Hazard: The Risk of Realization by J.G. Bennett

[sitting]

So maybe Dubya Bush was right!!?

God help us! :)

 

[Joe]

In this theological scheme, God is the Creator of all possibilities in the unconditioned world. In that sense He would be omnipotent and not subject to hazard in this world of potentiality, the source of all universes, dimensions and densities. In the conditioned space-time worlds however, hazard enters the picture. There is no omnipotence in the conditioned worlds. God is perhaps an observer in all such conditioned worlds. Like AI mentioned, He creates the possibilities and then watches as an observer how the various possibilities are realized or not in the various universes. Thus His omnipotence is preserved in the transcendent unconditioned world while He is in an immanent observer state in the conditioned worlds.

I think the crux of the matter here is the idea of being "subject" to hazard. That carries a somewhat negative connotation. But if, as you say, one takes the position of an (objective as possible) observer of and sometime interactor with the forces of creation, then we are no longer "subject" to a process but rather a participant in it. Hazard seems to be just another word for creation, and to be truly creative, the force of creation must, by definition, be unrestricted in the scope of its creativity.

 

[SeekinTruth]

Thanks for the further posts and elaborations, obyvatel. And I agree that Bennett expands on G's cosmology in Beelzebub's Tales and makes things easier to understand (I think Beelzebub is written to a certain extent like alchemical texts, you have to figure out also what is to be taken literally and what metaphorically, and it has many layers of meaning).

I think the issue of omnipotence and omniscience is closely related to hazard and free will. I agree that there are two aspects to "God"/creation - potentiality and realization/actualization where hazard comes in. "God"/Creator is perfect, omnipotent, and omniscient (and all-good) as the non-manifest potentiality aspect, but as the manifest, there is already a "limitation" on these attributes of the Creator, and there are no guarantees of success, or perfection, in creation. That's where I think hazard comes in - it's inherent that choice / free will / creation has to include the possibility of failure or things going "wrong."

 

[beherenow]

Thank you all for reviving this thread...I somehow missed it in the past years of scouring this wonderful forum....more stuff for the reading list.

I am, at the moment, finding it hard to isolate all the quotes that congealed the idea, but what is being discussed here seems very close to something that's become more conscience recently.

This quote is most relevant..

Quote from: obyvatel on Today at 11:47:31 AM

In this theological scheme, God is the Creator of all possibilities in the unconditioned world. In that sense He would be omnipotent and not subject to hazard in this world of potentiality, the source of all universes, dimensions and densities. In the conditioned space-time worlds however, hazard enters the picture. There is no omnipotence in the conditioned worlds. God is perhaps an observer in all such conditioned worlds. Like AI mentioned, He creates the possibilities and then watches as an observer how the various possibilities are realized or not in the various universes. Thus His omnipotence is preserved in the transcendent unconditioned world while He is in an immanent observer state in the conditioned worlds.

Here is my "simpleton version" that says, like above, why not both omnipotence AND immanent observer/participant? ( Please note that I try to "simplify" for clarity..."to know it in a way that would allow you to explain it to a six year old"...though I am aware I could be "dumbing it down", as complex ideas are not always reducible. PLEASE correct me if I'm off track.

1. If God's desire is to experience the all and everything, from absolute knowledge to primal matter and back again, coupled with the ability to create worlds/universes, then...
2. ...would not s/he create a multi-verse in which absolutely everything, including hazard(non-omnipotence), could be experienced?

Maybe in this line from the above quote.." He creates the possibilities and then watches as an observer how the various possibilities are realized or not in the various universes." should be modified to.."He creates the possibilities and then experiences as a participant how the various possibilities are realized or not in the various universes."...

...in other words, in her/his omnipotence s/he created a field to allow for everything, which, of course, would include the experience of non-omnipotence.

does this make sense?....( I feel like i just threw a wrench in my own machine...along with a good dose of guilt for the hubris of even thinking for one second that I could understand "the mind of God"...the very thing I hold others in contempt for doing...)

Thanks, Dave

 

[obyvatel]

Some more excerpts from the book, more pertinent to our current level of reality. I guess I got carried away last time in philosophical speculation about how hazard may indeed be applicable to higher levels of reality, which at the end of the day may not have been really useful from a practical perspective. The following is applicable to the current general global situation.

[quote author=Hazard]
This kind of situation of universal hazard, or hazard over great areas, does occur and recur in human history, and they are only from one side periods of disaster and devastation - on another side, they are periods of extraordinary opportunity. I think I first began to understand this from the writings of Gurdjieff. He introduced in his book, All and Everything , the term solioonensius, which is really a name for what I am talking about: a condition when there is a high concentration of hazard and the same kind of hazard for great numbers of people.

In ordinary times, there are hazards everywhere, but of different kinds, and they more or less cancel out one another's effects, but at these historical moments, in times of solioonensius , the hazard becomes, as it were, polarized. Everyone begins to find himself in this situation of danger and questioning. Ouspensky, in one of his books, records saying to Gurdjieff at the height of the Russian Revolution that the situation seemed to him extraordinarily unfavorable for the Work because it was a situation where you could not be sure, almost from day to day, whether you would be alive or whether you would have any means of doing anything. Gurdjieff replied that it is not like that; on the contrary, it is such situations that are the best opportunities, providing you know how to take them and how to enter into them.

Undoubtedly, we who are in the world at the present time are in such a situation of tension and danger; it is felt everywhere. Some people try in one of the ways I have been talking about to avoid looking at this; some people just hope for the best and think this is a passing phase with which man is perfectly capable of coping and that we shall come out of it into a society that is stable and reliable for an indefinite period into the future. This corresponds to the optimistic attitude toward an enterprise or undertaking. Others take an equally foolish pessimistic view, thinking that we are bound to come to disaster. Others, again, take a realistic view, or would be realistic view, and carefully think out how they are going to save their own skin when trouble comes: they prepare themselves to get into some sort of safe situation or they produce some excellent theory by which they will be able to regulate the situation as it grows more acute. Of course, there are still others, the opportunists, who consider it quite an achievement if today's trouble has been dealt with and think it is foolish and unnecessary to look ten, twenty, or thirty years ahead.

None of these attitudes, however, truly corresponds to the reality of the situation. All of them miss the opportunity that is inherent in it because certainly at such times— and this is true whenever there is a concentration of hazard— there is also a concentration of opportunities, a concentration of forces that are able to work within individuals and within societies. The greater the hazard, the greater the opportunity, provided— and this is essential— that one knows how to face a situation.

Hazard alone is not an opportunity any more than in the backgammon game I was talking about in the beginning. Just throwing dice by itself does not constitute a game. A game has to be played with an understanding of its principles and the ability to recognize the opportunities— that is, recognize the holes into which it is possible to move— and then to know how to take advantage of the uncertainties that surround it. These are the essential conditions for the attitude I am talking about, which consists in taking these uncertainties not as obstacles to the achievement of the aim nor as a weakening of one's powers to achieve it but, on the contrary, as the only means by which the way is opened.

The supposition that if we could regulate things better, if we could eliminate hazard, if we could really calculate in advance and cover ourselves sufficiently to make sure that nothing would go wrong that there would always be a way of ensuring that we would achieve our aim, this supposition has been taken as true throughout the ages, and it is quite contrary to any deep understanding of our own human situation. It is not easy and straightforward to find one's way through this. Going into things blindly is foolhardy; this is as far away from the perception that is required as the attempt to overcome difficulties by precise regulations. It is even, in some degree, farther away because there must be calculation of what can be calculated.

For example, in backgammon, the skilled and experienced player knows very well that he must look at the possible combinations that might arise and he must prepare himself for taking possession of certain positions, but when he has done all that, he knows he is still dependent upon the throw of the dice. It is this combination of such foresight as is possible and the awareness that there is always, inevitably, in everything, an unpredictable and uncontrollable factor that makes it possible to make real commitments because the commitment in this case is not just something like a calculated risk: it has a different quality; it has a quality in it that does not depend upon good thinking, good calculating. That particular quality depends upon one's readiness to commit oneself, one's readiness to be involved, and on not hoping that one can deal with things from the outside . I think this applies in our private lives, in our own search, and it applies in our relationships with other people.

Also, it does have a great bearing upon the interpretation of great historical situations. If you think of the men who did achieve great things, and especially during the period of their greatness (because usually greatness comes over people only for a certain part of their lives), then you see they had just precisely those qualities about which I am speaking.
[/quote]

 

[Breo]

Thank you, SeekinTruth, and obyvatel for presenting these highly interesting concepts of hazard from Bennett.

[quote author=Hazard]
[...]

...whenever there is a concentration of hazard— there is also a concentration of opportunities, a concentration of forces that are able to work within individuals and within societies. The greater the hazard, the greater the opportunity, provided— and this is essential— that one knows how to face a situation.
[...]

It is this combination of such foresight as is possible and the awareness that there is always, inevitably, in everything, an unpredictable and uncontrollable factor that makes it possible to make real commitments because the commitment in this case is not just something like a calculated risk: it has a different quality; it has a quality in it that does not depend upon good thinking, good calculating. That particular quality depends upon one's readiness to commit oneself, one's readiness to be involved, and on not hoping that one can deal with things from the outside . I think this applies in our private lives, in our own search, and it applies in our relationships with other people.

[/quote]

These concepts are practical and helpful to work with. I am happy to have found this thread and ordered the book.

 

[SocietyoftheSpectacle]

I've got a copy of Bennett's last book written before he died, "The Masters of Wisdom" which I was reading last night before going to bed, partly due to this review. I'd recommend that as well.

I may look into that book. I have a friend here that has a large library of Bennett, Gurdjieff, Nott, Nicole, etc. and he gave me these to read recently as he does occasionally (here I mean What Are We Living For? as well which I also reviewed recently). I do have a whole lot of other books to read before that, however.

Bennett was a bit of an enigma, I recall C.S. Nott writing that he didn't hold him in very high esteem as he hadn't spent much time with Gurdjieff. This may be a case of sour grapes, as Bennett was put in charge of the London group after Ouspensky's death.

Yeah, he definitely was a bit of an enigma. I’ve had mixed feelings about him since reading his autobiography "Witness" a couple of years ago. But my recent readings are slowly changing that. His background in intelligence immediately after the First World War had made me wary, as well as, a certain "new agey flavor" I had gotten. Also he kept going back and forth from Ouspensky to Gurdjieff and back again. I see all of this in a different light now (rather than a lack of commitment or discernment as to who is the real teacher). But he is a really fascinating character. He shows more respect toward Gurdjieff and retained more integrity in their relationship than many of the other English and North American students. And he kept visiting Gurdjieff in France right to the end.

It seems that he also had a deeper understanding of the teachings and Gurdjieff probably recognized this. He was in no way less in intellectual stature than Ouspensky, but Bennett was much more balanced. Ouspensky had an immense intellect and an ego to match, but his emotional center seemed to be petrified and he could not overcome this problem. Ouspensky decided to leave Gurdjieff (and "separate the teaching from the man") in 1918, way too early to be able to continue on his own and teach. So he became one of the first "imitation" 4th Way teachers from Gurdjieff’s line. He was just unable to surmount the smallest obstacles set up by Gurdjieff. Just before his decision to leave Gurdjieff, he had that experience for a whole night where Gurdjieff communicated with him telepathically. Ouspensky himself describes the experience as predominantly emotional, and I think it totally freaked him out. It seems Gurdjieff had figured out what his main problem was and tried to give him the kind of help to be able to propel him past it, but it had the effect of pushing Ouspensky past the limit he was able to go.

Then he began to project onto Gurdjieff his own faults and shortcomings, trying to justify his decision to leave, parting ways with his teacher. He blamed Gurdjieff for making sudden changes in plans during their escape from the revolution and civil war in Russia through the Caucuses. He insinuates that this was what finally made up his mind, implying that Gurdjieff was somehow acting irresponsibly toward his students. But as those of us who know the details from different sides understand, Gurdjieff always did what needed to be done for that large group of people that he was responsible for.

Later, during WWII, Ouspensky himself abandoned his students in London when it became too dangerous during the bombing of London. Meanwhile, Gurdjieff remained in Paris during the whole war and Nazi occupation, helping people not only by continuing to teach smaller groups, but by materially supporting others, and not just his students either, as he’d always done. I saw a documentary on Gurdjieff by Michel de Salzmann where they were showing footage of Gurdjieff’s apartment in Paris during the war years and all the artwork in his apartment. Gurdjieff is speaking over the scene saying that he is always told by people that he has the strangest and worst taste in art. He laughs and says that these people put their hearts and souls into these works, and when he can, he supports them so that they can eat; he really doesn’t care about the quality of the art or other people’s opinions of them.

Mouravieff gives me similar impressions as Ouspensky (and they knew each other), seeing Gurdjieff in a very bad light, projecting the worst onto him, etc. Mouravieff hung around Gurdjieff’s groups for years from around 1920 without ever joining the work, and then wrote his three volumes of Gnosis books later presenting it all as if he was the real authority of the teachings and the complete system that was only presented in fragments by Ouspensky. And of course, as many have said, including Bennett, Gurdjieff never tried to set these things straight in a simple way, but used them as lessons for himself and others who could grasp their significance and benefit; he used it all as fuel for the heat that decreases with the friction that lessens as one becomes less and less mechanical. As one makes real progress in the work, he needs more friction from outside for a while to continue the process of transmutation.

In fact, Bennett writes in the Postscript: Who Is Gurdjieff in "What Are We Living For?": "This brief account of Gurdjieff’s teaching and his work would not be complete if I did not make some reference to the extraordinary rumors with which he has been surrounded. He is a man who is entirely indifferent to the friendly or hostile opinion of other people toward him. Not only this, but for reasons very often incomprehensible at the time even to those closely in contact with him, he has apparently gone out of his way to arouse antagonisms and cause misunderstandings. It has often happened that only very much later have the reasons that required that such action be taken become apparent. To those who understand that his teaching contains something that is indispensable for their own welfare, and without which they cannot hope to attain the aim of their existence, the difficulties that he places in the way of approach represent a small price that is easily paid. To those who find them a formidable deterrent I can only say that every great teaching, in its inception, has appeared at once as a stumbling block and a foolishness."

All of this is not to say that Mouravieff did not contribute a great deal to our knowledge of the 4th Way; he definitely did, as did Ouspensky by writing "In Search of the Miraculous: Fragments of an Unknown Teaching." In fact Gurdjieff, after reading the manuscript, said that Ouspensky had a very good memory of the very early teachings during WWI, and approved its publication. I just suspect that the gist of the teaching was brought out of several real esoteric schools by Gurdjieff during the turn of the century (19th to 20th) and Mouravieff just filled in and emphasized things Gurdjieff chose not to because at that time he felt it would serve no useful purpose. (Just as Laura suspects this to be the case with Castaneda).

And then there was the deal with the Idries Shah whom he gave away his own institute, Shah promptly sold the institute which was bulldozed for housing development.

I didn’t know that. That’s interesting.

Bennett definitely marched to the beat of a different drum.

Yeah, that’s what I think too. Also he seems to have a deeper appreciation and understanding of Gurdjieff and his teaching than many others. He spent his life traveling, gathering more data, and years after Gurdjieff’s death, teaching and writing, bringing new insights in a broader framework without overly focusing on narrow parts of Gurdjieff’s methods (while ignoring or diminishing others, just as important – not relating the parts to the whole or taking some parts AS the whole) as Ouspensky and others did.

Where did you get all that Information on Ouspensky ?