In Search of the Miraculous

[Lauranimal]

There is a phrase in this book, that I have seen mentioned in a number of threads on the forum, (It comes from pg 57 in the book)

"...The moon at present feeds on organic life, on humanity. Humanity is a part of organic life; this means that humanity is food for the moon. ..."

I have gathered that the meaning of this is generally in reference to those who remain asleep and living almost exclusively in their mechanical nature, "feed" the moon with emotional reactions. By not choosing to evolve the self, they are choosing to allow 4D STS / predator mind, to feed on the "loosh". (I vaguely remember this word being used, though I cannot find it in the Cass Glossery)

My question is this, if the moon represents the predator mind, or STS ... why? I am only on page 70 of the book, but so far I have not found anything to clarify this. On the page I am reading, Oupensky goes in to great detail about the fundamental properties of language and how speech should be constructed upon the principal of relativity to the subject in order to accurately determine the angle of thought. I agree! entirely!

So I found it strange that he had been so ambiguous about what exactly the "moon" represents, and why that is? He is very precise in all his conceptual teachings... except for this one. It was like a statement out of the blue. Perhaps relevant... but unclear. If the moon is something other than what it seems to be, I would like to develop a better understanding of why anyone believes this.

I think of the moon as a piece of the Earth that was broken off in a collision a very uber-long, long time ago. It has it's own particular "resources" and attributes. It may even be a base; or it's unseen / dark side might be used as a crossing point for 4D beings to cross back and forth between 3D & 4D. But is it a predator? Does it take something from us? Or is it a metaphor? If it is a metaphor, then how has it come to have a reputation of being represented as a predator?

I may even be asking the "wrong" questions. I suppose I am a bit literal/simple-minded. I just can't quite grasp this one.

I was hoping someone who understands this concept could help me to get a better bead on it.

 

[mkrnhr]

Hello Lauranimal,
I'm just speculating but maybe the moon represents STS materiality. As compared to the sun, the moon doesn't give energy, it takes it. It is a cold and static object, without life. The earth supports life and gives life, contrary to the moon. Maybe it is this aspect in us we feed, the predator inside who hijacks the flowing of creative energy? Stillness, cold and death of inert matter?

 

[Turgon]

Hi Lauranimal,

This excerpt from this thread - Imitation Fourth Way Group started by Gurdjieff Rejects http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=215.0 might answer some of your questions

Quote
"People are machines. Machines have to be blind and unconscious, they cannot
be otherwise, and all their actions have to correspond to their nature.
Everything happens. No one does anything. 'Progress' and 'civilization,' in
the real meaning of these words, can appear only as the result of conscious
efforts. They cannot appear as the result of unconscious mechanical actions.
And what conscious effort can there be in machines? And if one machine is
unconscious, then a hundred machines are unconscious, and so are a thousand
machines, or a hundred thousand, or a million. And the unconscious activity
of a million machines must necessarily result in destruction and
extermination. It is precisely in unconscious involuntary manifestations
that all evil lies. You do not yet understand and cannot imagine all the
results of this evil. But the time will come when you will understand."

Then, there is this:

Quote
"The influence of the moon upon everything living manifests itself in all
that happens on the earth. The moon is the chief, or rather, the nearest,
the immediate, motive force of all that takes place in organic life on the
earth. All movements, actions, and manifestations of people, animals, and
plants depend upon the moon and are controlled by the moon. The sensitive
film of organic life which covers the earthly globe is entirely dependent
upon the influence of the huge electromagnet that is sucking out its
vitality. Man, like every other living being, cannot, in the ordinary
conditions of life, tear himself free from the moon. All his movements and
consequently all his actions are controlled by the moon. If he kills another
man, the moon does it; if he sacrifices himself for others, the moon does
that also. All evil deeds, all crimes, all self-sacrificing actions, all
heroic exploits, as well as all the actions of ordinary everyday life, are
controlled by the moon. "The liberation which comes with the growth of
mental powers and faculties is liberation from the moon. The mechanical part
of our life depends upon the moon, is subject to the moon. If we develop
in selves consciousness and will, and subject our mechanical life and all
our mechanical manifestations to them, we shall escape from the power of the
moon.

The closest Gurdjieff came to trying to grok hyperdimensions and "worlds of
information" was his theory about the moon. Read it and just replace
"moon" with 4 D STS. Obviously, his idea about the "growth of the moon" is
somewhat silly, but if you understand it as 4 D STS, and the fact that he
may have heard many traditions of so-called extraterrestrials on the moon
that had been distorted and veiled in transmission, then it is completely
understandable.

Quote
"The process of the growth and the warming of the moon is connected with
life and death on the earth. Everything living sets free at its death a
certain amount of the energy that has 'animated' it; this energy, or the
'souls' of everything living—plants, animals, people—is attracted to the
moon as though by a huge electromagnet, and brings to it the warmth and the
life upon which its growth depends, that is, the growth of the ray of
creation. In the economy of the universe nothing is lost, and a certain
energy having finished its work on one plane goes to another.

"The souls that go to the moon, possessing perhaps even a certain amount of
consciousness and memory, find themselves there under ninety-six laws, in
the conditions of mineral life, or to put it differently, in conditions from
which there is no escape apart from a general evolution in immeasurably
long planetary cycles. The moon is 'at the extremity,' at the end of the
world; it is the 'outer darkness' of the Christian doctrine 'where there
will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'

Then Gurdjieff talks about the "materiality" of the universe." He found it
almost impossible to think in any terms other than material, though he did
carefully qualify his words.

Quote
"The next idea which it is necessary to master is the materiality of the
universe which is taken in the form of the ray of creation. Everything in
this universe can be weighed and measured. The Absolute is as material, as
weighable and measurable, as the moon, or as man. If the Absolute is Cod it
means that God can be weighed and measured, resolved into component
elements, 'calculated,' and expressed in the form of a definite formula.

"But the concept 'materiality' is as relative as everything else. It we
recall how the concept 'man' and all that refers to him—good, evil, truth,
falsehood, and so on—is divided into different categories ('man number one,'
'man number two,' and so on, it will be easy for us to understand that the
concept 'world,' and everything that refers to the world, is also divided
into different categories. The ray of creation establishes seven planes in
the world, seven worlds one within another. Everything that refers to the
world is also divided into seven categories, one category within another.

"The materiality of the Absolute is a materiality of an order different from
that of 'all worlds.' The materiality of 'all worlds' is of an order
different from the materiality of 'all suns.' The materiality of 'all suns'
is of an order different from the materiality of our sun. The materiality of
our sun is of an order different from the materiality of 'all planets.' The
materiality of 'all planets' is of an order different from the materiality
of the earth, and the materiality of the earth is of an order different from
the materiality of the moon.

"This idea is at first difficult to grasp.
People are accustomed to think that matter is everywhere the same. The whole
of physics, of astrophysics, of chemistry, such methods as spectroanalysis,
and so on, are based upon this assumption. And it is true that matter is
the same, but materiality is different. And different degrees of
materiality depend directly upon the qualities and properties of the energy
manifested at a given point."

In this last series of remarks we find the clue that Gurdjieff wasn't able,
because of his dominating moving center, to really grok non-physical
existence = pure information. As the C's remarked (and I think that, on
this point, it applies as well to Gurdjieff):

 

[Lauranimal]

Thank you for your responses mkrnhr & DanielS.

I appreciate your efforts.

Perhaps I am just too insanely tired to grok anything right now. Or perhaps I really am simple-minded.

I just don't get it.

It is almost as though everyone who does get it, has agreed upon a common assumption or belief. I feel like I am missing a piece that allows me to interpret it in the proper context.

I will return to read over your posts again, and perhaps something will click.

Thanks again

 

[Turgon]

I just don't get it.

It is almost as though everyone who does get it, has agreed upon a common assumption or belief. I feel like I am missing a piece that allows me to interpret it in the proper context.

The moon was just a metaphor of sorts.

"The influence of the moon upon everything living manifests itself in all
that happens on the earth. The moon is the chief, or rather, the nearest,
the immediate, motive force of all that takes place in organic life on the
earth. All movements, actions, and manifestations of people, animals, and
plants depend upon the moon and are controlled by the moon.

If you replace moon with 4D STS in the sentence above, it pretty much means the moon (4D STS) is the major force that affects life here on 3D Earth.

 

[Laura]

I went into this in The Wave, noting that "The Moon" was a metaphor for 4 D STS. Maybe reading The Wave first will help?

 

[Lauranimal]

Thanks. I did read the Wave. I will probably read it again at some point. And perhaps at some point I will either come across a tidbit that will clarify this for me a little better. After reading your responses, I feel pretty sure I am not asking the question the right way.

Thanks for being tolerant.

 

[anart]

Thanks. I did read the Wave. I will probably read it again at some point. And perhaps at some point I will either come across a tidbit that will clarify this for me a little better. After reading your responses, I feel pretty sure I am not asking the question the right way.

Thanks for being tolerant.

Hi Lauranimal, I'm a bit confused about what you're asking. Since it's been explained that 'food for the moon' is a metaphor for humanity being food for 4D STS, are you confused about why Ouspensky didn't come out and say that literally or whether Gurdjieff understood it literally?

I'm just trying to understand your question more fully, in case I can help clarify.

 

[Renaissance]

I think the moon is a really good representation of the dynamic that exists between humanity and psychopaths and by extension 4D STS. If we represent the sun as our source of life, and see how the moon reflects that light as if it were its own, then we also see the dynamic of how an object of darkness imitates light as a means of deception. When we give creation's life force to pathological thinking and feeling it is 'food for the moon'.

 

[Lauranimal]

"...Since it's been explained that 'food for the moon' is a metaphor for humanity being food for 4D STS, ..."

Indeed, as I mentioned in my 1st post here, I gather that to be the case of what is believed by many, apparently including G, to be true.

"...are you confused about why Ouspensky didn't come out and say that literally or whether Gurdjieff understood it literally?

Well, actually.... I suppose, both.... since Ouspensky is basicly paraphrasing everything that Gurdjieff taught him.

My confusion has been about WHY the moon was given this rather unflattering role. And I couldn't find any evidence or understanding behind why anyone would imbue the moon with this particularly negative attribute. It's a rock. A hunk of minerals (and perhaps a few other things) Like any other material object, it has mass and gravity.

Through Ouspensky, G is really good at explaining the reasoning behind the realities he is proclaiming as truth. I guess this one phrase just stood out. Having seen many people on the forum use the phrase "food for the moon", I patiently waited till I could read about it myself, thinking that it would become clear. You could as easily say that we are "food for Mars", or Jupiter, or Orion. Perhaps I am just stubborn. Or in my desire to be discerning and look with objectivity, I am unwilling to accept without question, the assumptions of others, without some kind of evidence.

For me, reading many of the quotes that were offered as an explanation was like asking:
"Why are we food for the moon?" And receiving the answer: "Because we are food for the moon." That is not meant to be a snide remark or an affront to anyone who has been kind enough to reach out and help me. It is more a comment on how my own mind works, and perhaps my inability to see the angle of thought from whence the phrase came.

However, in the explanation that Los has offered, I am starting to understand (and for me, this means the ability to visualize) the concept behind the metaphor.

I think the moon is a really good representation of the dynamic that exists between humanity and psychopaths and by extension 4D STS. If we represent the sun as our source of life, and see how the moon reflects that light as if it were its own, then we also see the dynamic of how an object of darkness imitates light as a means of deception. When we give creation's life force to pathological thinking and feeling it is 'food for the moon'.

Thank you Los. This helps a lot.

I'm just trying to understand your question more fully, in case I can help clarify.

Thanks! If you feel like there is more you can flesh out on this, I am grateful for the help.

My apologies to Laura. I don't remember every detail that I read in The Wave. I read all of it pretty fast. Inhaling it with a feverish sense of urgency. I did go back and try to do a search to re-aquaint myself with this subject, but the search function does not work on the Wave pages.

 

[Nienna]

Maybe this will shed some more light on "Food for the Moon."

 

[Lauranimal]

Thank you Nienna Eluch,

I did read it and understand well what is implied. Though, other than the metaphor that Los has offered, I do not really see any explanation at all for how the 'moon' became the representative of a feeding, sts predator.

In Aztec Warfare, Western Warfare Richard Koenigsberg documents how it was a declared purpose of warfare to procure sacrificial victims for feeding the Sun god.

I don't recall ever seeing any reference to the moon as a God. In Greek mythology, many of the planets were represented by the various energies of Gods & Goddesses, but the moon?

Gurdjieff is not alone in proposing that man feeds something else.

I can also see that, because of the context of the times in which G and others were writing and teaching, they had to substitute another word or object to represent that "something else". I guess I thought there was a much greater meaning behind the moon being that representation. And maybe it is just as simple as Los has stated. (not that dealing with the hidden agendas of psychopaths is easy, particularly when we are born with a natural born tendency of a blind spot for them.)

I have probably been belaboring a point that is meaningless. And maybe even holding on to some shredd of an old 'sacred cow' about the moon. I have never thought of it as having evil intent. Of taking something away. On the contrary, I have always thought of it's relationship to the Earth as being symbiotic. It seemed to regulate the ebb and flow of my menstrual cycle. It seemed to me to represent a feminine principal that regulates the cycles of the seasons. When it was full and large, I felt the world was pregnant with potential. In fact, it is at it's largest during the fall harvest. I thought of the fact that it was able to reflect the sun's light as a positive thing. When we cannot see the life-giving light of the Sun, the moon acts as a mirror and a reminder that the sun is still there and we will return to it. Silly shmilly stuff, I guess.

In truth. I don't "believe" anything anymore, and those things that I "think" of as true and which Seem to be true, are very much open to question.

It seems I am not the only one who has thought of this concept of "food for the moon" as being a little confusing. The opening sentence for the Cassiopedia entry Nienna linked above says,

This is one of the more troubling and less explained concepts of the 4th Way.

Thank you Nienna ... I will probably read that link more than once, and now I know where to find this Cassiopedia. I knew about the glossery, and now I have another tool. Yay!

 

[vinny]

Thank you Nienna Eluch,

I did read it and understand well what is implied. Though, other than the metaphor that Los has offered, I do not really see any explanation at all for how the 'moon' became the representative of a feeding, sts predator.

I think it is a combination of two things: Gurdjieff being extremely careful about how he talked about 4D STS (he is quite tight lipped about it, giving scant clues to the uninitiated as to exactly what knowledge he possessed); plus perhaps some imagery to do with the whole 'ray of creation' thing.

 

[anart]

Thank you Nienna Eluch,

I did read it and understand well what is implied. Though, other than the metaphor that Los has offered, I do not really see any explanation at all for how the 'moon' became the representative of a feeding, sts predator.

I think it is a combination of two things: Gurdjieff being extremely careful about how he talked about 4D STS (he is quite tight lipped about it, giving scant clues to the uninitiated as to exactly what knowledge he possessed); plus perhaps some imagery to do with the whole 'ray of creation' thing.

Plus, what better object to use as metaphor for 4D STS than the small globe that rules the night sky, thus the unseen - 'above us', mysterious, unknown, powerful and omnipresent (in addition to Los' take).

 

[Pierre]

I have probably been belaboring a point that is meaningless. And maybe even holding on to some shredd of an old 'sacred cow' about the moon. I have never thought of it as having evil intent. Of taking something away. On the contrary, I have always thought of it's relationship to the Earth as being symbiotic. It seemed to regulate the ebb and flow of my menstrual cycle. It seemed to me to represent a feminine principal that regulates the cycles of the seasons. When it was full and large, I felt the world was pregnant with potential. In fact, it is at it's largest during the fall harvest. I thought of the fact that it was able to reflect the sun's light as a positive thing. When we cannot see the life-giving light of the Sun, the moon acts as a mirror and a reminder that the sun is still there and we will return to it. Silly shmilly stuff, I guess.

Hi Lauranimal,

I don't think your point of view is silly. Indeed several symbol systems present the moon as the symbol of feminine, creation, night... by opposition to the sun: masculine, action, day...

With this symbolism attached to the moon, I can understand you had difficulties understanding why G. used a usually positive symbol to describe such a negative phenomenon (feeding 4D STS).

This being said, whatever symbol G. uses in his metaphor what really matters is the meaning of the metaphor and now this point seems to be clarified.