Imitation Fourth Way Groups Started by Gurdjieff Rejects

Gimpy said:
Folks tend to tell me I'm an Ice Queen, or 'standoffish', any one have any thoughts on what else can be done to be externally considerate without appearing 'cold'?
Or does that even matter?
After I had a dinner with an American colleague, who was living in San Fransisco and was generally openminded about things in life, he told me I was the most cynical person he had ever met (although he said it in a mostly surprised way, rather than offensive). And yes, I think that to a "normal" person who does not see things the way they are, and am not used or comfortable with talking about things as they are, would see it that way: that it's a very cold and cynical outlook. And we have to simply respect that, I think, or rather, accept it as it is.

I don't know. I would probably just recommend that you are very selective with who you tell what you think about important things. Most people just aren't ready emotionally to deal with the consequences of realizing the state of the world, both in the big and small.
 
GotoGo said:
I checked Magnetic Center page but I could not say "(Amir's definition) could not be further from correct" (It is possible my understanding is also a result of 'distorted' teaching :-[).

I think the main problem some may have with the magnetic center is kind of a cart before the horse thing. From the above link and personal experience I think it's more important what the magnetic center does to the infuences (objectively deals with them) than what the influences do to the magnetic center (gives it something to practice on even before it technically is a magnetic center). I think Amir completely missed how objectively things are analyzed here. This place does not take "yes" for an answer.
 
foofighter said:
After I had a dinner with an American colleague, who was living in San Fransisco and was generally openminded about things in life, he told me I was the most cynical person he had ever met (although he said it in a mostly surprised way, rather than offensive). And yes, I think that to a "normal" person who does not see things the way they are, and am not used or comfortable with talking about things as they are, would see it that way: that it's a very cold and cynical outlook....

Yes, I've also been called "cynical" all my life -- always with the same note of "surprise", since they feel my other "positive" qualities do not "jive"with that. Seeing things as they are -- and, more to the point, calling them as they are -- is definitely viewed as a "negative" quality by most people.

Reminds me of a study I read about years ago: They experimented with two groups of people -- one was considered "depressed", and the other "cheerful and optimistic". They would expose them to the same situations and events, and then question them later about the details of those situations and events. The "depressed" individuals had a dramatically higher accuracy in their recall than did the "cheerful" individuals, who often "edited" or "interpreted" their experiences to fit in with their "cheerful" outlook. The researchers concluded that people who experienced the world with the "buffer" of "rose-coloured glasses", so to speak, were "happier" than those who experienced the world "as it is".

I remember feeling, at the time, that I did not want to be "happy" if it meant living a life of illusions. Ironically, now that I've learned to not take PERSONALLY the world "as it is", I am the "happiest" I have ever been in my life. Although that's not really the right word. "Happy" still has connotations of "illusion" to me. I simply feel an unconflicted kind of "neutrality" most of the time....
 
RedFox said:
The idea that I could cause someone to be stuck in that hell between two hurdles (and for some reason I feel I've been there before...perhaps many times) is probably the most horrific example of seeing my own blindness/mechanicalness/selfishness I've come up against.

Well, speaking from my own experience, I could never really 'cause' anyone to get to the point where they are between two hurdles since, imo, this is a point that they bring themselves to from an act of their own will, through essential questioning of their inner world and the relationship they have to the world around them. If they don’t question things themselves then I think they’ll never get to such a point, although maybe accidentally from some kind of life shock or something like that. Although I’ve certainly made mistakes of saying much more then I needed to say to someone about ideas that don’t fit into their reality (and on top of that, also being insensitive to what they were really asking for), generally people have buffers or strong belief systems that absorb or deflect the 'terror shock' from such realizations. I think the big problems occur when we push the issue and try to 'save them,' as this can diminish their possibilities of initiating their own line of questioning on such ideas that would eventually bring them to that hurdle in the first place.

These days (after learning from my past mistakes) I make an effort to be as sensitive as possible to what a person is asking for and saying no more then I really need to say and then maybe referring them to a book or this website. Hopefully what I say might help them to question things further on their own.
 
RedFox said:
Hi GotoGo

GotoGo said:
But when I checked his statistic of "Total Time Spent Online: 1 hours and 3 minutes" in his 3 years membership here shows his 'wrong' learning attitude.

No necessarily, I think he managed to show his 'wrong' learning attitude by demonstrating his subjective views on this topic and attitude towards those here. I've been here about 2 years not and my 'time spent online' is about 3 days. I tend not to log in to read the forum, which I read several times daily. So time spent online may not be a good indicator of learning attitude.

Hello Redfox, I got your point. I had an assumption that assume usually people log in. :-[


Laura said:
RedFox said:
Gimpy said:
What does that tell you?

That he spends more time/energy defending his (faulty) position/small (subjective) world view rather than examining/questioning it osit.

I still think that his main problem is what I pointed out from his emails to me that I discussed in the first post of this thread: weak mindedness - that he so desperately wants to believe in a world where "evil" is explained away, or at least not acknowledged, that he is running into the arms of whatever system will do that for him. It matters not at all to him that we take the time and trouble to check and cross check, use science, empirical observation, personal experiences, and so on to draw conclusions - he just wants to believe some guy like Rodney Collin who worshipped Ouspensky, who couldn't "get it" to begin with. Ouspensky's own description of why he broke with Gurdjieff be damned, Amir's gotta make up stuff - or believe other people who made up stuff after the fact - to smooth everything over and maintain the illusion.

I think this "to smooth everything over and maintain the illusion" point of view is a good reminder/indicator when I re-examine my "forth way" understanding especially those that can be rooted in "Collin and Bennett and some others - possibly even Patterson and certainly Ouspensky" material.
Laura, thank you for indicating this point of view. :)


Bluelamp said:
GotoGo said:
I checked Magnetic Center page but I could not say "(Amir's definition) could not be further from correct" (It is possible my understanding is also a result of 'distorted' teaching :-[).

I think the main problem some may have with the magnetic center is kind of a cart before the horse thing. From the above link and personal experience I think it's more important what the magnetic center does to the infuences (objectively deals with them) than what the influences do to the magnetic center (gives it something to practice on even before it technically is a magnetic center). I think Amir completely missed how objectively things are analyzed here. This place does not take "yes" for an answer.

I see. This gave me a new perspective (Bluelamp, thanks ;))! "Objectivity" seems a very important key here. Is person's magnetic center searching for 'illusionary mystic teaching' (that can easily turn into 'Wishful Thinking') or simply searching for 'Objective Truth'? That is the question!

And this somehow connected to PepperFritz's post for me:
PepperFritz said:
I remember feeling, at the time, that I did not want to be "happy" if it meant living a life of illusions. Ironically, now that I've learned to not take PERSONALLY "the way the world is", I am the "happiest" I have ever been in my life. Although that's not really the right word. "Happy" still has connotations of "illusion" to me. I simply feel an unconflicted kind of "neutrality" most of the time....

In fact, this statement makes me "happy"! :)
I didn't know if there exists someone who feels like myself.


Finally, all these connections somehow made a connection in me to the following part in the Wave:
the Wave 3 p285-287 said:
This distortion grows and extends to all that they learn and consider. When they discover something that is “not nice”, or “of the darkness”, or “negative”, they recoil in fear and horror. What’s more, they immediately begin to plan how to “fix it”, because, obviously, in their minds, such a reality is “broken”.

The plain fact is, the evil, which we “read into” the world and all the imperfections, which we believe we have discovered, are simply a result of the limits of our understanding. The narrower the point of view from which we look upon, view or observe things, the more evil and the more imperfections we see.

There are many who have written to me about the “fear based” information on these pages. They assume, automatically, that because we talk about reality in pretty plain terms, including all aspects of it, that I must be sitting here at my desk, quaking and quivering in terror with every word I type. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have to state right here and now that I have NEVER been in a state of fear once I have learned the true nature of what energies are behind the manifestations of our world. For all the many years that I studied evil and darkness in an attempt to reconcile its existence to the idea of a perfect, loving God, it was the perception of the darkness as an “error” or “mistake” or “flaw” that made me afraid. What is more terrifying than to think that your soul and life can be subject to either an accident or tricks of temptation? What is more terrifying than to think that an accident or error can exist ontologically in the universe that is supposed to be God’s “creation”? The only conclusions I could ever come to with that thinking was that mankind was either a sick joke or a plaything of god - and neither of those ideas is conducive to love and faith!

As I gained more and more knowledge about the world, my point of view broadened. And, as my perspective expanded, the more the evils disappeared! Now, don’t get me wrong. When I say they “disappeared”, that does NOT mean that they went away or were transformed. Not at all. I just stopped seeing them as “evil”. Not only that, I began to see the incredible humor in the situation. When I become aware of a Reptoid “maneuver” in my life, I almost laugh with glee at the challenge of a worthy opponent!

No indeed. I still can see demons in the world and at work; I still see the creeping darkness shadowing the souls of mankind, blotting out their access to their creative potential. I still see war and genocide and famine and plague as part of our reality. Not only that, I see these things as part of the reality that are NOT going to change into something that we call “good” by the powers of concentrated love and light. It is NOT a good idea to “send them love and light” because they don’t WANT it. But that doesn’t mean that I don’t LOVE them! Semantics? No. Subtle but important distinction? Yes.

And, even though, for convention, I use terms such as “dark and light”, and “good and evil” and “positive and negative”, in order to talk about things in a practical way, I no longer see these things as an “essential error” or that which “must be done away with” or “transformed” in order for mankind to grow and ascend out of this “vale of tears”. The fact is, most of mankind is not done with the lessons in this school and to try to change it for those who aren’t finished with the lessons would be to violate their free will, not to mention their whole cosmic plan and purpose!

What I see now is that all of these things exist, the light and the dark, the good and the evil, the positive and the negative, the STS and STO beings, as part of the superb framework of the infinite Prime Source.

What is more, I see the REASON for it to be this way, above and beyond just the simple “choice” of mankind to “experience learning at a faster rate”. That issue is not relative to our particular Group Soul only; there are infinite other souls and Group Souls and beings in the Cosmos who partake of the same conditions as we do, at different levels. There is far more to this state than that.

In one sense, you could say that it is a vast and glorious self-regulating organism that IS One; but it is One IN Manyness. It is only when we perceive this actual Unity as ALREADY EXISTING, and not as something that one has to imagine or pretend will come into being, (which means excluding all that one finds “unpleasant” or not of “love and light”), will the literal fact of this state manifest in one’s life.
(Note: The BOLD part is my emphasis that is not in original context).

Additionally, I think I now begin to understand what "networking" means and how this Works! :cool2:
Thank you!! ;)
 
GotoGo said:
I see. This gave me a new perspective (Bluelamp, thanks Wink)! "Objectivity" seems a very important key here. Is person's magnetic center searching for 'illusionary mystic teaching' (that can easily turn into 'Wishful Thinking') or simply searching for 'Objective Truth'? That is the question!

I just realized that the naming of "In Search of the Miraculous" is misleading from this point of view.
I remember the original title was "Fragments of an Unknown Teaching" (that sounds more 'neutral' and mentioning "fragments" sounds respecting 'Objective Truth').

Can this renaming the title be seen as a "pathological" manifestation (inserting 'Wishful Thinking') also?
 
GotoGo said:
I just realized that the naming of "In Search of the Miraculous" is misleading from this point of view.
I remember the original title was "Fragments of an Unknown Teaching" (that sounds more 'neutral' and mentioning "fragments" sounds respecting 'Objective Truth').

Can this renaming the title be seen as a "pathological" manifestation (inserting 'Wishful Thinking') also?

I found some clue of this in Internet.
_http://www.toutley.demon.co.uk/Book%20Reviews.htm
says:
In Search of the Miraculous was originally known as 'Fragments of an Unknown Teaching' and it was a great pity that marketing forces took over and dictated the trivialising title. Ouspensky's search for a complete 'system' and his rejection of Gurdjieff's radical experimentation is an essential part of the whole story of the fate of G's work.

In some editions, the original title 'Fragments of an Unknown Teaching' was kept as 'sub-title'.
I checked my Japanese translation version, in which this original title was only appeared on the cover without even being translated. :(
 
PepperFritz:
I remember feeling, at the time, that I did not want to be "happy" if it meant living a life of illusions. Ironically, now that I've learned to not take PERSONALLY "the way the world is", I am the "happiest" I have ever been in my life. Although that's not really the right word. "Happy" still has connotations of "illusion" to me. I simply feel an unconflicted kind of "neutrality" most of the time....

Yes, I have come to this type of existence also. I have always had the feeling that I have to know whatever "boogie-man" is out there troubling me at the moment. As a child and occasionally as an adult I literally would hide under the covers from something going "bump in the Night, but I learned to ask myself do I want to lie here for hours in a cold sweat waiting for whatever was going to happen to happen or did I want to be really afraid for a few seconds and shine a light on the unknown and deal with whatever I found? This works for me metaphorically for facing illusions and evil in our present world. My family and closest friends are aware I read a lot of alternative news and talk to people online about what they call my "doom and gloom" topics and my "conspiracy" version of reality. I "practice" external consideration with them but fail a lot and sometimes just blurt out things like "That's all MSM BS!!! This is how bad it really is!!!" Oops. They in return will ask "How can you be so happy all the time thinking [Knowing.] that? It does seem completely paradoxical that knowing Objective Reality better and accepting it for what it is, including all its evil and negativity as part of the universe in balance, "makes me happy" too!

Like Larua said:
that all of these things exist, the light and the dark, the good and the evil, the positive and the negative, the STS and STO beings, as part of the superb framework of the infinite Prime Source.

What is more, I see the REASON for it to be this way, above and beyond just the simple “choice” of mankind to “experience learning at a faster rate”. That issue is not relative to our particular Group Soul only; there are infinite other souls and Group Souls and beings in the Cosmos who partake of the same conditions as we do, at different levels. There is far more to this state than that.

In one sense, you could say that it is a vast and glorious self-regulating organism that IS One; but it is One IN Manyness. It is only when we perceive this actual Unity as ALREADY EXISTING, and not as something that one has to imagine or pretend will come into being, (which means excluding all that one finds “unpleasant” or not of “love and light”), will the literal fact of this state manifest in one’s life.

Gotogo referring to PepperFritz's comment about feeling unconflicted:
In fact, this statement makes me "happy"! Smiley
I didn't know if there exists someone who feels like myself.

Me either until I found SOTT. It is such a relief to have somewhere to go where people will validate your perception of reality when it is on target with what we can know of objective reality, and call you on it when you are sliding into wishful thinking and other logical fallacies, without being judged a "Conspiracy Nut."

Many of my friends and family do not understand why I continue to pursue knowledge that "makes me uncomfortable," but for me this and doing the Work on myself, striving to "clean my machine" and grow, is all there is that is of real interest to me now--it has become "the only game in town." For all his faults, I agree with Thomas Jefferson's statement "An unexamined life is not worth living."

I once read somewhere a quote something to the effect of: All great thinkers die cynics. Although I am not a great thinker I agree with the sentiment--if cynicism is the price to pay for knowledge then so be it.
shellycheval
 
shellycheval said:
I agree with Thomas Jefferson's statement "An unexamined life is not worth living"....

Actually, you agree with Socrates' statement (which Jefferson was quoting).... ;)
 
Thanks PepperFritz! Now if anyone can help my find out who it was that said, and I'm paraphrasing here I'm sure, "All great thinkers die cynics," I would be grateful. I know we all have more important things to do but it's bugging me. I did a cursory Google search with no results--Bertrand Russell and Goethe pop in my head but I don't know.
shellycheval
 
Pryf said:
As I see it you are responsible in the extent of your level of consciousness and we are learning not only of your results also from your mistakes.
Suffering is also necessary for others to learn not only for you...

Sure if you where doing what you explain above people here had told you, as there are many eyes looking.. Whistling
Well I just want to tell you I do really apreciate your thoughts and interaction here.

Thanks Pryf....perhaps I over reacted somewhat. I saw I was asleep at the wheel, and upon opening my eyes a crack I got fixated on a potential.....and I think I made it rather overblown.
Oddly today thinking about that it reminded me of being 3 or there abouts and my ability to see things evolving...and fixating on things. Its nice to feel that young again! And to start to know I know nothing.

Perhaps instead of saying 'Inflicting suffering on another is my personal idea of hell.' I should have said 'Getting someone stuck between two hurdles, so that they are stuck suffering is my idea of hell'.....but even that seems a bit over the top perhaps?

agni said:
Desire to bring other along, I think, is not only about feeling alone, but projecting image of self upon others.

Thanks Agni I hadn't considered some of those!

Gimpy said:
Folks tend to tell me I'm an Ice Queen, or 'standoffish', any one have any thoughts on what else can be done to be externally considerate without appearing 'cold'?

Or does that even matter?

fwiw I've never considered you standoffish and would never even consider Ice Queen to even come close to describing you. You remind me of a quote from G...
M. called me a fool. Why should I be offended? Such things do not hurt me, so I don't take offense—not because I have no self-love; maybe I have more self-love than anyone here. Maybe it is this very self-love that does not let me be offended.
I think, I reason in a way exactly the reverse of the usual way. He called me a fool. Must he necessarily be wise? He himself may be a fool or a lunatic. One cannot demand wisdom from a child. I cannot expect wisdom from him. His reasoning was foolish. Either someone has said something to him about me, or he has formed his own foolish opinion that I am a fool—so much the worse for him. I know that I am not a fool, so it does not offend me. If a fool has called me a fool, I am not affected inside.

But if in a given instance I was a fool and am called a fool, I am not hurt, because my task is not to be a fool; I assume this to be everyone's aim. So he reminds me, helps me to realize that I am a fool and acted foolishly. I shall think about it and perhaps not act foolishly next time.

So, in either case I am not hurt.

PepperFritz said:
I remember feeling, at the time, that I did not want to be "happy" if it meant living a life of illusions. Ironically, now that I've learned to not take PERSONALLY the world "as it is", I am the "happiest" I have ever been in my life. Although that's not really the right word. "Happy" still has connotations of "illusion" to me. I simply feel an unconflicted kind of "neutrality" most of the time....

Funny, I'm starting to feel that way too. It is quite refreshing I must say!

kenlee said:
Well, speaking from my own experience, I could never really 'cause' anyone to get to the point where they are between two hurdles since, imo, this is a point that they bring themselves to from an act of their own will, through essential questioning of their inner world and the relationship they have to the world around them. If they don’t question things themselves then I think they’ll never get to such a point, although maybe accidentally from some kind of life shock or something like that. Although I’ve certainly made mistakes of saying much more then I needed to say to someone about ideas that don’t fit into their reality (and on top of that, also being insensitive to what they were really asking for), generally people have buffers or strong belief systems that absorb or deflect the 'terror shock' from such realizations. I think the big problems occur when we push the issue and try to 'save them,' as this can diminish their possibilities of initiating their own line of questioning on such ideas that would eventually bring them to that hurdle in the first place.

These days (after learning from my past mistakes) I make an effort to be as sensitive as possible to what a person is asking for and saying no more then I really need to say and then maybe referring them to a book or this website. Hopefully what I say might help them to question things further on their own.

I think you are right, and looking back at my reaction it does seem somewhat overblown now. Perhaps it was the realising I was asleep at the wheel or that I'd missed some important data that caused it? Not sure.
Learning not to push too much, not to try and 'save them' whilst trying to perhaps offer information they didn't otherwise have is quite tricky.
 
RedFox said:
Perhaps instead of saying 'Inflicting suffering on another is my personal idea of hell.' I should have said 'Getting someone stuck between two hurdles, so that they are stuck suffering is my idea of hell'.....but even that seems a bit over the top perhaps?
.....................................................

Perhaps it was the realising I was asleep at the wheel or that I'd missed some important data that caused it? Not sure.
Learning not to push too much, not to try and 'save them' whilst trying to perhaps offer information they didn't otherwise have is quite tricky.

This may or may not apply to your situation but what I have observed in myself is that the desire to help others grow and learn is often mixed or tainted with a degree of self-importance. Self importance is perhaps the biggest enemy (G and Castaneda say so) and it takes many subtle forms, often twisting an otherwise altruistic motivation for feeding itself. I have seen myself trying to make others see what I consider important. When such efforts fail, I sometimes go to a more passive state of apparent detachment which is still tainted with smugness and/or condescension. I try to remind myself that this is all self-deception on my part; I am as asleep as the others with the difference being I am in possession of certain information courtesy Laura's work, SOTT, this forum etc which others may not have.
In "The Power Of Silence", Don Juan tells Castaneda that in terms of personality, there are 3 categories of people. The first category consists of followers who have a fluid personality, are resourceful within limits, well-mannered but always need someone to provide direction to them. The second category consists of people who are self-centred, want others to conform to their standards and desperately want to be recognized as leaders. The third category of people are detached and indifferent, having an exalted idea about themselves derived from wishful thinking.
Perhaps there are many who indulge in their desire to "be leaders" at the cost of self-growth as discussed in this thread becoming "black magicians" as per G's definition of the term. I believe that this propensity exists in many who may not become as famous. As per "getting someone stuck between barriers", IMO this perhaps applies in the domain of teachers and students who are seriously engaged in the process of waking up - like in the context that G mentions. I do not think that this applies to people we encounter in casual daily interactions and share some snippets of information here and there. As kenlee wrote, normally people have a pretty strong armor of their views about reality which cannot be easily penetrated unless they themselves are willing and open to accept other views. If they are stuck, life as a teacher will perhaps take the necessary steps to address the issue. It may happen through us if we just happen to be present in the appropriate place and time. Till we are well and truly awake I believe we have little control over such a process - so we may not be justified either in taking credit for waking someone up or blaming ourselves for getting someone stuck.
My 2 cents fwiw
 
More 'I' struggle with self-importance, more self-importance gets bigger. That is how it seems from my experience.
I think I am also1) 'self-centred' type in Castaneda's category, which possibly related to G's "chief feature" concept.
It's smiler with STO/STS struggle for me. 'I' can not become a STO candidate! It seems needing to start from something else rather than 'I'2).

An interesting thing about "black magicians" is that they also wrote about it. For example, Rodney Collin wrote:
in Theory of Conscious Harmony p167 said:
DECEMBER 28, 1954 We have such help to become free to serve the Great Work if we are prepared to forget ourselves and give everything we are and have to serving—to serving others, to serving Ouspensky and his friends, to serving God. When we really give ourselves to that, we see that our faults and failings are so small, so unimportant, almost as unimportant as our virtues! To give, to serve, to be kind, to love men, our teachers, the angels, and God. What more do we want? What more do we expect? What less dare we demand?

We must get over our doubts and fears and difficulties, our self-importance.

All this has to go, and it will be taken from us if we sincerely wish, and if we do not cling to it—cling to our little selves. We have to become free as Ouspensky to go up, up, and up. Geoff* did that. He asked nothing for himself, he gave away everything he had, and then spent himself making things to give away also. When he died one could feel his spirit shooting upwards like a rocket—because there was nothing to hold him to this earth except his love to help his friends here—and the higher he goes the better he can do that.
(Also please note Ouspensky did not forget about "realizing one's own nothingness" part when he wrote ISOM, and because of that now we can read it.)

So it means even they knew it they could not realize it 'fully'?

In the same context above, I begin to see his "Wishful Thinking" here and there. Statements are emotional but too abstract and not clearly understood about STO/STS principles (due to lack of "knowledge"?).

WHY and HOW they became "black magicians"? is something I really need to understand more "deeply" (or I should say from more "insider" perspective).

Regarding to Laura's comment, as a matter of fact the exactly same part of ISOM was referred by my previous teacher and his old students to explain what happened to ex-students (and I "believed" it)! This is one reason WHY I need to "understand" this "forth way" phenomena more "deeply".

And this is exactly why I want to be here. Because I feel here has something that was "lacking" in them ("black magicians").

==footnote==
1) I remember Don Juan says he himself and Castaneda belong to 'self-centred' type ("The Power of Silence" p247).
2) I refer "small (or many) Is" by 'I'. In other words, "small (or many) Is" can not be the 'active force' of the struggle since that would be STS.
 
GotoGo said:
(Also please note Ouspensky did not forget about "realizing one's own nothingness" part when he wrote ISOM, and because of that now we can read it.)

So it means even they knew it they could not realize it 'fully'?

Perhaps there is a big difference in understanding something intellectually and understanding something with both emotion and intellect. Patterson's account of a portion of Ouspensky's life quoted here in Laura's post shows that Ouspensky did not get rid of his self-importance in practice and he even realized it himself but still could not act based on that realization. He says (as per Patterson) that

"I took over the leadership to save the System. But I took it over before I had gained enough control over myself. I was not ready. I have lost control over myself. It is a long time since I could control my state of mind."
........

"The System has become a profession with me"
......
"I have become dependent on the comfort, the luxury. I can't give it up."

That Rodney Collin thought that
We have to become free as Ouspensky to go up, up, and up.
when he was with Ouspensky in his last days shows that he was quite blind to his teacher's objective state. Ironically, it seems that if Ouspensky had the same devotion towards Gurdjieff that Collin showed towards him, perhaps things could have turned out quite different.

GotoGo said:
WHY and HOW they became "black magicians"? is something I really need to understand more "deeply" (or I should say from more "insider" perspective).
The WHY part was answered by Laura - the denial of the existence of conscious evil and consequent fear of facing the reality of one's helplessness and nothingness. Once the maneuver of accepting a lie (or denying a truth) has been completed, the person's brain may change as discussed here .
 
obyvatel said:
GotoGo said:
WHY and HOW they became "black magicians"? is something I really need to understand more "deeply" (or I should say from more "insider" perspective).
The WHY part was answered by Laura - the denial of the existence of conscious evil and consequent fear of facing the reality of one's helplessness and nothingness. Once the maneuver of accepting a lie (or denying a truth) has been completed, the person's brain may change as discussed here .

Hello obyvatel,

I agree with you completely about WHY part.
I am speculating where this kind of my questions to understand more "deeply" or from more "insider" perspective come from.
This is another 'pattern' I observed in my life from childhood. (I throw this kind of question and make sometimes my friends up set... :()
I am investigating if this 'pattern' is relating with my personal 'emotional blockage' or/and 'trauma'.

Thank you for the link. It is an interesting connection with our brain. I will read it more closely. :)
 

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom