I’m really struggling with this… Was Gurdjieff an OP?

DonaldJHunt said:
Would it be possible for you to respond to Atreides's post number 61707 about the multiple jigsaw puzzles? You seem to be rushing to fit lots of very carefully assembled teachings into your own subjective framework. There is a real danger there for you (assuming you are really looking for objective knowledge) and there is lots of noise for the rest of us.
Okay, please correct me if I'm wrong. All that I mean by "putting together pieces of a puzzle," is say reading a book like Matrix 5. Having read lots of books in 18 years or so related to "metaphysical stuff" (broadly speaking), I can't help but find correlations in some data and so I use my data bank of knowledge to sort of "weed out" disinformation or just plain wrong stuff. I do this with many teachings/writings/articles. I "take" what makes sense to me and discard what sounds like a tall order - like Icke's claims of "shape-shifting lizard people." This is how I assemble the puzzle (my puzzle). Would this be subjective on my part? To "pick and choose" what makes sense to me from various teachings?

atreides said:
What you have done is purchased several jigsaw puzzles, dumped them all into one pile, then haphazardly chosen which pieces you LIKED over which you didn't, and then began to assume that these pieces should all fit together coherently. .
It's not that I "liked" them. These pieces just seemed "right" based on what I had previously learned (and discarded).

Haven't you done the same in your own search? Of course, I'm referring to simply to information. NOT a particular "set of tecniques" like I think Gurdjief's work is about: techniques to basically know oneself - and fuse/create a magnetic center.

Now a few days ago - and this may seem off track but I don't think it is, really - something happened to me... Basically and to cut a long story short, I was *rejected* by a female (we smiled a few times across the room and when I went to talk to her, she didn't seem interested at all!) So I felt very embarrazed and hurt and basically walked away (maybe I'm "fugly" up close?? Or maybe its mind games?)

Anyway so a few days go by and lo and behold we run into each other again... This time she *seemed* like she wanted me to come over and speak with her. What did I do? I turned my face away from her WHILE she was smailing at me to "get back at her." I had felt HURT and so I "retaliated."

Would this be a bad thing I did?

Would it be an ego thing?

Would Gurdjieff's work help me understand this 'behavior' - as being a program?

Again, I don't mean to change the subject but... I would be very interested to see how the Work would deal with this? I should have G's book in about 10 days or so.
 
Racer, from observing all your post ever since you joined, I may say that the problem is not about the information or "knowledge" you have "gained" over the years through "experience" or reading books which you believe to be true or not. It's also not about whatever "metaphysical stuff" you know and teach.

It simply comes down to your sense of Self-Importance which you do not seem to be really aware of. Who is this "I" in Racer Unknown who accumulates data, reads books and judges/evaluates/discerns, etc...to begin with?
Without fine-tuning your instrument, your real "I", there is no use in trying to understand anything, be it in regards to OP's or your social affairs and why women don't smile back at you (?), as you may just accumulate "junk" and take the true for the false and the false for the true by trying to conform the information you get to your sense of conditioned "I".
As long as you act out of this notion Self-Importance or its negative opposite Self-pity, you will be going in circles, no matter what information you gather or stuff you already think you know. In other words, before trying to weed out disinformation "out there", you might benefit from weeding out "disinformation" in yourself.

Gurdjieff said:
A man must first of all understand certain things. He has thousands of false ideas and false conceptions, chiefly about himself, and he must get rid of some of them before beginning to acquire anything new. Otherwise the new will be built on a wrong foundation and the result will be worse than before.
To speak the truth is the most difficult thing in the world; one must study a great deal and for a long time in order to speak the truth. The wish alone is not enough. To speak the truth one must know what the truth is and what a lie is, and first of all in oneself. And this nobody wants to know.
Members of this forum have been trying to make you aware of this in any way possible. It seems there is an unconscious defense mechanism in you that can not let go of this self-importance and seeing yourself objectively. Or maybe it is conscious, I don't know.

But what is very obvious and what I would suggest is to stop trying to justify/defend yourself and just take some time off from this forum and contemplate, observe yourself, seeing yourself objectively and how you are in your own way in many ways. You can start the process of objective self-observation before you get G's book in the mail. Self-work never really stops. it's constant work.

Gaining objective knowledge of the world and universe goes hand in hand with gaining objective self-knowledge, seeing the lies in the world and the lies in ourselves. But before you can fully understand what is truly going on in the world, you need to fine-tune your reading instrument, the real "you" in you and build the right foundation. It seems very obvious that your foundation is a bit shaky and if you keep building upon that ground, the result will be even worse, as your post about Gurdjieff and OP's shows very clearly.

Mouravieff's parable of the Coach might be worthwhile for you to read:

Mouravieff said:
In Western civilization the interior life of the individual, with all its
richness, finds itself relegated to a minor role in existence. Man is so
caught up in the toils of mechanical life that he has neither time to stop nor
the power of attention needed to turn his mental vision upon himself. Man
thus passes his days absorbed by external circumstances. The great machine
that drags him along turns without stopping, and forbids him to stop
under penalty of being crushed. Today like yesterday, and tomorrow like
today, he quickly exhausts himself in the frantic race, impelled in a direction
which in the end leads nowhere. Life passes away from him almost unseen,
swift as a ray of light, and man falls engulfed and still absent from himself.

When we ask someone who lives under this constant pressure of
contemporary life to turn his mental vision towards himself, he
generally answers that he has not enough time left to undertake such
practices. If we insist and he acquiesces, he will in most cases say that
he sees nothing: Fog; Obscurity. In less common cases, the observer
reports that he perceives something which he cannot define because it
changes all the time.

This last observation is correct. Everything is in fact continually
changing within us. A minor external shock, agreeable or disagreeable,
happy or unhappy, is sufficient to give our inner content a quite different
appearance. If we follow up this interior observation, this introspection, without
prejudice, we will soon constate, not without surprise, that our I, of
which we are so consistently proud, is not always the same self: the I
changes. As this impression becomes more defined we begin to become
more aware that it is not a single man who lives within us but several, each
having his own tastes, his own aspirations, and each trying to attain his own
ends. Suddenly we discover within us a whole world full of life and colours
which until now we had almost entirely ignored.

If we still proceed with this experience, we will soon be able to distinguish
three currents within that perpetually moving life: that of the vegetative life
of the instincts, so to speak; that of the animal life of the feelings; and lastly
that of human life in the proper sense of the term, characterized by thought
and speech. It is almost as if there were three men within us, all entangled
together in an extraordinary way.

So we come to appreciate the value of introspection as a method of
practical work which permits us to know ourselves and enter into ourselves.
As we gradually progress, we become more clearly aware of the real
situation in which we find ourselves. The inner content of man is analogous
to a vase full of iron filings in a state of mixture as a result of mechanical
action. Every shock received by the vase causes displacement of the particles
of iron filings. Thus real life remains hidden from the human being
due to the constant changes occurring in his inner life.

Even so, as we shall see later, this senseless and dangerous situation can
be modified in a beneficial way. But this requires work; conscientious and
sustained effort. Introspection carried out relentlessly results in enhanced
internal sensibility. This improved sensibility in its turn intensifies the
implitude and frequency of movement whenever the iron filings are disrurbed.
As a result, shocks that previously were not noticed will now
provoke vivid reactions. These movements, because of their continuous
implification, can create a friction between the particles of iron so intense
that we may one day feel the interior fire igniting within us.
This fire must not remain a harmless flare-up. Nor is it enough that the
fire smoulders dormant under the ashes. A live and ardent fire once lit must
be carefully kept alight by the will to refine and cultivate sensitiveness.
If it continues in this way, our state can change: the heat of the flame will
start a process of fusion within us.

From this point on the inner content will no longer behave like a heap of
iron filings: it will form a block. Then further shocks will no longer
provoke interior change in man as they did previously. Having reached
this point he will have acquired a firmness; he will remain himself in the
midst of the tempests to which life may expose him.
This is the perspective before those who study esoteric science. But to
reach the state which has already been described, we must from the beginning
rid ourselves of all illusion about ourselves, no matter how dearly
held; an illusion of this kind, if it is tolerated at the start, will grow en route,
so that suffering and additional effort will be necessary in order to rid
ourselves of it at a later date.

As long as man has not reached the point of fusion, his life will be in
effect a factitious existence, as he himself will change from moment to moment.
Since these changes will occur as a result of external shocks which he can
almost never foresee, it will also be impossible for him to predict in
advance the exact way he will change internally. Thus he will live subject
to events as they occur, always preoccupied by constantly 'patching up'
('replastering'). He will in fact progress toward the unknown, at the
mercy of chance. This state of things, named in the Tradition The Law
of Chance, or The Law of Accident, is — for man as he is—the principal law
under whose authority he leads his illusory existence.

Esoteric science indicates the possibilities and the means of freeing
oneself from this law. It helps us to begin a new and purposeful life; first
to become logical with ourselves, and finally, to become our own master.
But to begin effectively on this way, one must first clearly see the situation
as it is. A parable found in the most ancient sources permits us to get a
clear picture of this, and so keep this condition in mind.
It is the parable of the Coach:


This image represents the characteristics of man by a coach. The physical
body is represented by the coach itself; the horses represent sensations,
feelings and passions; the coachman is the ensemble of the intellectual
faculties including reason; the person sitting in the coach is the master.
In its normal state, the whole system is in a perfect state of operation: the
coachman holds the reins firmly in his hands and drives the horses in the
direction indicated by the master. This, however, is not how things happen
in the immense majority of cases. First of all, the master is absent. The
coach must go and find him, and must then await his pleasure. All is in a
bad state: the axles are not greased and they grate; the wheels are badly
fixed; the shaft dangles dangerously; the horses, although of noble race, are
dirty and ill-fed; the harness is worn and the reins are not strong.

The coachman is asleep: his hands have slipped to his knees and hardly hold the
reins, which can fall from them at any moment.
The coach nevertheless continues to move forward, but does so in a way
which presages no happiness. Abandoning the road, it is rolling down the
slope in such a way that the coach is now pushing the horses, which are
unable to hold it back. The coachman, fallen into a deep sleep, is swaying
in his seat at risk of falling off. Obviously a sad fate awaits such a coach.
This image provides a highly appropriate analogy for the condition of
most men, and it is worth taking as an object of meditation.

Salvation may however present itself. Another coachman, this one quite
awake, may pass by the same route and observe the coach in its sad
situation. If he is not much in a hurry, he may perhaps stop to help
the coach that is in distress. He will first help the horses hold back the
coach from slipping down the slope. Then he will awaken the sleeping
driver and together with him will try to bring the coach back to the road.
He will lend fodder and money. He might also give advice on the care of
the horses, the address of an inn and a coach repairer, and indicate the
proper route to follow.

It will be up to the assisted coachman afterward to profit, by his own efforts,
from the help and the information received. It will be incumbent on him
from this point on to put all things in order and, open eyed, to follow the
path he had abandoned.
He will above all fight against sleep, for if he falls asleep again, and if the
coach leaves the road again and again finds itself in the same danger, he
cannot hope that chance will smile upon him a second time; that another
coachman will pass at that moment and at that place and come to his aid.
 
Hi RU, the point of Atreides's jigsaw puzzle analogy is that you are taking pieces from different puzzles and putting them together. As you implied by your questions, there is nothing necessarily wrong with that, but in your case you are putting them together into what you called "your puzzle." I think what people are trying to tell you is yes, that is subjective, because you are most likely premature in being able to see what "the picture" is, and that the picture if assembled prematurely usually reinforces one's subjective view. Does that make sense?

I guess the big picture is you're racing around. Come to think of it your name makes more sense, now.

Slow down, you get partway through something then start spinning theories, etc. Gurdjieff might call this "wiseacreing." It has a particular flavor that people here have identified and pointed out. You have been jumping around in a manic kind of way. Why did you ask that question about the girl? Yes, that was off topic. It also deflected the question you were asked. You do a lot of deflection.

You don't need to be in such a hurry, dude. It might help to relax, slow down mull over stuff for a while, before coming here with a million questions and theories. Try to identify where you are lying to yourself. That's the purpose of the G quote Bernhard gave you. And then think about the Salzmann quote. What does it mean that EVERYTHING you think about yourself is a lie and that you lie to yourself all the time. What are the implications of this for assembling an accurate "picture" from puzzle pieces.

People are losing patience because you have been given enough wisdom to keep a sincere person busy for many years. But you seem just to want validation of your subjective views and answers to more questions than you can really process at this point.

Hope this helps.
 
Racer_Unknown said:
I'm no master of myself. I do 'whatever' but can't explain it nor do I know what it is for!
Peperfritz said:
Yet you introduced yourself here as a "Teacher". What exactly is it that you "teach" to others?
Racer_Unknown said:
Basically, “metaphysical stuff.” Things I’ve learned in nearly 20 years of researching the nature of reality.
Do you honestly not see the jarring contradiction between those two statements? And can you really not begin to understand how absurd it is that someone who fancies himself a "Teacher" considers himself to have "no mastery of self", and yet is involved in instructing others in "metaphysical stuff" (whatever that means) that he himself cannot "explain" and does not know the purpose of?

It really is no wonder that you can't hear what others are saying to you. You can't even seem to hear yourself.
 
Hi RU.

DonaldJHunt's post really is on the mark. "Stop and think". It's difficult to do, but the easiest way to break automatic behaviour

I get the impression from how you reply to posts that you don't actually read peoples words properly. It's almost like you scan, and then maybe one in ten words stands out to you; you then do some word association in your head, what this word means to you, how you define it, and then spew out this associated line of thinking, which has absolutely nothing to do with the topic, or what people are telling you.

Re-read this whole thread, try to observe yourself, and remember Rome wasn't built in a day.
 
Back
Top Bottom