Gurdjieff On the Nature of Man

RflctnOfU said:
The Strawman said:
RflctnOfU said:
The Strawman said:
RflctnOfU said:
The Strawman said:
I don't yet have the level of knowledge of G's work being discussed here so please indulge me for a second. Reading this thread reminded me of a friend back in the eighties. She was reading one of G's books (and was a member of a G group in London) every spare moment she had. I had never heard of Gurdjieff and asked her what the book was about. She said it wasn't 'about' anything and that there was no linear journey or logic to it. One just had to read the words and changes would take place in the reader.

Thinking about that and reading these posts I come up with hidden (to the conscious mind) symbolism that is understood by the subconscious mind through linkage with the universal mind. Or some other non-conscious process of transformation?

Is this what RflctnOfU is referring to?

Or am I wide of the mark?

In a sense, yes. The 'symbolism' that transfers to the subconscious occurs as a result of the 'friction' of various associations created from struggle with the text (which includes reading it aloud).

Thanks for coming back to me, Kris. In terms of the friction of the 'various associations' you mention, are they the associations created in the individual through his/her life experiences and perceptions? If so how do the Truths, conveyed by archetypal symbols 'hidden' in Gs writings, arise from friction which must by definition be individualised? What mechanics or dynamics would be involved.

I may be barking up a non-existent tree here, but I am struggling with how the transmission of a universal truth to a person's subconscious mind can take place if it is dependent on, or results from, the friction of an individuals own associations, as the latter differ in everyone.
The associations referred to are created by reading/struggling with the book. Various fragments of the truths are scattered all over the text. After enough material is collected, things start to fall into place, although slowly at first. G said "All the keys are there, but they are nowhere near the doors"

Kris

This is very interesting. Thanks, Kris. At the risk of being tiresome, but taking into account that the associations, as you say, are created by the reading/struggle with the book (books? or one particular book?) I wonder how the reader's own acquired associations affect the reception of the symbolic meanings/truths. Or if they affect them at all.

I don't know if I am tying myself up in knots here, or if I am on the brink of a wider understanding. It certainly feels more like the latter.
It's always darkest before dawn, as the saying goes. In terms of realization, I think this is connected with the fifth stopinder. When I am speaking of associations created by struggling with the book (meetings and life is real are included to a certain extent, but IMO, the gristle on which to chew is BTs), associations from life certainly play a part, but the important thing is to acquire new material/associations.

An example of a created association by struggling with the text: I am unable to pronounce aloud 'Aliamizoornakalu', so I struggle with learning to pronounce this word (practice). By doing this, I create an association, based on experienced action, so I remember when I come across this word again. This process of learning to pronounce is consciously done, all centers are engaged in this activity, so it 'sticks'.

Does this make sense?

Kris

Yes it does. Thanks. But in the larger scheme of things the sense it makes doesn't necessarily present itself as helpful.

That quote that Laura posted:

"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.…"

It brings you to my mind. FWIW.
 
SeekinTruth said:
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.

Here's part of what he said, from ISOTM:

"The fourth way differs from the old and the new ways by the fact that it is never a permanent way. It has no definite forms and there are no institutions connected with it. It appears and disappears governed by some particular laws of its own.

"The fourth way is never without some work of a definite significance, is never without some undertaking around which and in connection with which it can alone exist. When this work is finished, that is to say, when the aim set before it has been accomplished, the fourth way disappears, that is, it disappears from the given place, disappears in its given form, continuing perhaps in another place in another form. Schools of the fourth way exist for the needs of the work which is being carried out in connection with the proposed undertaking. They never exist by themselves as schools for the purpose of education and instruction.

"Mechanical help cannot be required in any work of the fourth way. Only conscious work can be useful in all the undertakings of the fourth way. Mechanical man cannot give conscious work so that the first task of the people who begin such a work is to create conscious assistants.

"The work itself of schools of the fourth way can have very many forms and many meanings. In the midst of the ordinary conditions of life the only chance a man has of finding a 'way' is in the possibility of meeting with the beginning of work of this kind. But the chance of meeting with such work as well as the possibility of profiting by this chance depends upon many circumstances and conditions.

"The quicker a man grasps the aim of the work which is being executed, the quicker can he become useful to it and the more will he be able to get from it for himself.

"But no matter what the fundamental aim of the work is, the schools continue to exist only while this work is going on. When the work is done the schools close. The people who began the work leave the stage. Those who have learned from them what was possible to learn and have reached the possibility of continuing on the way independently begin in one form or another their own personal work.

"But it happens sometimes that when the school closes a number of people are left who were round about the work, who saw the outward aspect of it, and saw the whole of the work in this outward aspect.

"Having no doubts whatever of themselves or in the correctness of their conclusions and understanding they decide to continue the work. To continue this work they form new schools, teach people what they have themselves learned, and give them the same promises that they themselves received. All this naturally can only be outward imitation. But when we look back on history it is almost impossible for us to distinguish where the real ends and where the imitation begins. Strictly speaking almost everything we know about various kinds of occult, masonic, and alchemical schools refers to such imitation. We know practically nothing about real schools excepting the results of their work and even that only if we are able to distinguish the results of real work from counterfeits and imitations.

"But such pseudo-esoteric systems also play their part in the work and activities of esoteric circles. Namely, they are the intermediaries between humanity which is entirely immersed in the materialistic life and schools which are interested in the education of a certain number of people, as much for the purposes of their own existences as for the purposes of the work of a cosmic character which they may be carrying out. The very idea of esotericism, the idea of initiation, reaches people in most cases through pseudo-esoteric systems and schools; and if there were not these pseudo-esoteric schools the vast majority of humanity would have no possibility whatever of hearing and learning of the existence of anything greater than life because the truth in its pure form would be inaccessible for them. By reason of the many characteristics of man's being, particularly of the contemporary being, truth can only come to people in the form of a lie— only in this form are they able to accept it; only in this form are they able to digest and assimilate it. Truth undefiled would be, for them, indigestible food.

"Besides, a grain of truth in an unaltered form is sometimes found in pseudo­ esoteric movements, in church religions, in occult and theosophical schools. It may be preserved in their writings, their rituals, their traditions, their conceptions of the hierarchy, their dogmas, and their rules.
 
Perceval said:
RflctnOfU said:
You do The Work according to the C's. I do the Work according to G.

There is no difference. In fact, the C's expound more clearly on the work of G. That you can't see that suggests you don't understand G's work.

I agree.



"You do The Work according to the C's. I do the Work according to G."

That is sort of impossible IMO.
I don't think that you can really pinpoint "The Work" to anyone or anything not even to the Cassiopaeans or Gurdjieff.

It seems it is a natural path/concept of the universe which Gurdjieff as well as the C's are trying to teach/tell us about in order to understand and be in a better position to do it.

There is only "The Work" and "The Work " is described by a certain number of sources including Gurdijeff, the Cassiopaeans, Don Juan and others, from their point of view OSIT.

So there seems to be no way of doing "The Work" according to such and such a source and not the other, because if you really talk about "The Work" there is only one way to do it. You can't pinpoint a natural process to anyone in particular who is trying to describe it from his point of view. So if you think you can do "The Work" in another way then others there seeems to be a problem with understanding what it is really about.

Laura said:
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?!

I think the marked part might very well be true.

Gurdjieff indeed was a very smart guy and a colossus of a human being and I think it is not very far fetched to suggest that he might have planted certain things into his writings/teachings on purpose, to get overly intellectual types, who want to see a hidden meaning in everything, busy.

I guess what it comes down to is the bigger picture and Gurdjieff as a practical guy wanted to be understood by those ready for it and might diverted those who are searching for an easy way out, on purpose OSIT.

I sometimes think that he would be very amused about the way certain people interpret and use his teachings/writings.
Sort of "Got ya!" :evil:


Laura said:
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.

I don't think there is all that much usefulness in very intellectual/philosophical discussions in which it can be easy to drift into "la la land" and get lost in specifics, while missing the bigger picture.

No deep digging into words or phrases to search for a "hidden meaning which can only be understood by experiencing it yourself" is necessarily required for others to see that there might be things that we are missing, which can also be observed by an interaction itself, without even looking deeper into the specific subject the discussion itself is about.
 
Quote from: RflctnOfU on December 08, 2013, 08:10:51 PM

You do The Work according to the C's. I do the Work according to G.

Reminded me of what Ra said when asked about the Tarot (minor-astrological, major-archetypes or the m/b/s c interaction), they said to pick one and stick with it, really get to know the one that seems right to you, as 'all roads lead to Roma' and will get you where you want to go, just a question of how fast you want to get there and how quickly you are prepared to proceed.
 
CrimsonEagle said:
How can I explain to you the experience I have while eating this delicious fruit? It is an experience, is it not?

I think maybe you are missing the point that was being discussed. It wasn't so much about whether or not an experience such as eating a fruit can be conveyed accurately to another through words, but rather that there was anything important in G's book B's T's that could only be derived by reading it and gaining something 'subliminal' from the simple act of reading and trying to pronounce some of the words, and that that experience could not be conveyed through words, or any other medium, to another. Basically, I find it implausible that G would have done such a thing based on his way of teaching. Of course, as is often the case when such subjective experiences are claimed, it isn't possible to state categorically that RflctnOfU did NOT have this experience, but I was taking issue with his promotion of such an idea, since it tends to go nowhere, offering little or nothing to others, and can sometimes lead to a person using it to claim some kind of inside information that only THEY know... etc.

In short, it came across as an attempt to divert this thread in a subjective and, therefore not very useful (for others), direction, as Laura has mentioned.
 
This apparently contradicts G's statement that "consciousness cannot evolve unconsciously", which to my understanding is the basis of what he was trying to convey. G was all about working to be conscious - conscious Work on the self, conscious networking, conscious learning and researching, etc. Granted, we do things that work with our "unconscious" (say, EE for example), but the benefits are very pragmatic, and have a concrete, measurable and defined effect which achieves a specific purpose. And that purpose is easily defined and explainable in words.

But what Kris is talking about seems to not have scientific basis, and it is subjective at best - with no way to know what is happening, what benefit it has, how it works, whether there's anything happening at all, and whether anyone could ever utilize it or even reproduce it in the same way. Somehow in this case it seems that if you believe there is something indescribable and unconscious going on when you read BT, you can probably experience a placebo effect and feel something. Now, this is not to say that there cannot possibly be anything there at all, but it flies in the face of everything else G taught about how "self development" works and how to grow ourselves. And, placing whatever this is, even if it did exist, above the very concrete, applicable, and verifiably useful things he taught elsewhere, just doesn't make sense to me.

Edit: Laura has written before about "experience chasing", I'll see if I can find it. But the gist is that people chase "spiritual experiences", which this seems to fall under - some indescribable "sensation" and the imagined benefit of that sensation. It could be astral projection, or feeling god/oneness, or some other thing. But it doesn't seem to be helping anyone wake up and become aware of their machine or learn anything about this world that they happen to occupy.
 
Perceval said:
CrimsonEagle said:
How can I explain to you the experience I have while eating this delicious fruit? It is an experience, is it not?

I think maybe you are missing the point that was being discussed. It wasn't so much about whether or not an experience such as eating a fruit can be conveyed accurately to another through words, but rather that there was anything important in G's book B's T's that could only be derived by reading it and gaining something 'subliminal' from the simple act of reading and trying to pronounce some of the words, and that that experience could not be conveyed through words, or any other medium, to another. Basically, I find it implausible that G would have done such a thing based on his way of teaching. Of course, as is often the case when such subjective experiences are claimed, it isn't possible to state categorically that RflctnOfU did NOT have this experience, but I was taking issue with his promotion of such an idea, since it tends to go nowhere, offering little or nothing to others, and can sometimes lead to a person using it to claim some kind of inside information that only THEY know... etc.

In short, it came across as an attempt to divert this thread in a subjective and, therefore not very useful (for others), direction, as Laura has mentioned.

Hi Perceval.

You are correct. I missed the point by a wide margin. I realized this after Laura had posted. I had to go back and look over what was going on because I was not sure what she was (at least seemingly) annoyed about.

I do appreciate your coming back and clarifying. I was going to let it go in order to not clutter any more of the thread.
 
RflctnOfU said:
It's always darkest before dawn, as the saying goes. In terms of realization, I think this is connected with the fifth stopinder. When I am speaking of associations created by struggling with the book (meetings and life is real are included to a certain extent, but IMO, the gristle on which to chew is BTs), associations from life certainly play a part, but the important thing is to acquire new material/associations.

An example of a created association by struggling with the text: I am unable to pronounce aloud 'Aliamizoornakalu', so I struggle with learning to pronounce this word (practice). By doing this, I create an association, based on experienced action, so I remember when I come across this word again. This process of learning to pronounce is consciously done, all centers are engaged in this activity, so it 'sticks'.

Does this make sense?

Kris

I think your getting way too complicated about all this such as with the talk about "the fifth stopinder" and technical terms like that. IMO this is not really Work. It's just head knowledge that won't help you on a practical level where it counts. 'Working' for me is just sticking with the basic practical Work stuff and applying it.

Example. You go to work and you treat your coworkers in a certain way outwardly to keep your job. However, internally, you could be internally considering all over the place. So for me the Work begins in developing the proper attitudes inwardly. I must be respectful of my coworkers so that we could work together even though there might be conflicts at times. In my view 'The Work' is applying the basic principles of the Gurdjieff ideas in these situations so that I can work in harmony with my coworkers. If conflicts arise then I'll apply the basic work principles so that I can change my inner attitudes towards the situation in accordance with what is described in the book 'In Search of The Miraculous'. Then, possibly, the outer situation will change for the better also. Or, at least, my change of inner attitude (which is a CONSTANT effort when conflicts occur) can increase the probability of the situation turning for the better.

So maybe a CONSTANT reading of the ideas on psychology in the book In Search of the Miraculous instead of Beelzebub as well as studying the books on cognitive psychology might be a more practical way to go? To apply just a little of the basic principles in a real world situation, and to have your inner attitudes transform so as to be more in alignment with objective reality, even if they are only moments of change, can, IMO, mean a lot! The moments can and will add up and a breakthrough can occur even though in some difficult situations it can take years of effort, day by day, moment by moment for this to (unexpectedly) occur.
 
Hi, RflctnOFU:
You were writing about inner meanings in the work of gurdjieff, perhaps you can explain the parallels between the experience of Ouspensky in chapter 13 of ISOM, where one of his experiences is when he had moments of objective vision of life and could saw the dreams of the people. Moreover to another level in the tale "The Queen of snow" Kai, the mein character child, had the same vision about the dreams of people. Returning Ouspenski, seems had a tunning frequency with gurdjieff in a very deep level. I hope you can tell us something about it. Thanks.
 
"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."

"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."

I think the meaning here is: people are people, and we should not rail and cry if they do what is in their basic nature to do. We who aspire to function at a level higher than that (we who do "the Work") must understand and accept it for the reality that it is. You can view it as stepping round people's "programs," or you can take joy and pride in crafting your actions to an art form - become "impeccable" (whatever Castaneda meant by that). Because reality is harsh; people being people creates harsh situations and we get hurt. And if we don't have any sort of higher awareness/knowledge and we simply run with the hurt, that is a terrible place to be and extorts a terrible price upon our Being.

Laura said:
it seems that the fear is on the side of the accusers who cannot deal with fact-based reality and this is why they dive into de-Nile about nearly everything. They can't deal with the real world, with how things actually are, so they create wishful-thinking, delusional worlds where they are "so powerful" that nothing will every bother them. And of course, anybody pointing out to them that they really ought to take the facts and data into account and take some care are "fear based."

No matter what happened in your past, the present does not "care." Life's a stage; the present is a blank slate and whatever you etch upon it will be received by an audience that will react based on your actions in the here and now. No matter how wounded you are by the past, you have to understand this.

(Side note: I think a lot of the "lower emotions" have to do with the "harsh" dynamics of ordinary human interaction.)

Next: I think G means that a man with a "soul" is a man with principles. (A man "of principle")

See -
"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."

That is, the "third world." His "own world."

Next, G's "enemies with an unusual inner attitude toward him": he could be talking about disturbed/disordered individuals, or normal people reacting to him in a disturbed/disordered fashion because, well, they aren't doing "the Work" and we can't expect them to. But for G to say it is different than for, say, me to say it because G had to deal with fame and followers. (Is that correct?) Which may explain why he paints the transgression of his "enemies" in the following way:

There is not, so to speak, a single one of my sworn enemies who, in one or another of his ordinary states, would not be ready to "sell his soul for me."

See these quotes:

Ralph Waldo Emerson -
"It is easy in the world to live after the world's opinion; it is easy in solitude to live after our own; but the great man is he who in the midst of the crowd keeps with perfect sweetness the independence of solitude."

Abraham Maslow -
"Be independent of the good opinion of other people."

and this from Fear of the Abyss:
Pretend that you have a lot of money and are famous, and everyone goes out of their way to treat you well and ask your opinion because of this. Imagine that they don't really understand you or care, but are going by the superficial circumstances. Now imagine that you are the same person who has lost everything, and you are ignored, "invisible" to your old friends. Focus on your feelings and recognize that you are the same person.

G might have been talking about maintaining his "self" in spite of the world, which would be something like Castaneda's petty tyrant philosophy. After all, it can't be good to be so easily buoyed up or dragged down by the opinion of others - I think you'd want a clear head most of all.

And by the way, isn't this
The blending and fusion of the specific vibrations given off by different people take place mechanically, depending on their situation in relation to each other and on the conditions they are in.

somewhat reminiscent of this?
Physical love depends on type and polarity.

Which in turn recalls this
Conscious love evokes the same in response.

- as was said in The Wave:
... we are here to LEARN how to love ...


How can we learn the calculus of Love, if we cannot do the arithmetic of awareness?

All this is just my uninformed thoughts.
 
this is an interesting post laura made, not having read "life is real".

I was reminded of some parts from OLWG (our lives with gurdjieff).

this is part of the institute closing speech - written originally by Gurdjieff I believe
When I came back to myself, my first thought was, "Did I die or not? How will everything be now? And what about the Institute?' I saw that I was alive, and I decided to close the Institute for many reasons.
First of all, there are very few people who understand. I gave all my life for my Work, but the result from other people in general was not good and that is why I think it is not necessary for those few to sacrifice their lives here. And I don't wish to continue as I have done until now: All my life I gave up all my money to other people, but now I have decided to close the Institute. Forgive me. I wish now to live for myself and tell everyone that the Institute is closed.

these parts from Olga de Hartmann post 1924
However, we ourselves con- tinued to live at the Prieure. Tension increased more and more. But we could not really believe Mr Gurdjieff actually wished us to go, as we had followed him for so long, in spite ofevery kind of hardship. Finally, he made conditions impossible, and one day in June, after a very strained and difficult conversation, we could do nothing but go. I was very unhappy and upset, and Mr de Hart- mann, who was so much more sensitive and individualistic by nature, could not endure it and was on the verge of a nervous breakdown.
On our return from Berlin 1 went one evening to the Prieure. Mr Gurdjieff asked me to do something that I felt I could not do. I went to my room. Sometime later Mr Gurdjieff came and told me that if I would not do what he asked, something bad would happen to my husband, who was at home at the time. We had no telephone, so I could not communicate with him. Neither could I go back to Courbevoie, as there were no late trains. In any case, I would only alarm him by returnIng unexpectedly. I was utterly in despair, frantically weighing the yes and no ... In the midst of this struggle I suddenly remembered how Mr Gurdjieff so often said that we must have faith only in 'something higher' in ourselves. I felt deep within.me that if I could hoLd on to this and if I was afraid of nothing at aLL coming from outside - even from my teacher - nothing bad could happen. Perhaps my teacher was only testing me for the purpose of making me see something that I had forgotten. But in spite of this reasoning, in spite of the flash of understanding, I suffered terribly.
...
Then, quite unexpectedly, Mr Gurdjieff said, 'Organize your papers and come in a week's time with Thoma to the United States. I need you both there.' I told him at once, 'Georgivanch, I cannot. You know Thoma is not well.' Nevertheless, with a cold, icy tone, Mr Gurdjie{{ repeated, 'Come in a week's time or you will never see me again.' I told him, 'How can you ask of me such a thing? You know I cannot do it.' He repeated with the same tone of voice, 'Then you will never see me again.' Although I had the feeling that a thunderbolt had struck me, a voice in me said, and I repeated, 'Then . .. I will never see you again.'
 
Thanks for those excerpts, wetroof.

Yes, it is clear that Gurdjieff faced some hard realities and made some serious changes, and he was, no doubt, bitter and even hurt that he would give his whole life, all his efforts and energies, to try to boost people into really seeing the terror of the situation and DOing.

He knew all too well what people were like, but I think he placed some higher hopes in a few of them and even those let him down. But then, the demands he made on himself and on other people were sometimes impossible.

Also, I don't think that it was the right time for what he thought should happen to happen. I think that time is now and his work was preparatory. I think we can confirm that from the Signs of the Times - that the crossroads he expected is rapidly approaching.
 
The excerpt from Life is Real that started this discussion seem to be
pointing to psychopathy, and G. trying to explain to himself what it was about
if I got it right.

Since he thought that not many people benefited from the work
perhaps he decided to stop the work and push people away
because they would be unable to withstand the attack if the work
continued?

G. made some remarks about psychopathy and I guess most
of his students hadn't a clue about it.
 
Anthony said:
The excerpt from Life is Real that started this discussion seem to be
pointing to psychopathy, and G. trying to explain to himself what it was about
if I got it right.

Since he thought that not many people benefited from the work
perhaps he decided to stop the work and push people away
because they would be unable to withstand the attack if the work
continued?

G. made some remarks about psychopathy and I guess most
of his students hadn't a clue about it.

If G acted like that because the results from his work weren't what he hoped for, that might be seen as self-importance, which is kind of a let down. I mean, if that was the case he was trying to dictate to the Universe how to do its stuff. When it didn't oblige he threw his toys out the pram. FWIW I don't think that was the case. Unless of course he was suffering from a dementia-like disease, possibly effected by the PTB.

I lean more to the scenario in which he used emotional violence to force or trigger a reaction in those who needed it. For some people, and in some circumstances, that is the only thing that works. Desperate times need desperate measures, so to speak. Gurdjieff of all people would have known that.
 
My understanding is that Gurdjieff did a lot of things as experiments on human psychology geared towards the aim of helping people. What worked and what did not work provided him with data going forward. Few (if any) people really understood his aims at the time. People have seen (and perhaps still continue to see) what they wanted to see in his approach and thus project their own meaning on what caught their fancy. It is not easy to always make sense of his ways and teachings even at present - and it is perhaps impossible to do so without some first hand experience in trying to help other people - or walk in G's shoes to some extent. G was quoted by Patterson in "Struggle of the Magicians" as saying

You not know how to give. You only let others take. Let them take, you do no good: you lose and they get dependent. Not easy to give. Learn how to give, then you make other people free.


G was a practical man and given the effort he made to write BT, organizing readings, looking for reactions from people to the chapters being read aloud and then rewriting the text and repeating the process - it is fair to assume that he was trying to convey information that he deemed important. IMO what he presented as allegory and myth about history has been covered with far more rigorous detail and scientific data by Laura in "Secret History" and "Comets and the Horns of Moses." Certain psychological expositions in BT have become clearer with the advances in cognitive psychology. Ponerology is not something that is developed in G's works and the material from Lobaczewski and Altmeyer give a far better understanding on that topic. I consider the material on esotericism (interpreted as study of energies) in G's works as valuable given the amount of disinformation that exists in this field. While scientific investigation is progressing slowly in these areas, I tend to take G's material as a working hypothesis in this field.

All in all, a statement differentiating Work according to the C's and Work according to G is quite a misunderstanding .
 

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom