Imitation Fourth Way Groups Started by Gurdjieff Rejects

[anart]

Thanks Laura, that was very illuminating; I suppose that, ultimately, as long as we are incarnated in these bodies, we have lessons to learn, no matter who we are. It's especially important to realize that although Uspenskii intellectually understood what he had been taught by Gurdjieff, he never really fully lived it - and none of this knowledge amounts to anything without living it. Living it seems to mean, and I don't know for sure, but it seems to mean not only understanding the concepts but feeling their impact on your daily life and on your inner self. It seems to mean internalizing the learning, thus becoming a different person completely. Perhaps Uspenskii's cup was already just a tiny bit filled when he met Gurdieff and he never emptied that - believing on some deep level that to fully empty the cup, would be to lose who he thought he was?

 

[Johnno]

Gurdjieff's "Herald of the Coming Good" mentions that he would only take on relations with

those people whose inner world has not finally wasted away and fallen under the sawy of the various represenattives of the God of Evil

Caps were G's.

I'm waiting on CS Nott's (out of print) book "Journey through this world: The second journal of a pupil, including an account of meetings with G. I. Gurdjieff, A. R. Orage and P. D. Ouspensky" which is a fly on the wall account of the period.

I had a library copy a few months ago. It would be interesting to compare this against "Struggle of the Magicians" and see which of Nott's observations Paterson left out of. And for the life of me, I can't remember too much on Bennett in Nott's book, except a short stay at the Prieure of three months and Nott being unimpressed.

Here's a few things I recall from the book:

Nott acted as a mediator between Gurdjieff and Ouspenky and paints a much different picture of Orage than Paterson than I have read about, perhaps due the two's friendship. One fragment I can remember, was that Orage's premature death caused in G's words "a set back in my work by years".

Ouspensky is generally being described by Gurdjieff, "If only he actually understood what he writes about" ie one who knew but didn't understand. Nevertheless G's review of O's ISOTM was on the whole positive. One gets the impression that in some way Ouspensky was scared of Gurdjieff. For example, Beezlebubs tales which Nott had a typed manuscipt (years before publication) and lent to Ouspensky was "absolutley forbidden" to be made available to any of Ouspensky's students.

I'll get a copy of Paterson's book and compare it against Nott's when it arrives.

 

[Amir]

I've been suspcious of Patterson ever since reading "Taking with the Left Hand". He seems to take considerable liberty to make his own interpretations of what others were thinking, particularly Gurdjieff. This is when alarms ring in me, when people believe they are an authority and take it upon themselves to interpret the psychology or inner world of these figures through the knowledge (or rather, information) of them provided in records and accounts of books. It is my understanding that Gurdjieff too has horror stories attributed to him by the accounts of some others, perhaps these stories are less shared for certain Gurdjieffians to maintain their mythology.

I asked someone who is somewhat a part of the Ouspensky-line what his opinion of Ouspensky was and he replied that he had never met him. That rings well with me.

But Patterson's book seems to be very useful and factual in presentation; it'll just take some work to verify it all. If we take them (the chronology and description of events) all as is, they seem somewhat..."formatory".

 

[Jonathan]

Great material here, my thanks go out to everyone! :)

On Heinz' dilemma : Based upon my personal understanding of KARMA, I must respectfully refuse to *judge* Heinz' behavior in any way, partly because I have no way of knowing neither what kind of karmic debt/balance existed before, nor came about after -first- the *affliction* and -then- the *theft*.

In any case, I do not deem myself fit to *judge* anyone besides myself. And on that subject, I have a lot of work to do.

 

[Mr. Premise]

Fair enough, but what would you do in Heinz's place?

Great material here, my thanks go out to everyone! :)

On Heinz' dilemma : Based upon my personal understanding of KARMA, I must respectfully refuse to *judge* Heinz' behavior in any way, partly because I have no way of knowing neither what kind of karmic debt/balance existed before, nor came about after -first- the *affliction* and -then- the *theft*.

In any case, I do not deem myself fit to *judge* anyone besides myself. And on that subject, I have a lot of work to do.

 

[Guest]

Heinz's Dilemma

Heinz's wife is dying from a rare form of cancer. According to the doctors, there is one drug that could save her, a radium compound that a druggist in Heinz's town has recently discovered. The ingredients for the drug are expensive to begin with, and the druggist is charging ten times what it costs him to make the medicine. The druggist pays two hundred dollars for the radium and charges his customers two thousand dollars for a small dose. Heinz goes to everyone he can think of and asks to borrow money. Still, he ends up with only about one thousand dollars. Heinz explains to the druggist that his wife will die without the drug, and asks him to sell the medicine at a cheaper price or to take payment later. But the druggist replies, "No, I discovered the drug, and I'm going to make money from it." Heinz becomes desperate. He breaks into the druggist's store and steals the drug for his wife.

Should Heinz have done that?

In terms of the law of Mammon, as it were, and the standards of right of ownership, the druggist made the cure and could dangle it in front of the faces of any number of dying people if he so chose. He could even deny selling it to Heinz for personal reasons, and he would still be in the right in those terms.

In terms of morality, however, Heinz offered to own the druggist the rest of the money, and the law would have made sure Heinz eventually paid up somehow. So the moral transgression is on the part of the druggist because he refused Heinz, even though he had nothing to lose (except immediate full payment).

Heinz's act would then be in reaction to the druggist's moral transgression, and thereforoe justified, because there was a solution that the druggist did not accept (as he was in his "legal" rights) simply because of an inconvenience that would have cost him nothing but waiting on half payments (for which he could even have charged interest and made a profit). Thus, the druggist is guilty of criminal contempt of another human being and possibly malice because he really had nothing to lose.

Practically speaking, if I was faced with this dillema I would not be able to live with myself if I did not place the life of my wife above a meager financial loss of a well-to-do druggist, morals or no morals.

It would be interesting to transfer the elements of the dillema to a wider context. Druggist= Oil Companies and Heinz+Wife= poor populace freezing to death in winter.

 

[kinyash]

Heinz’s Dilemma

Heinz’s wife is dying from a rare form of cancer. According to the Doctors, there is one drug that can save her, a radium compound that a druggist in Heinz’s town has recently discovered. The ingredients of the drug are expensive to begin with, and the druggist is charging ten times what it costs him to make the medicine. The druggist pays two hundred dollars for the radium and charges his customers two thousand dollars for a small dose. Heinz goes to everyone he can think of and asks to borrow money. Still he ends up with about one thousand dollars. Heinz explains to the druggist that his wife will die without the drug, and asks him to sell the medicine at a cheaper price or take payment later. But the druggist replies, “No, I discovered the drug and I’m going to make money from it.” Heinz becomes desperate. He breaks into the druggist’s store and steals the drug for his wife.

Should Heinz have done that?

This has been hanging here since 2006 like Fermat’s last theorem. I’d like to give it a shot.

This issue here is really about objective and subjective truth.

Firstly to quote Gurdjieff :

“The idea of morality is connected with the idea of good and evil conduct. But the idea of good and evil is always different for different people. Always subjective for man number one, number two and number three, and is connected only with a given moment and a given situation. A subjective man can have no general concept of good or evil. For a subjective man evil is everything that is opposed to his desires or interests or to his conception of good.”

From this we can see that, from Heinz’s perspective, what he has done is good. He is saving his wife’s life and in this context, he is the good person and the greedy druggist is evil, and this justifies his action.

However, let us explore further continuing from the same passage:

One May say that evil does not exist for subjective man at all, that there exists only different conceptions of good. Nobody ever does anything deliberately in the interests of evil, for the sake of evil. Everybody acts in the interests of good, as he understands it. But everybody understands it in a different way. Consequently men drown, slay and kill one another in the interests of good. The reason is again just the same, men’s ignorance and the deep sleep in which they live.

In other words, if everyone behaved in the same manner that Heinz has done, we would be facing anarchy and total disregard for order. Man made laws therefore also serve a purpose to give us an orderly environment in which to operate, even if those laws more often than not are interpreted to favour psychopaths.

So what is the answer to Laura’s question “Should he have done this?” To answer this properly, let us find out what a “man number four would do if faced with a similar situation. Let us assume Heinz was man number four, in other words a man with a permanent “I“.

Gurdjieff further says:

“A permanent idea of good and evil can be formed in man only in connection with a permanent aim and a permanent understanding. If a man understands that he is asleep and he wishes to awake, then everything that helps him to awake will be good, and everything that hinders him, everything that prolongs his sleep will be evil. Exactly in the same way will he understand what is good and what is evil for other people. What helps them to awake is good. What hinders them is evil. But this is so only for those who want to awake, that is for those who understand that they are asleep. Those who do not understand that they are asleep, and those who can have no wish to awake, cannot have understanding of good and evil. And as the overwhelming majority of people do not realize and will never realize that they are asleep, neither good nor evil can ever exist for them.”

From this we see clearly that Heinz’s action can only be judged by first ascertaining what type of person Heinz is. If he is man number three who aspires to become man number four, i.e. a “normal’ man with the capacity to develop a magnetic centre, then he will have a definite aim which he is striving, and a decision such as this must be taken with his definite aim in mind.

For the purposes of this forum and this group, Heinz’s dilemma is one which many of us may face or have faced in the past. We must therefore put ourselves in Heinz’s shoes and in order to come up with an objective answer. In my case, my definite aim is to awaken from my deep sleep, and in this context, it is difficult to see how stealing the drug to administer to my wife will help me achieve this definite aim. More importantly, my wife’s condition should help me focus even more strongly on the question of death, help me renew my efforts in the work, and also help counsel my wife to better deal with her condition. All Heinz’s actions up to the point where he decides to steal the drug are in my view correct. He has done all that is possible within his means and his capabilities to help his wife. At this point, his definite aim must now come into play, and he must act as I have described above.

All these answers were contained in Laura’s very first post on this topic which I have applied to the problem.

Best,

Kinyash

 

[Aithin Tusa Fein]

This is the first I have read this thread. Wow, its been around awhile. Anyway, I will answer it too.

Should Heinz have done that?

I say, yes. Why not? In the end, the only rebuttal against his actions is a knee-jerk reaction of preserving the belief of ownership of things. I mean if you don't have a sacred belief in the ownership of things, then preservation of life and well-being trump ownership.

Anyway, I would do it.

 

[Laura]

For the purposes of this forum and this group, Heinz’s dilemma is one which many of us may face or have faced in the past. We must therefore put ourselves in Heinz’s shoes and in order to come up with an objective answer. In my case, my definite aim is to awaken from my deep sleep, and in this context, it is difficult to see how stealing the drug to administer to my wife will help me achieve this definite aim. More importantly, my wife’s condition should help me focus even more strongly on the question of death, help me renew my efforts in the work, and also help counsel my wife to better deal with her condition. All Heinz’s actions up to the point where he decides to steal the drug are in my view correct. He has done all that is possible within his means and his capabilities to help his wife. At this point, his definite aim must now come into play, and he must act as I have described above.

Suppose, as man #3, striving to become man #4, you understand clearly that the death of your wife will hinder your pathway for any of several reasons?

 

[foofighter]

In my case, my definite aim is to awaken from my deep sleep, and in this context, it is difficult to see how stealing the drug to administer to my wife will help me achieve this definite aim.

That is one way to look at it. For myself, personally, this problem is mainly one of conscience and of applying an understanding of the Law of Three, meaning that context - the neutralizing force - is always important. Laws of man are, in general, constructed without the consideration of the third force, the neutralizing force, context. As such, they appear to be absolute whereas in reality things are rarely, if ever, black and white. This is the difference between a pattern, which is contextual, and a best practice, which is absolute. Usually, under normal circumstances, it is appropriate to pay for medicine. But under unusual circumstances, where the context is out of the ordinary, one must consider this, and act accordingly, I think.

Therefore, with the aim of awaken myself, including the emotional center which relates to conscience, and considering the situation, it seems appropriate for Heinz to steal the drug to help his wife. Since this is an application of a general pattern rather than a general rule it does not imply anarchy, since that would suggest that for everyone else the same unusual circumstances would be present, which is unlikely (if perhaps not impossible).

However, I might have misunderstood what you wrote and this is what you suggest as well. In so, then consider this another way to make the case

 

[Al Today]

Should Heinz have done that?

NO.

Living within this grand illusion, perhaps we are here to experience, maybe learn some karmic lessons so as to move on to newer, grander experiences. Did Heinz interfere with what may have been one his wifes' exit points? Maybe it was just here 'time' to die? Maybe she was done here? Gone as far as she could go with what she was? Perhaps he was a little selfish in attempting to play god?
How about this: What should be, Will be, Eventually. No matter what Heinz does anyway...


edit: In letting her go, pain is part of life, and a lesson too...

 

[foofighter]

Living within this grand illusion, perhaps we are here to experience, maybe learn some karmic lessons so as to move on to newer, grander experiences. Did Heinz interfere with what may have been one his wifes' exit points? Maybe it was just here 'time' to die? Maybe she was done here? Gone as far as she could go with what she was? Perhaps he was a little selfish in attempting to play god?
How about this: What should be, Will be, Eventually. No matter what Heinz does anyway...
edit: In letting her go, pain is part of life, and a lesson too...

That's one way to look at it, but if that is the case, then it seems logical that SOTT should stop reporting on the atrocities against the Palestinians. Maybe it is just their "time" to die, maybe they are "done" here, gone as far as they can with what they are. Perhaps SOTT is being a wee bit selfish in attempting to do anything about it...

 

[Al Today]

That's one way to look at it, but if that is the case, then it seems logical that SOTT should stop reporting on the atrocities against the Palestinians. Maybe it is just their "time" to die, maybe they are "done" here, gone as far as they can with what they are. Perhaps SOTT is being a wee bit selfish in attempting to do anything about it...

SOTT is attempting to raise awareness. To be blunt, perhaps this group of people on this BBM are ignorant and brainwashed. Controlled by STS to be 'Food for the Moon'. What SOTT is doing, I think, is a whole different ballgame. With Heinz, we live in a STS construct. If this BBM was of a STO orientation, I doubt if Heinz would've had a dilemma...

edit: I think I need to say that SOTT is OFFERING awareness, not pushing it. Nobody is being forced into Awareness. Free will still is held.

 

[foofighter]

SOTT is attempting to raise awareness. To be blunt, perhaps this group of people on this BBM are ignorant and brainwashed. Controlled by STS to be 'Food for the Moon'.

Again, by the same logic, is it then appropriate for us to play "god" and say that this is all wrong and attempt to make it otherwise? Perhaps it is simply our fate to be controlled by the "moon", and that's all there is to it? If we are NOT food for the moon, will the moon then die, and are we then responsible for that death? And is that death more important that our living? Or what?

 

[Al Today]

Again, by the same logic, is it then appropriate for us to play "god" and say that this is all wrong and attempt to make it otherwise? Perhaps it is simply our fate to be controlled by the "moon", and that's all there is to it? If we are NOT food for the moon, will the moon then die, and are we then responsible for that death? And is that death more important that our living? Or what?

I wonder if I could even answer this? Is this perhaps a paradox? A circle with no end? Am I limited in my perceptions and ability to grok outside of this 3D existence?
I thank you for the mental gymnastics.!.!.! But I am pressed for time and must go for a bit. I would like to delve into this further. Maybe, perhaps come across a new concept.