Gurdjieff's 5 Being Strivings

[Flow]

On the topic of discipline, there is this recent article on SOTT that may be relevant: Willpower: Our greatest strength?

Experts suggest that we need to think of self-control as a "muscle"; something we can train in order to increase our willpower. Not unlike an athlete, in order to strengthen willpower skills we can make a willpower workout part of a daily regimen for goals like losing weight, saving money, or getting out of debt. And not unlike an athlete in training, exerting the self-control muscle, while difficult in the early stages of the effort, will only grow easier with time and increased resolve.

Thank you, Bobo08. I read it and it is a great suggestion. Also I found some interesting articles on SOTT about self-control, I will read them.

Hi Flow,
This thread assumes some background knowledge in Gurdjieff's 4th Way Work. PD Ouspensky's. "In Search of the Miraculous" (ISOTM in short) is the recommended introduction to Gurdjieff's Work. If you haven't read it then I would suggest reading it if this topic interests you.

Last night I've started reading Ouspensky's ISOTM. It gave me also some a-ha moments and I couldn't stop reading it. Also I found many threads on Work connected with theme of discipline and I will read them.

You asked a sincere question, Flow. It is appropriate and valuable, for you and for others. Personally, I think this forum could use more sincere questions. People have them, but they refrain from asking due to some imaginary fears that may be covered up by different justifications and narratives.

I understand those fears, it is very hard to do. And it's much clearer to me now. I was always impressed by the people who can just say "do it" and who are doers and practical. They seemed to me like they can smoothly manage the things I'm not capable of. They do, and I just intellectualize and "philosophize".

And now it's like I can see it. There is no need to intellectualize topic of doing, I just need to practice it. I can compare it with different styles of learning or a Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences . It's always hard when you step-out from your comfort zone and try to learn thing in a different ways. It all seems abstract, like your brain's gonna explode, chaos, feel of incompetence, questioning where to start. So, right now it seems simple to me: take a small steps, small expectations, going from something known o something unknown. Have a faith that things will work-out somehow. Remember that I already succeed to manage some things. Sharing my experiences with others, asking them for help and listening for their experiences, tips and inspirations. In the beginning, there is always chaos, it's hard and you just can't imagine how something that seems so difficult would become less difficult. So, it is about balancing because it includes so many different concepts: patience and will, faith and memory, doing and observing, movement and patience, pleasant and unpleasant, emotions and logic, fun and seriousness, joy and suffering and so on.

So, I think for the beginning this is it. Oh, it's so great. Thanks!

 

[Flow]

Firstly you have to know why do you want to Work. Why do you think you must work, even be here on the forum. Doing things that you like must have brought you into the Work? What really makes you be curious about such a system that most of people are blind to its existence?

Hi, those are great questions. Why do I think I must work? This is something I will surely reflect on. Great. As I can remember, I've always wanted to know about myself more, why don't I function "normal", why do I have fears, struggles. This unpleasant feelings were first stimulus for my work. Secondly, I have a very good friend who helped me so much in my life. Not sure how to explain it, but her way of being and doing inspired me and showed me that life can be different. For me, she is a "living example" of things I read about here on forum and other and an example of the STO. So, the answer will be in this moment: I do believe in this. Why do I do this? It seems so natural to me. It is fun and interesting, although there are lot of problems and everything, but there is just that "something".

Unless you are not able to recognize your position in this world, you might not fully convinced that there should be a discipline. That's the hardest step. I am not even 10% aware of what is my position here, and what is really happening in the world.
Think like this: if someone would tell you that you are a slave and that there is a chance to escape, firstly you have to see it for yourself. Then you will be shocked to experience it, and then you will want to take the chance to escape.

Great example, thank you. I do have a (probably false) belief that I managed to understand that, but I agree with you, this is big topic and very hard to do.


Once again I want to thank everybody for the responses. It was very, very helpfull and I'm looking forward at learning/practising more about this.

 

[obyvatel]

If the process is unpleasant to you and you are able to actually go through with it, then you are practicing discipline. In my experience, there is a satisfaction that comes after I go through such a process, even though it was unpleasant to start with.

Hey Obyvatel, can I ask you if that satisfaction that comes later is something you can define, or recognize? I find that there are more types of satisfaction after being in an unpleasant process. There is satisfaction that just simply is pure, and there is satisfaction that stems from the fact that we think we can "Do". Sometimes there is no satisfaction. I just do something unpleasant and not even care about it.

To me satisfaction is an experience tied to the present moment. If I start thinking that I can Do, that is imagination - the thinking center is daydreaming driven by the feeling or moving center. So I guess what I meant is closer to your description of just pure satisfaction.

[quote author=edgitarra]

Even though it feels unpleasant , my body can take half an hour of sitting. If I go through with the sitting meditation in this situation, I go to sleep in a more satisfied and happy state.

When I go to sleep, my ankle hurts - so I am not happy - but I feel proud that I was able to do it despite the pain.

Can pride be helpful in the process? I am asking because G. put it somehow in a different way, saying that we should not expect any kind of results, and just do what has to be done.
[/quote]

I do not think pride is helpful for working on oneself. The usual result of pride is that we start looking down on others who are not doing what we are doing that makes us proud. Apart from obvious problems with external consideration, pride saps our energy fueling useless internal narratives.

In the specific example I gave, because my ankle hurts, the body is not happy. The feeling of "pride" may arise to justify the effort. If I do the same activity in a way that is not too harsh on the body , I simply experience satisfaction from keeping with the aim I had - that is to sit and meditate, which is in my control. I am not expecting results from the activity - simply keeping with the aim. Results are not in my control.

 

[obyvatel]

Gurdjieff wrote the following in Beelzebub's Tales

[quote author=BT]
Faith of consciousness is freedom
Faith of feeling is weakness
Faith of body is stupidity
[/quote]

In Beelzebub's Tales, faith, along with hope and love, are described as "genuine being impulses" . However all three have been degraded so much in humanity that they can no longer serve their original purpose of aiding man's development.


Came across this fable on faith by Robert Luis Stevenson.

_http://www.authorama.com/fables-16.html

[quote author=Robert Luis Stevenson]

IN the ancient days there went three men upon pilgrimage; one was a priest, and one was a virtuous person, and the third was an old rover with his axe.

As they went, the priest spoke about the grounds of faith.

“We find the proofs of our religion in the works of nature,” said he, and beat his breast.

“That is true,” said the virtuous person.

“The peacock has a scrannel voice,” said the priest, “as has been laid down always in our books. How cheering!” he cried, in a voice like one that wept. “How comforting!”

“I require no such proofs,” said the virtuous person.

“Then you have no reasonable faith,” said the priest.

“Great is the right, and shall prevail!” cried the virtuous person. “There is loyalty in my soul; be sure, there is loyalty in the mind of Odin.”

“These are but playings upon words,” returned the priest. “A sackful of such trash is nothing to the peacock.”

Just then they passed a country farm, where there was a peacock seated on a rail; and the bird opened its mouth and sang with the voice of a nightingale.

“Where are you now?” asked the virtuous person. “And yet this shakes not me! Great is the truth, and shall prevail!”

“The devil fly away with that peacock!” said the priest; and he was downcast for a mile or two.

But presently they came to a shrine, where a Fakeer performed miracles.

“Ah!” said the priest, “here are the true grounds of faith. The peacock was but an adminicle. This is the base of our religion.”

And he beat upon his breast, and groaned like one with colic.

“Now to me,” said the virtuous person, “all this is as little to the purpose as the peacock. I believe because I see the right is great and must prevail; and this Fakeer might carry on with his conjuring tricks till doomsday, and it would not play bluff upon a man like me.”

Now at this the Fakeer was so much incensed that his hand trembled; and, lo! in the midst of a miracle the cards fell from up his sleeve.

“Where are you now?” asked the virtuous person. “And yet it shakes not me!”

“The devil fly away with the Fakeer!” cried the priest. “I really do not see the good of going on with this pilgrimage.”

“Cheer up!” cried the virtuous person. “Great is the right, and shall prevail!”

“If you are quite sure it will prevail,” says the priest.

“I pledge my word for that,” said the virtuous person.

So the other began to go on again with a better heart.

At last one came running, and told them all was lost: that the powers of darkness had besieged the Heavenly Mansions, that Odin was to die, and evil triumph.

“I have been grossly deceived,” cried the virtuous person.

“All is lost now,” said the priest.

“I wonder if it is too late to make it up with the devil?” said the virtuous person.

“Oh, I hope not,” said the priest. “And at any rate we can but try. But what are you doing with your axe?” says he to the rover.

“I am off to die with Odin,” said the rover.
[/quote]

Thoughts?

 

[SneezinT]

Gurdjieff wrote the following in Beelzebub's Tales

[quote author=BT]
Faith of consciousness is freedom
Faith of feeling is weakness
Faith of body is stupidity

In Beelzebub's Tales, faith, along with hope and love, are described as "genuine being impulses" . However all three have been degraded so much in humanity that they can no longer serve their original purpose of aiding man's development.


Came across this fable on faith by Robert Luis Stevenson.

_http://www.authorama.com/fables-16.html

[quote author=Robert Luis Stevenson]

IN the ancient days there went three men upon pilgrimage; one was a priest, and one was a virtuous person, and the third was an old rover with his axe.

As they went, the priest spoke about the grounds of faith.

“We find the proofs of our religion in the works of nature,” said he, and beat his breast.

“That is true,” said the virtuous person.

“The peacock has a scrannel voice,” said the priest, “as has been laid down always in our books. How cheering!” he cried, in a voice like one that wept. “How comforting!”

“I require no such proofs,” said the virtuous person.

“Then you have no reasonable faith,” said the priest.

“Great is the right, and shall prevail!” cried the virtuous person. “There is loyalty in my soul; be sure, there is loyalty in the mind of Odin.”

“These are but playings upon words,” returned the priest. “A sackful of such trash is nothing to the peacock.”

Just then they passed a country farm, where there was a peacock seated on a rail; and the bird opened its mouth and sang with the voice of a nightingale.

“Where are you now?” asked the virtuous person. “And yet this shakes not me! Great is the truth, and shall prevail!”

“The devil fly away with that peacock!” said the priest; and he was downcast for a mile or two.

But presently they came to a shrine, where a Fakeer performed miracles.

“Ah!” said the priest, “here are the true grounds of faith. The peacock was but an adminicle. This is the base of our religion.”

And he beat upon his breast, and groaned like one with colic.

“Now to me,” said the virtuous person, “all this is as little to the purpose as the peacock. I believe because I see the right is great and must prevail; and this Fakeer might carry on with his conjuring tricks till doomsday, and it would not play bluff upon a man like me.”

Now at this the Fakeer was so much incensed that his hand trembled; and, lo! in the midst of a miracle the cards fell from up his sleeve.

“Where are you now?” asked the virtuous person. “And yet it shakes not me!”

“The devil fly away with the Fakeer!” cried the priest. “I really do not see the good of going on with this pilgrimage.”

“Cheer up!” cried the virtuous person. “Great is the right, and shall prevail!”

“If you are quite sure it will prevail,” says the priest.

“I pledge my word for that,” said the virtuous person.

So the other began to go on again with a better heart.

At last one came running, and told them all was lost: that the powers of darkness had besieged the Heavenly Mansions, that Odin was to die, and evil triumph.

“I have been grossly deceived,” cried the virtuous person.

“All is lost now,” said the priest.

“I wonder if it is too late to make it up with the devil?” said the virtuous person.

“Oh, I hope not,” said the priest. “And at any rate we can but try. But what are you doing with your axe?” says he to the rover.

“I am off to die with Odin,” said the rover.
[/quote]

Thoughts?

[/quote]

I was immediately reminded of James 2:17 "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone." (KJV). (According to wiki, Robert L Stevenson's parents were "devout and serious Presbyterians", and his nurse even more religious. I'm not saying there is a connection there, but I thought it was interesting.)

 

[truth seeker]

Thoughts?

Okay, I'll put myself out there and take a stab at it. :P

Faith of the body and feelings have no true foundation because one can be swayed by illusions which are rooted in fear. One is essentially at the whim of external forces and is a constant gamble one engages in, in order to serve the ego (sts).

Faith of consciousness speaks to not only seeing things as they are (which includes the self), but is based on the metabolization of knowledge in mind, spirit and body. This understanding serves a higher purpose than the ego (sto) and just guessing here, but is probably best met with a childlike spirit of curiosity and wonder.

In the fable, imo, it is the rover who remains unshaken and prevails regardless of the circumstances that lay before him. I suppose it could be said that he has moral courage - the willingness to face whatever happens regardless of what others think or what personal harm may come to him because that is Who he is. For him, whether he lives or dies is beside the point and is of little consequence. He is steadfast in his faith and I think that no matter what happens to him, he has chosen Life. It's the priest and the virtuous person that die a thousand deaths over the course of their "lives".

Any and all corrections welcome. :)

 

[SneezinT]

Faith is merely wishful thinking if it is not accompanied by fortitude.

You can't proclaim or think your way into anything of worth without working for it.

 

[obyvatel]

In the fable, can we distinguish if the rover had steadfast loyalty to Odin or if he had faith of consciousness in the Gurdjieffian sense or both?

 

[whitecoast]

In the fable, can we distinguish if the rover had steadfast loyalty to Odin or if he had faith of consciousness in the Gurdjieffian sense or both?

First off, thanks a ton for sharing the fable. It blew my mind. My understanding is thus:

The Priest represents the religion and faith of Man 1, 2, and 3. His social position involves teaching the religion of the sleepers, and so is well-paid and works in a Cathedral. He is is concerned entirely with superficial appearances, and interprets random occurrences as manifestations of the Higher. His faith is very self-serving and filled with subjective illusions. This leads to all the dissatisfaction, frustration, and disappointment he feels when nothing satisfies.

The Virtuous Man represents the religion and faith of Man 4 (or at least a candidate to be Man 4). Because he is virtuous he is an Obyvatel, or at the minimum level of development necessary for magnetic center formation (his conviction that the Good is great because it conquers All). He is self-sufficient and lives in a house, supporting his relatives and maintaining peaceful relations between his neighbors and rulers. He sees past the superficial, and can see the mechanicality of all fascination. He does not ask for signs and wonders like the Priest does, because he knows that, like Gurdjieff says in ISOTM, "many things are necessary before facts."

But he is not perfect, and still has things to learn. He brags of the superiority of The Work to the Priest, thereby violating the Priest's free will for his own self-importance and self-satisfaction. Because of this he still thinks in fundamentally self-serving terms. Misfortune arises from this, and he can correct this only by being melted down again from his incorrect foundations/crystallizations.

The Rover represents the religion and faith of Man 5+. Unlike the Priest's Cathedral and the Virtuous Man's house, he has no home. He accumulates treasures in Heaven instead of on Earth. Even though the Priest and Virtuous Man both are on a pilgrimage together, these are temporary states or fascinations (even the Priest contemplates quitting after learning of the Fakir's illusions). To the Rover, the pilgrimage or travel is part of his very identity. He carries his ax like a man going to war (this is very Don Juan-esque if you ask me-- see my signature). He is akin to Odysseus. He has escaped the Law of Accident, and is under the direct protection of the Gods: those who look after Strangers and who manifest as such to measure the hospitality of men and nations.

He is Man 5 because of his permanent I and unshakable pursuit of the Good for its very own sake. He has lost all the self-serving actions and emotions of the Virtuous Man. This is represented by his faith even in light of it meaning his death, and in his silence (which is external considering) when listening to the foolishness of the Priest and Virtuous Man.

A lot of layers to this onion....

 

[RflctnOfU]

Thoughts?

I don't have any thoughts in particular about the fable, other than it is cute, but I want to share a thought that occurred to me while reading the fable, after reading the section quoted from 'Faith, Hope, and Love' - regarding G's meaning of Being (thread being about the five 'being-obligonian-strivings' [obligation]). I think this term needs to be taken in the active sense...as in something that is DONE. Unification/agreement between all three centers. Connected with 'active-being-mentation', a nice little word formula. I think this is one way of interpreting the tale of the comet Kondoor colliding with the Earth in the chapter 'The Cause of the Genesis of the Moon'. All was well and the three centers were one, or connected. Then a calamity 'not forseen from above' happened and two parts broke off. Separation of the connection between the various centers - I have read this is interpreted by some as the onset of puberty. The fall, if you will, and with that came 'seeing everything upside down' (Kundabuffer). Also, Consciousness in the Gurdjeffian sense is a constantly active awareness of Being - all centers connected. Another aspect connected with Consciousness, and what that means, is cleverly concealed in the tale about Beelzebub entering the Hrhahartzaha with Goornahoor Harharkh in the chapter 'The Arch-Preposterous'.

Kris

 

[obyvatel]

Faith is merely wishful thinking if it is not accompanied by fortitude.

Gurdjieff described real faith as a fundamental and sacred being impulse. One of the attributes or measures of being is the ability to bear reality . Fortitude would come from the growth of being - osit.

[quote author=SneezinT]
You can't proclaim or think your way into anything of worth without working for it.
[/quote]
and
[quote author=truth seeker]
Faith of consciousness speaks to not only seeing things as they are (which includes the self), but is based on the metabolization of knowledge in mind, spirit and body.
[/quote]

and the concept of objective faith is tied to the third striving which is

[quote author=Gurdjieff]
to know ever more and more about the laws of world-creation and world-maintenance.
[/quote]

One of the themes running through Beelzebub's Tales is that even higher level beings - including the "Common Father Creator" - do not have all of creation under control. They take actions - but those actions have unintended consequences and create problems of significant magnitude. This view is in contrast with most of the mainstream religions of the day which take pains to drill the idea of a perfectly controlled universe where all that happens is for the good. It is only our human limitation that keeps us from seeing the "good" inherent in every situation - no matter how bad it seems to us.

In the fable, the virtuous man has faith in the virtues but there is this implicit belief that "good always prevails". In ISOTM, G made a comment in response to a question about conscious evil and forces of evolution and involution

[quote author=ISOTM]
The evolutionary process must proceed without interruption. Any stop causes a separation from the fundamental process. Such separate fragments of consciousnesses which have been stopped in their development can also unite and at any rate for a certain time can live by struggling against the evolutionary process. After all it merely makes the evolutionary process more interesting. Instead of struggling against mechanical forces there may, at certain moments, be a struggle against the intentional opposition of fairly powerful forces though they are not of course comparable with those which direct the evolutionary process. These opposing forces may sometimes even conquer.

The reason for this consists in the fact that the forces guiding evolution have a more limited choice of means; in other words, they can only make use of certain means and certain methods. The opposing forces are not limited in their choice of means and they are able to make use of every means, even those which only give rise to a temporary success, and in the final result they destroy both evolution and involution at the point in question.
[/quote]

So a hypothesis is that significant uncertainty or hazard likely pervades the entire universe. It is easy to verify from experience that on 3D planet earth, the "good and the just" do not prevail very often. If we keep aside the mental gymnastics and narratives that have been spun to explain away this obvious empirical fact, we find ready support for this hypothesis at the earth level. John Bennett, a student of Gurdjieff, considered the possibility that such "hazard" is built into the fabric of reality and is universally valid at different levels of creation. Bennett regards (creative) intelligence as the "power of adaptation to hazard". Beings at levels far higher than humans have far greater intelligence but are subjected to far greater hazards as well. He has also argued that virtues as well as objective faith, hope and love would have little meaning in a universe which is not subjected to hazard at every level. In this conception, the higher forces on the side of evolution (STO) deal with hazard in a way that expands the possibilities or potentialities (creative expansion) while forces on the side of involution (STS) deal with hazard in a way that restricts the possibilities or potentialities (contraction). All this is in line with the Cassiopaean cosmology.

In essence, it seems that hazard is not something to be feared and avoided at all costs. A lot of unnecessary suffering comes from ignorance or denial of the universality of hazard across the board from religious people as well as atheists. Religious people put their faith in an all-powerful good God who controls everything. Atheists put their faith in eternal and universal laws and labor under the hope that some day, with enough "progress" we will know and control everything. Both suffer at the hands of reality. If we are looking for assured rewards for good actions in this life or afterlife, or a calm and peaceful unchanging existence, or certainties or guarantees in our situations - we ignore or deny hazard and set ourselves up for unnecessary suffering.

It seems that objective faith can come through an acceptance and appreciation of the universality of hazard. Objective hope can come through the increase of possibilities and potentialities through the creative actions in the face of hazard.

 

[EmeraldHope]

In the fable, can we distinguish if the rover had steadfast loyalty to Odin or if he had faith of consciousness in the Gurdjieffian sense or both?

Perhaps loyalty to Odin and the Gurdjeffian sense are two side of the same coin? Is it possible that the Rover's view incorporates both and transcends? I am reminded of holons here - something that is simultaneously both a whole and a part.


It would seem to me the Priest is stuck at the consciousness stage of pure nature and myth.


The virtuous man has transcended pure nature and myth, but perhaps is stuck at the consciousness stage of enlightenment empiricism . Perhaps he has a far bigger span of knowledge and consciousness, but lacks the true depth required for interpretation. In some way or the other, he is perhaps still too " one sided". He may have "faith" in a greater good but cannot interpret it.


The rover however, has transcended pure nature, myth, empirical objectivity and pure reason, and has acquired depth to complement his wide span of knowledge. An inner subjective depth that complements the outer objective span.


The irony to me here in regards to hazard is that level one here ( nature), if included and transcended, would beyond a shadow of doubt have taught you that transformation is pretty hazardous and usually violent - blood, wailing ,and gnashing of teeth, so to speak- like birth and death.


Would it alter meaning considerably here if we were to exchange " Odin" for Socrates or Jesus? Caesar for that matter?


Here's a great Rover song you may like. I admire that old fool the rover.

Guaranteed- Pear Jam - Into the Wild


On bended knee is no way to be free
Lifting up an empty cup I ask silently
That all my destinations accept the one that's me
So I can breathe


Circles they grow and they swallow people whole
Half their lives they say goodnight to wives they'll never know
Got a mind full of questions and a teacher in my soul
And so it goes


Don't come closer or I'll have to go
Holding me like gravity are places that pull
If ever there was someone to keep me at home
It would be you.


Everyone I come across in cages they bought
They think of me and my wandering but I'm never what they thought
I've got my indignation but I'm pure in all my thoughts
I'm alive


Wind in my hair I feel part of everywhere
Underneath my being is a road that disappeared
Late at night I her the trees they're singing with the dead-
Overhead.


Leave it to me as I find a way to be
Consider me a satellite forever orbiting
I knew all the rules but the rules did not know me-
Guaranteed.

 

[SneezinT]

I keep thinking about this thread; specifically the discussion on faith.

Faith is merely wishful thinking if it is not accompanied by fortitude.

Gurdjieff described real faith as a fundamental and sacred being impulse. One of the attributes or measures of being is the ability to bear reality . Fortitude would come from the growth of being - osit.

The definition of faith in the esoteric glossary, belief vs. faith http://glossary.cassiopaea.com/glossary.php?id=52 helps make sense of this, I believe. ( Sorry.)

Belief is sometimes used as the opposite of 'faith.' Belief here means that one has firmly decided that the world is a certain way and holds fast to this view even in the face of evidence to the contrary. In essence, one is attempting to force one's model on the world. 'Faith' in this context implies an open and receptive attitude to the universe. Faith implies trust but does not imply an inflexible judgement on how things must be. Belief is in a sense controlling and scared of being wrong, while faith is adventurous and flexible.

In the fable, every character has beliefs. While I'm not certain that one can determine whether the Rover has faith, his actions do give the appearance of having faith.

At last one came running, and told them all was lost: that the powers of darkness had besieged the Heavenly Mansions, that Odin was to die, and evil triumph.

“I have been grossly deceived,” cried the virtuous person.

“All is lost now,” said the priest.

“I wonder if it is too late to make it up with the devil?” said the virtuous person.

“Oh, I hope not,” said the priest. “And at any rate we can but try. But what are you doing with your axe?” says he to the rover.

“I am off to die with Odin,” said the rover.

Of all the dialogue in the fable, the most steadfast and honorable character has only one line. Is that significant?

 

[obyvatel]

I keep thinking about this thread; specifically the discussion on faith.

Then it has served some useful purpose. :)


[quote author=SneezinT]
The definition of faith in the esoteric glossary, belief vs. faith http://glossary.cassiopaea.com/glossary.php?id=52 helps make sense of this, I believe. ( Sorry.)

Belief is sometimes used as the opposite of 'faith.' Belief here means that one has firmly decided that the world is a certain way and holds fast to this view even in the face of evidence to the contrary. In essence, one is attempting to force one's model on the world. 'Faith' in this context implies an open and receptive attitude to the universe. Faith implies trust but does not imply an inflexible judgement on how things must be. Belief is in a sense controlling and scared of being wrong, while faith is adventurous and flexible.

[/quote]


Indeed. Question is what is likely to help develop this open and receptive attitude to the universe? It seems to me that deepening our understanding of how the universe works (the laws of world creation and world maintenance in Gurdjieff's language) plays an important role in developing faith. If significant uncertainty or hazard is built into the very fabric of the universe and existence, then having "beliefs" about fixed inflexible outcomes go against reality.

In a more practical context, it is said that workmen have faith in their tools. This means that they have worked with their tools and developed a certain expertise in using the tools. They are also aware of the limitations of their tools, knowing what is possible to do with the tools. Faith here is directly related to the experience and understanding of the tools.

When it comes to the unknown, faith is put to test. To me it seems that the answer lies in facing the uncertainty of the unknown with as much intelligence (which is the capacity to deal with hazard) one can muster without banking on any particular outcome. This takes us to the domain of decision, action and free will. Free will makes sense only in the face of significant uncertainty. If an outcome is predetermined, how can there be "free" will?

[quote author=SneezinT]
In the fable, every character has beliefs. While I'm not certain that one can determine whether the Rover has faith, his actions do give the appearance of having faith.
[/quote]

I agree.

[quote author=SneezinT]
Of all the dialogue in the fable, the most steadfast and honorable character has only one line. Is that significant?
[/quote]

Maybe. I don't think we can draw any general conclusions about reticence and character though. Sometimes speaking more is useful, sometimes reticence is proper.

 

[Martina]

Thank you, this is exactly what I needed to read:

Ignoring the due payment, however unpleasant it may be, can perhaps result in staying stuck in the sense of development of being.

Our "individuality", which is to be paid for as well, is a result of conditioning. This conditioning is both environmental and genetic. Paying for one's environmental conditioning involves conscious suffering of the results of one's own programming as well as what is imposed from outside - like putting up with a job, pay off student loans etc.

I've graduated 2 weeks ago and I'm searching for a job. I've ran into a wall because of my selfishness and ignorance. That actually happened litterally as well and I have a big bump on my forehed. Universe has awesome sense of a humor:).