Gurdjieff's Primitive Cosmology

[bjorb]

[quote author= Whitecoast]Personally I think it may be a little reductionistic to construe all limiting emotions as material and all non-limiting emotions as nonmaterial.[/quote]

I disagree, I think it sounds about right, that is if ''material/ physicality'' (desire based imbalance as C's might say) alludes to wanting to possess.

Take note that wanting to possess can take all kind of shapes. It’s not just simply about wanting to own stuff for the Self.

Perhaps you want to possess a certain lifestyle for the Self for example. And for this lifestyle you need people to behave around you in a certain way that glorifies your lifestyle. That celebrates the way you think life should be, in service of you.

Rather limiting and selfish I say. Not only for you, but also for the people around you.

Thing is I think that if you get out of this STS role-playing for example. A new world awaits, and you become more capable of seeing the World as it is and feeling responsible for it.

I reckon that at some point of progression when many if not all all personalities are stripped away, looking back at how you played out those STS roleplaying (personalties) will make you feel somewhat like a parent who forgot about his children. Unable to care or be there for them as you should have. (For the world/other people)


Perhaps this session offers some helpfull points:

[quote author= December 12, 1995 ]Q: (L) Okay. One of the sensations I have experienced is that I have had it up to the eyebrows with the negative energies and experiences of 3rd density, and I have thought lately that this feeling of having had enough, in an absolute sense, is one of the primary motivators for wanting to find one's way out of this trap we are in. I want out of it. Is this part of this "nature" as you call it?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) When a group of people...
A: When you see the futility of the limitations of 3rd density life, it means you are ready to graduate. Notice those who wallow in it.
Q: (L) Some people obviously wallow in extreme materiality. And there seems to be another kind that is more subtle, which has to do with saying that you want to grow and become enlightened, and yet such a person is unable to pierce the veil of their own illusions about how to become enlightened, and this illusion is the wallowing...
A: Wallowing takes many forms.
Q: (L) Among the things I have noticed is the type of person who says: "This is my LAST life! Swami So-and-so told me!" And they are wallowing in the enjoyment of the adulation they receive from their followers who believe that sort of thing can be known.
A: Sometimes, but avoid stereotyping, because sometimes they are correct!!!
Q: (L) Okay. I am not trying to stereotype.
A: More often, the sign is someone who does not feel alienated by the obvious traps and limitations of 3rd density.
Q: (L) Well, that says a lot. One of the questions on the list is: In many of the Sumerian drawings and literature, the gods, the Annunaki, are described as eating a plant that grew at the bottom of the ocean, and this plant was the source of eternal life.
A: Nonsense! The source of eternal life is existance!
Q: (L) Well, the point was that there was some sort of food that these beings ate that was unusual or different that somehow enhanced their abilities to an extreme degree...
A: Totally false and you should know it!! All so-called "special powers" come from non-physical sources!!! [/quote]


I’m glad we can criticize Gurdjieff somewhat now, some weeks ago it was doubted in another topic if Gurdjieff Objective Art was correct or not.

I never got his Objective art, sure you could say that there is objective art in a sense, if it helps a person in his/her lessons at that moment. But lessons are personal. You cannot say that one’s objective art fits all. Which means there exist no true objective art for all.

Well there are certainly art directions that portray more truth/objectivity than others. And post-modernism is certainly a downfall and carries a toxic influence. Still looking at post-modernism gave me a better sense of how creation/life should not be, while being horrified by it.

But that means, it still taught me a lesson. In this manner you could say that there was a certain objectivity about it at that particular moment, for me at least. But that depends on the person.


- I hope that I got this somewhat right.

 

[Phill4]

One of the most valuable things about the objective art topic, is the mechanicness surrounding the modern art.
I found myself agreeing to this idea that there is art that is objective, and art that is subjective, He didn't say wrong art or bad art, just subjective. Subject to the person's pshychology and other factors.

I mean, I understand the idea that alot of those artists reflect aspects of themselves on their art but call it something completely unrelated, there is a reason behind everything i think. Most artists get their "inspiration" not from contemplation of the universe or whatever, but from drugs, drugs do all the work they can't themselves achieve and many times is not even intelligible to them. It is not done in any awareness

My thought is that art in and of itself , can be call objective as long as it is done in awareness of what is being done. And it is still then subjective, since it is subject to our level of understanding and not universal rules throughout the universe,
Examples of objective art to me are: math and reiki symbols

I was often attracted to realist art and complex architecture and paintings etc, more than abstract figures, like John Lenon's album with the noises and stuff, i didn't get it.

When i used to draw, yes there are parts that evoked certain thoughts and emotions as i was tracing, but not everything i was feeling reflected simultaneously on paper, something like the speed of one center catching up with the speed of another.

That is what in my opinion many artists have off , or at least many i met reflect this patern of willing wishful thinking when elaborating their work.
If i am drawing a hand and as i am drawing it, i think of the struggle of people, and the next minute that i have to take out the trash, there is a system that keep us in the task at hand and reduces other forms of internal expression, or perhaps that is my take on art because of my constitution. That one center prevents the other from going on and on.
So i get the need for expression, but calling just anything intentional objective art would equal to calling everything art a la postmodernist "gray area" type of thing, in which case the deffinition is wrong .. no... ? or maybe my idea of art just applies to me, and i am judging other art from the logic that applies strictly to me, but i do see the point and the problem of limiting everything within a framework of definitions.

My two cents

 

[T.C.]

I found myself agreeing to this idea that there is art that is objective, and art that is subjective, He didn't say wrong art or bad art, just subjective. Subject to the person's pshychology and other factors.

For the record, what Gurdjieff meant by 'objective art' is a work of some kind that has a definite, intended and calculated effect on particular types of people (but not every single person).

For example, composing a piece of music that always makes a certain type of person cry - say, old men or people from a certain country, or people who are drunk; but the piece might only act on one of those groups, and you'd need a different piece of music for to produce the effect on the others.

 

[whitecoast]

[quote author= Whitecoast]Personally I think it may be a little reductionistic to construe all limiting emotions as material and all non-limiting emotions as nonmaterial.

I disagree, I think it sounds about right, that is if ''material/ physicality'' (desire based imbalance as C's might say) alludes to wanting to possess.[/quote]

The fact that something "sounds right" doesn't mean that it's true -- it just means you'll be less discerning about whether it actually stands up to the facts or not. Have you read Daniel Khanemans' "Thinking, Fast and Slow" or "You are not so Smart" by David McRaney?

Also, what you shared below this doesn't really support your disagreement in any way. Consider that if all things that limit emotions are of a material nature, then higher densities (being less material) would have less STS than lower densities. But instead the C's say that there is symmetry between STS and STO at each level, which means that STS (which requires its emotions be limited in some way as to cause imbalance) distributes independently of materiality.

 

[bjorb]

[quote author= whitecoast]The fact that something "sounds right" doesn't mean that it's true.[/quote]

Yeah, I can't be sure, it's just my understanding.

[quote author= whitecoast]it just means you'll be less discerning about whether it actually stands up to the facts or not.[/quote]

I can’t discern 100% because I’m not sure. Hence the reason I said, ''I think it sounds about right.'' or to put it differently, I think it is heading in the right direction.


[quote author= whitecoast]Have you read Daniel Khanemans' "Thinking, Fast and Slow" or "You are not so Smart" by David McRaney?[/quote]

Only the former.

[quote author= whitecoast]Also, what you shared below this doesn't really support your disagreement in any way. Consider that if all things that limit emotions are of a material nature, then higher densities (being less material) would have less STS than lower densities. But instead the C's say that there is symmetry between STS and STO at each level, which means that STS (which requires its emotions be limited in some way as to cause imbalance) distributes independently of materiality.[/quote]

Okay, well maybe we are talking about 2 different things then. Or we don’t understand each other well enough. Or perhaps I just don’t understand it.

I think graving physicality is what limits. From what I understand many of our limiting emotions are rooted in this. Hence the explanation I gave.

FWIW.

 

[Alada]

Also, there are higher paraphysical or nonphysical beings (4D and 5D STS) that are severely malevolent, so it seems obvious to me that limiting emotions do not have a physical nature by necessity.

That’s a really good point, thank you, I hadn’t thought about it in that way at all.

 

[Mike]

I ordered the books and look forward to reading "Gurdjieff and Hypnosis." What springs to mind from reading the thread is the difference in how G talked about a person having the possibility of growing a soul as compared to the information about souls provided by the C’s and other studies of reincarnation, etc. I think in the back of my mind I’ve always wondered about this difference. I guess I read into it that he was talking about a person bringing out their real ‘I’ and in that way would be connecting to or creating a connection to a 4D self. So seems, as others have mentioned, I have been filling in the blanks or overlooking these differences given G’s grasp of human psychology and accurate information.

Also, this discussion below makes me wonder what it was G really realized after his accident and subsequent closing of his school, given this information on his Cosmology.

Specifically, this exchange with the C’s:

(L) The question asked on the forum: If Gurdjieff was so advanced, how could it be that he was so inattentive that he got into a car accident?

A: He wasn't "so inattentive". He was aware. It was at the point he became fully cognizant of the forces which he had hitherto considered less capable than they actually were.

Q: (L) In other words, he knew more or less what kind of forces there were, but he miscalculated in assessing their capabilities. Is that it?

A: Yes

Q: (L) And after that, he made a lot of changes. I felt like there was something else to it.

I wonder how G saw the forces the C’s mention. I definitely took to this exchange to mean when reading the session that he was aware of 4D STS, but didn’t have a full understanding of them or their capabilities.

 

[genero81]

Also, this discussion below makes me wonder what it was G really realized after his accident and subsequent closing of his school, given this information on his Cosmology.

Specifically, this exchange with the C’s:

(L) The question asked on the forum: If Gurdjieff was so advanced, how could it be that he was so inattentive that he got into a car accident?

A: He wasn't "so inattentive". He was aware. It was at the point he became fully cognizant of the forces which he had hitherto considered less capable than they actually were.

Q: (L) In other words, he knew more or less what kind of forces there were, but he miscalculated in assessing their capabilities. Is that it?

A: Yes

Q: (L) And after that, he made a lot of changes. I felt like there was something else to it.

I wonder how G saw the forces the C’s mention. I definitely took to this exchange to mean when reading the session that he was aware of 4D STS, but didn’t have a full understanding of them or their capabilities.

That's a good point Bear, I forgot about that.

 

[Laura]

Well, ya'll get busy reading. When you hit a difficult spot, say so. We can discuss it and formulate questions for Cs and figure out what works and what doesn't after enough folks get on the same page so we have enough energy to brainstorm!

 

[SocietyoftheSpectacle]

I found myself agreeing to this idea that there is art that is objective, and art that is subjective, He didn't say wrong art or bad art, just subjective. Subject to the person's pshychology and other factors.

For the record, what Gurdjieff meant by 'objective art' is a work of some kind that has a definite, intended and calculated effect on particular types of people (but not every single person).

For example, composing a piece of music that always makes a certain type of person cry - say, old men or people from a certain country, or people who are drunk; but the piece might only act on one of those groups, and you'd need a different piece of music for to produce the effect on the others.

I think what Gurdjieff meant by Objective Art,
is art that contains esoteric ideas.

That talks to Higher emotional centres for example.

 

[Laura]

I found myself agreeing to this idea that there is art that is objective, and art that is subjective, He didn't say wrong art or bad art, just subjective. Subject to the person's pshychology and other factors.

For the record, what Gurdjieff meant by 'objective art' is a work of some kind that has a definite, intended and calculated effect on particular types of people (but not every single person).

For example, composing a piece of music that always makes a certain type of person cry - say, old men or people from a certain country, or people who are drunk; but the piece might only act on one of those groups, and you'd need a different piece of music for to produce the effect on the others.

I think what Gurdjieff meant by Objective Art,
is art that contains esoteric ideas.

That talks to Higher emotional centres for example.

The book "Gurdjieff and Hypnosis" will explain exactly what was meant by "objective art" along with a whole lot of other stuff.

I've finished and it sure was a roller coaster. The only thing I'll say at this point is that reading this book makes it even more evident how superior and consistent the Cs cosmology is as well as the suggestions for "work practices" we have undertaken. I'm also looking forward to asking some specific questions about different topics and ideas in this book.

I think everyone is going to be very pleased at the end. We are making much better progress than G groups.

 

[bjorb]

With the above in mind a thought that has been rolling around this morning is that a more 3d interpretation of love could be seen as being material. If we consider ‘the molecules of emotion’ (what the Cs may be referring to in part as "limiting emotions"), ‘love’ driven by chemicals in the body producing emotion and a kind of addiction to same. Not much there in terms of the realm of information and ideas. Not to say that that’s what G had in mind, just an interesting thought perhaps that if love is on a scale/spectrum that it can be either more material/physical or non-physical, has shifting definitions as it move between the two. Seems there’s work to be doing on paying close attention to what our assumptions are. It’s not a question we pose to ourselves too often I think. How can we factor that in to our thought processes?

Personally I think it may be a little reductionistic to construe all limiting emotions as material and all non-limiting emotions as nonmaterial... I mean as 3D beings we are a mixture so all the emotions we can express all need to be able to interface with our genetic body and energy body. Also, there are higher paraphysical or nonphysical beings (4D and 5D STS) that are severely malevolent, so it seems obvious to me that limiting emotions do not have a physical nature by necessity.

Yeah that is a good point, I missed the plot. STO supposedly consist of a more ethereal state, or light bodies. Since they don’t cling to materialism. So why are 4STS and other malevolent being also ethereal. Sorry, first time I read your comment I misunderstood the point you were trying to make. OSIT.


[quote author= Laura]The book "Gurdjieff and Hypnosis" will explain exactly what was meant by "objective art" along with a whole lot of other stuff.[/quote]

Ordered the book, 2 weeks delivery time though. Will order the other books likewise, hopefully those are more rapidly available. Thanks for the advice!

 

[gdpetti]

which would be archetypal, no? then, like everything else, it's a question of how clean your system is, how well you connect, etc.

 

[Turgon]

With the above in mind a thought that has been rolling around this morning is that a more 3d interpretation of love could be seen as being material. If we consider ‘the molecules of emotion’ (what the Cs may be referring to in part as "limiting emotions"), ‘love’ driven by chemicals in the body producing emotion and a kind of addiction to same. Not much there in terms of the realm of information and ideas. Not to say that that’s what G had in mind, just an interesting thought perhaps that if love is on a scale/spectrum that it can be either more material/physical or non-physical, has shifting definitions as it move between the two. Seems there’s work to be doing on paying close attention to what our assumptions are. It’s not a question we pose to ourselves too often I think. How can we factor that in to our thought processes?

Personally I think it may be a little reductionistic to construe all limiting emotions as material and all non-limiting emotions as nonmaterial... I mean as 3D beings we are a mixture so all the emotions we can express all need to be able to interface with our genetic body and energy body. Also, there are higher paraphysical or nonphysical beings (4D and 5D STS) that are severely malevolent, so it seems obvious to me that limiting emotions do not have a physical nature by necessity.

Yeah that is a good point, I missed the plot. STO supposedly consist of a more ethereal state, or light bodies. Since they don’t cling to materialism. So why are 4STS and other malevolent being also ethereal. Sorry, first time I read your comment I misunderstood the point you were trying to make. OSIT.

Bjorn,

I can see where you were both coming from. But I think you were describing what we are trying to do as far as spiritual development. But when it comes to 4D STS, I find it hard to fathom how you ascend to a more ethereal state of being while being consumed by negative emotions. Because things like greed, selfishness and hate are all limiting in so many ways.

 

[bjorb]

[quote author= Turgon]Bjorn,

I can see where you were both coming from. But I think you were describing what we are trying to do as far as spiritual development. But when it comes to 4D STS, I find it hard to fathom how you ascend to a more ethereal state of being while being consumed by negative emotions. Because things like greed, selfishness and hate are all limiting in so many ways. [/quote]

I don’t get that either. But I could have missed it somewhere in the sessions or in other material. To clarify in case it wasn’t clear, with ethereal I meant nonphysical beings.

I guess ''graduation'' for STS to the fourth level is possible for some need of balance in service of the school.