical arguments about how we can know or communicate anything have their place and value, but bringing them into a discussion about specific psychological phenomena seems to me a bit like asking "What is a number?" when trying to solve a mathematical problem like "What is 256 divided by 2?"

 

[CrimsonEagle]

Quick note:Mal7 posted sometime during my completion of writing this. I think the way I am looking at things is similar to what he wrote, though he was more simple and precise. Specifically within that first paragraph, What is it like to be a bat?

Second paragraph I agree with as long as someone has something to compare it to.

3rd, not sure if I'm following, but I am getting tired. If need be I will address it later.


If its ok, I will still post what I had written in case what I am writing is not what Mal7 is actually saying.

Have a good night everyone.

How can I explain to you the experience I have while eating this delicious fruit? It is an experience, is it not?

Then, to complicate things even more. What if for instance, you had never had pineapple? You hear me talking in near ecstasy about this strange fruit you have never had and you think that you should try this fruit.

If someone has had a strawberry and said to you I don't like it its too sweet too much sugar then even though they have never had the experience of eating a pineapple from their own experience you can take from your experience of the (sweeter) pineapple and tell the person you won't like it. Even if two people go through the same experience is it really ever the same? People have difference beings two people can watch the same movie and have difference views. Also prior experiences can affect current experiences

At what point can we say that they both had the same experience?

we can't

Is it the music that is the experience, or is there something more?

There is alot more the music is the result. The expeirence IMO would be researching to find a good teacher, meeting interacting with the teacher, the learning process, exercising ones will to practice, dealing with wishful thinking/day dream/ negative introject, overcoming and learning from mistakes getting better little by little then maybe regressing and pushing forward until you are proficient. Learning about yourself.

It is important to note that in G's writing I believe he talked about digging a whole and then telling people to fill it in and dig again. The experience isn't the finished whole or filling it in it would be the act of digging and learning proper form, maybe through self remembering you discover a more efficient way to dig protecting your back and then working on self importance/negative emotions when being told to fill the whole back up. Learning about yourself.

I believe its important to note that if one has tried a strawberry and one has tried a pineapple even though they are a different fruits an experience isn't one thing its bits and pieces of a whole and through the different experiences two people can relate to one of the pieces.

Hi Menna and thank you.

I do understand the ability to relate, but that would only be because I have already had, at the very least, a similar experience. What if I never had an experience that was similar though? How could someone explain it in words that would give the aha moment of understanding?

Isn't the actual experience the living of it, with everything involved? Yes, the bits and pieces as you said, and the flavors and textures, smells, not to mention how it makes us feel...how it affects us.

If its ok, to keep it simple, at the very least for myself, (I dont have the experience with music, I probably should not have gone there though I do think it could be related in the same way) for now I will stick with the pineapple.

As I stated, I love pineapple. It is by far my favorite fruit. Yet how would I describe the experience? From the most basic standpoint, I take the fruit, put it in my mouth and swallow. That is it. I for the life of me cannot say that that is the experience. That would be the work I put into it to reach the full potential of the experience. To understand as fully as I am able, just what it is to eat a pineapple. The thing is, even though I have experience this, I do not know how I would describe it. For myself I have nothing to compare it to. It is very distinct in its nature.

The work is a necessary part of the experience. The experience is the entirety. From the moment I decide to eat pineapple, through the cutting of its husk, cutting it up into chunk's, from the first bite to the last, with every aspect involved, is the "life" of this episode. This is the experience. Living it is the experience as far as I can tell.

Right now we are talking about pineapples, but what we are really talking about, (the Work) is so much deeper it is incredible.

Am I looking at the very term experience in the wrong way?

Crimson

 

[Approaching Infinity]

The way I see it is pretty simple, maybe too simple, so I'm open to criticism. There are experiences and the symbols we use to communicate those experiences. For example, I taste a strawberry. It tastes like strawberry. To someone who hasn't tasted a strawberry, I can't adequately describe it. However, I can give them a strawberry. Now they know what I'm talking about. Now, I've read plenty of 'mystical experiences' where a person says they have felt like they're in a timeless state, or are one with everything, or feel universal love, etc. They preface these experiences by saying words don't do them justice. I've never had such an experience. But if and when I do, their words will make sense, judging by the universality of the descriptions. Like the person who hasn't tasted the strawberry, I have the symbol, but no precise understanding of what it makes reference to. That doesn't mean the words are useless. ALL symbols are arbitrary to a degree. The question is: which experiences are truly important? And can they be described to a degree that they are able to be verified? I think so. And are all experiences truly necessary? I don't think so. I don't NEED to verify that a gunshot to the head will kill me. Perhaps I don't even need to have an experience of "all is one". What matters is what I learn, and how that affects me and my choices, and that I can share that with others.

G talked about this kind of stuff in his talks: the problems of exact language, the need for self-verification, etc. However, as other posters have mentioned, G's system is universal. He could've chosen any form in which to present his ideas, but he chose one (among others): Beelzebub's tales to his grandson. Kind of like describing a strawberry but calling it a sariphoonaren, perhaps. You don't need to follow G's specific system to have knowledge of the same experience. There are different words for the same things, and those know it will recognize it. So, yeah, it may not be possible to adequately describe the exact experience of reading BT, but what is learned CAN be put into words. Those who know, but from other experiences, will understand. If not, they can verify this information by following the same or parallel paths. Or falsify it using same.

 

[monotonic]

I have a suggestion, RflctnOfU.

Describe a situation that has given you trouble with the Work, where the indescribable stuff was part of how you worked out the solution. I am sure based on what you've wrote that you must have had plenty of experiences this way.

Starting there, fill in as many details as you can. Do your best to describe what's indescribable in a way that you think someone with a similar experience will be able to identify. You seem to think that others haven't had a similar experience, and it seems to me you just don't have enough information to conclude that. It could be that many of us understand, but just aren't responding in the way you expect.

 

[Laura]

I rely on my husband to inform me about B'sTs since he's read it several times in several languages. Now and then he has been struck by something that reminds him of the book and he'll read a passage to me and we'll talk about it. I've been asked to read difficult passages and explain them. I don't have any problems with that when I do. I just don't have any inclination to read the whole book from beginning to end nor do I think it is useful to suggest it to others because, for the most part, it is not practically useful.

As I repeat again and again: I'm a very practical person and I look for - and test - things that work, that really help people in their daily lives. I don't see a single useful thing coming out of this discussion since it was co-opted by RflctnOfU - just a series of wiseacreing and mental masturbation posts that don't help anyone. Gurdjieff was a very practical guy too and I have thought, a time or two, that Gurdjieff may have written B'sTs as a "curse" on those who could not even stay the course with his more practical methods. It's pretty clear from "Life is Real..." that there was some bitterness in him because most people couldn't even get the most basic things. What better revenge than to give such types a text of this kind to keep the majority of idiots busy for years?!

 

[caballero reyes]

« To explain what is meant by the vibrations that I have just been speaking about, I can at once take as an excellent example the causes of the fact that today, enemies with an unusual inner attitude toward me are multiplying in great numbers, and I am now in relationship with them on all sides».
--------------------------- ------------------------------- --------------------
This "enigmatic " paragraph and the following, I think are related to Chapter 13 of ISOM and the experiences in practice in Finland Ouspensky had in the middle of summer of 1916, and what he calls "The facts" and that scared him and angry. And also relate it to the story by Hans Christian Andersen "The Queen of Snow."
--------------------------- ------------------------------- ----------------------------

«The general psyche of every man on reaching maturity, which begins on an average in the male sex at twenty years and in the female sex at the beginning of the thirteenth year, consists of three totalities of functioning which have almost nothing in common with each other.
The course of action of all three of these independent totalities of functioning in the common presence of a man who has attained maturity takes place simultaneously and incessantly.
Since the work of Brown-Sequard and Metchnikov, this scientific idea has made great progress. The doctrine of the glands of inner secretion has been greatly developed. The latest findings in the field of hormones have brought much that is new. {I emphasize what appears to me to be of importance in relation to Gurdjieff's ideas.»

The quotes are from Laura.
---------------------------------- ------------------------------------- ----------------------------------
This is an excerpt from "The Queen of snow", one of the best stories I've read and recommend reading:

An evil troll ("called the devil")[1] makes a magic mirror that has the power to distort the appearance of things reflected in it. It fails to reflect all the good and beautiful aspects of people and things while it magnifies all the bad and ugly aspects so that they look even worse than they really are. The devil teaches a "devil school," and the devil and his pupils delight in taking the mirror throughout the world to distort everyone and everything. They enjoy how the mirror makes the loveliest landscapes look like "boiled spinach". They then want to carry the mirror into Heaven with the idea of making fools of the angels and God, but the higher they lift it, the more the mirror grins and shakes with delight. It shakes so much that it slips from their grasp and falls back to earth where it shatters into billions of pieces — some no larger than a grain of sand. These splinters are blown around and get into people's hearts and eyes, making their hearts frozen like blocks of ice and their eyes like the troll-mirror itself, only seeing the bad and ugly in people and things.

 

[SeekinTruth]

Another thing to keep in mind is that Gurdjieff emphasized the importance of group work. That no one can do anything on their own. There has to be a group of people sincerely committed to the same overall AIM and understand the gist of their situation in the overall scheme of things. His talks/lectures repeat these themes over and over.

He described the differences of the different "ways" and how the Fourth Way was different - not only in Working on all centers at once, and harmonizing/balancing their functioning (and each center doing what its natural function is) - but that there was NO permanent form or even permanent Fourth Way schools. Each had a specific form, for a specific purpose at a specific time. THAT was the essence of the Fourth Way. So knowing that there are specific "Cosmic Purposes" where a Fourth Way Work is being done at any given time and place, is the first distinguishing sign that it is an authentic Fourth Way Work. This doesn't actually "prove" that it's authentic, but it's a necessary, yet perhaps not sufficient measure. Gurdjieff's main concern seems to have been to pass this message down to the future generations, to drive home the message of how to Work in groups, ones that could actually grasp, formulate, and work toward the needs of that particular TIME.

Gurdjieff DID authorize the publishing of Ouspensky's In Search of the Miraculous - Fragments of an Unknown Teaching after reading the manuscript and commented on how good/accurate Ouspensky's account of the lectures/group Work was. So, again, Gurdjieff himself seems to have been mainly concerned with passing along for future generations the importance of getting the dynamics of Group Work right and the types of problems they would face. This means that he didn't think that his most important Teachings can't be conveyed in words, because he spent much time lecturing to the groups to lay the groundwork for Group exercises, etc., and actually thought these SHOULD be published.

The fact that no one can DO anything on their own was a central message throughout Gurdjieff's Teachings suggests that getting some major "revelation" from BT that cannot be shared/communicated to others is very far from his life's work and purpose. His ultimate hope seems to have been that in the future, among those who had been exposed to his ideas, there would develop "a conscious nucleus," as he put it, that can grasp the essence of what he was trying to do, and grow it beyond what he was able in his lifetime.

 

[Laura]

Another thing to keep in mind is that Gurdjieff emphasized the importance of group work. That no one can do anything on their own. There has to be a group of people sincerely committed to the same overall AIM and understand the gist of their situation in the overall scheme of things. His talks/lectures repeat these themes over and over.

He described the differences of the different "ways" and how the Fourth Way was different - not only in Working on all centers at once, and harmonizing/balancing their functioning (and each center doing what its natural function is) - but that there was NO permanent form or even permanent Fourth Way schools. Each had a specific form, for a specific purpose at a specific time. THAT was the essence of the Fourth Way. So knowing that there are specific "Cosmic Purposes" where a Fourth Way Work is being done at any given time and place, is the first distinguishing sign that it is an authentic Fourth Way Work. This doesn't actually "prove" that it's authentic, but it's a necessary, yet perhaps not sufficient measure. Gurdjieff's main concern seems to have been to pass this message down to the future generations, to drive home the message of how to Work in groups, ones that could actually grasp, formulate, and work toward the needs of that particular TIME.

Gurdjieff DID authorize the publishing of Ouspensky's In Search of the Miraculous - Fragments of an Unknown Teaching after reading the manuscript and commented on how good/accurate Ouspensky's account of the lectures/group Work was. So, again, Gurdjieff himself seems to have been mainly concerned with passing along for future generations the importance of getting the dynamics of Group Work right and the types of problems they would face. This means that he didn't think that his most important Teachings can't be conveyed in words, because he spent much time lecturing to the groups to lay the groundwork for Group exercises, etc., and actually thought these SHOULD be published.

The fact that no one can DO anything on their own was a central message throughout Gurdjieff's Teachings suggests that getting some major "revelation" from BT that cannot be shared/communicated to others is very far from his life's work and purpose. His ultimate hope seems to have been that in the future, among those who had been exposed to his ideas, there would develop "a conscious nucleus," as he put it, that can grasp the essence of what he was trying to do, and grow it beyond what he was able in his lifetime.

These are all excellent points and ones I have made numerous times in reference to Gurdjieff and his work. He was brilliant, no question about it, and a giant of a man and he did a great deal to prepare the ground. Ours has been a work of taking the seed and planting and watering... we may or may not see the harvest.

One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas"; still another, "I follow Christ." What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one. I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth. So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth.…

 

[Laura]

I should add that, getting stuck at Gurdjieff in any context is like mistaking the mile-marker for the destination. Gurdjieff didn't "go there" and anybody who wants to get further needs to understand that you start where he left off, you figure out what he did wrong, and you make course corrections. Otherwise, you are just there: at the signpost while others will continue to pass by you on their way to the goal.

 

[Menna]

if I never had an experience that was similar though? How could someone explain it in words that would give the aha moment of understanding?

Its important to question information and research and dig but it is also important to use common sense it is a slippery slope to be in a state of constantly questioning yourself because you might dismiss the obvious. I think you can answer this question yourself.