Learning to Sense and Control the Functioning of One's Centers - Help?

whitecoast

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Hello everyone.

There's a heap of questions I'm wishing to ask, about sensing and learning to control the function of one's physical, emotional, and mental centers (as well as their higher corresponding complements: the sex center, the higher emotional center, and the higher intellectual center.)

I've been studying myself independently for about four years relating to these questions, and I want to ask others who are doing/studying similar activities in themselves for feedback and maybe some assistance with some things I'm beginning to encounter. The goal of this is to bring these observations of mine into the context of the work so that I may more fully understand my experiences with your assistance. There’s a lot here, because I’ve been carrying on these observations of my centers for a few years. I wanted to get this all out here because I recognize how critical it is to get feedback from the network/school on my development and such, and I think I’m a bit backlogged as far as that goes, hehe. So I want to see if I’m on the right track or if there are either things I am missing, or things that I am going about incorrectly.

I first started observing how my mind/body works as manifested through certain centers about four summers ago. I was just out of school, and my mind had essentially imploded from all the intensive studying I was doing. I had frequent headaches and stomach aches, for example. These didn't go away immediately after school was out either. It wasn't until I started doing qi gong, and some “grounding” exercises by some people I met that my stomach aches subsided, and I actually felt like I was in my body again! Being a primarily cerebral person, my curiosity about how this all worked was piqued.

I tried focusing on certain feelings or sensations in my body, as Mouravieff advised when he taught the Sage's Pose in Gnosis I: Exoterica (I didn't begin to study Mouravieff until this summer, but I found the connection/corroboration interesting). Eventually I learned to direct awareness and sort of up-regulate the functioning of certain centers and such. This was the first inroad I made to learning how to directly control the functioning of centers, instead of commonly used methods of indirect control (such as, say, doing yoga to try and direct more awareness to your physical center, or doing calculus to direct more awareness to your mental center). My first real empirical test for this was jumping into a freezing cold shower while raising the activity of my physical center. The result was that I actually felt more capable and able to endure the sensory shock of having cold water pouring all over me. There was much less internal resistance to it... like I was more able to embrace the new experience and assimilate it. :lol:

I should add I didn't learn how to down-regulate or slow down the functioning of centers until I started reading more into the fourth way path. I think this had to do with my eventual waking up to the fact that the wasting of energy through the misuse of centers is a serious obstacle in the way.

Another thing I noticed in my self-study is that each centers have certain breadths as well... as in, a capacity that I feel must expand with practice and such. My factory setting according to Gurdjieff's classification of people into 7 levels is level 3, meaning I spend most of my time and energy in my mental center and primarily identify with my mental functions and habits. I noticed that directing a certain amount of energy/focus/awareness into my mental center sort of “filled out” much quicker than when I directed energies into either my emotional or physical center. My physical center least of all, because I only really run for exercise (spontaneously, non-scheduled), and I don't partake in physical activities that require remarkable dexterity (like playing an instrument, gymnastics, sports, et cetera). I have a hypothesis that the breadths or capacities of certain centers are expanded through practice, much like how exercising certain parts of your brain encourages the formation of more neural connections and pathways.

Examining further, sometimes I can see the mental or emotional landscape of my mental or emotional center, not just how energized or quickly it is operating. In Barbara Anne Brennan's Hands of Light, she talks about how higher bodies of ourselves, such as the mental, have a distinct clouds and networks of thoughts and such, which seems to correspond to the types of inner “geography” I (and hopefully others of you on the forum?) have been able to see.

Relating to the functioning of higher centers. It is my current objective to successfully fuse my lower and higher emotional center, which according to Mouravieff is one of the steps taken toward becoming “permanently awake”. There are certain moments and occasions, when after mustering enough energy, will, et cetera, I can catch awareness of a higher emotional center. It is quite inconsistent, but it feels much emotionally lighter and subtle than my lower emotional center, and seems to be much... purer in texture (compare a newborn's skin to that of a ninety-year old's... there's much less craggy “geography” :lol:) When I thought about how to go about performing such a fusion, and remembering how our minds and emotions form a sort of interconnected network of thoughts and feelings we keep passing through and running around in a more or less mechanical manner, it occurred to me that one strategy could be to try and manipulate my emotional space to try and forge connections between my lower and higher emotional center. Since I was performing work on my emotional center, I examined myself through the mental and physical center (mental mainly) and kind of attained an image of a type of network, with nodes which would summon a particular sentiment or feeling upon contact. I would then adjust the activity of both centers so they had the same energy levels, and attempted to fuse them (I am at a loss for words how to describe it... “focus-efforting” is the nearest I can do).

What I've described has been an ongoing process, and is emotionally exhausting. Last night I even started to feel some faint heartache... but the meditative sit was an hour long so that's probably to be expected. I have been noticing immediate positive effects though. The high road to any emotional interpretation of an event is automatically taken. Or at least, it is taken for those thought/feeling areas which I have done my best to connect to the higher emotional center. There is an increased inner gentleness to things I turn my emotional centers to as well. I find the effects require consistent willpower and application, because any time I fall asleep the connections I initially make start to wither (this is the other side of neurons that “fire together wire together,” which is: “if you don't use it you lose it” :rolleyes:). Programs that are activated while being asleep also negatively affect the connections, unless I’m conscious enough to “catch” it in the act, and thereby isolate its effects.

Have any of you had similar experiences to what I’ve attempted to describe?

What books, lectures, and such would you recommend I examine that may shed light on some of these things? I'm still in the process of ordering Gnosis II and III, so I hope I didn't just ask a bunch of questions that could be answered in it, heh. :shock: Like I said, I’m trying to understand my experiences thus far in the context of the work, so as much feedback, comments, tips, and critiques as possible would be appreciated.

Disclaimer: I often use certain types of physical descriptions of things in my “inner space,” but the interpretation of how a particular thing may be, I speculate, depends largely upon your own preferences (such as what centers you use to observe a given center, et cetera).
 
There is so much here that is not even wrong that I wouldn't begin to know where and how to straighten it out.
 
Okay. I suppose it's a good thing I asked then, so I don't try and pursue things further off-track or further misunderstand. For what that's worth. :-[
I did write a lot, so I'm not expecting a thorough response to everything any time soon.
 
whitecoast said:
Okay. I suppose it's a good thing I asked then, so I don't try and pursue things further off-track or further misunderstand. For what that's worth. :-[
I did write a lot, so I'm not expecting a thorough response to everything any time soon.

I think the point is that it's almost impossible to respond to, without taking enormous amounts of time, because you've confused and jumbled together so many concepts that it bears no resemblance to reality. Maybe it would help to outline what reading you've done at this point? Perhaps some solid time spent reading the Wave, Gnosis, Secret History of the World, Gurdjieff (not his students, other than Ouspensky's ISOTM) might clarify things for you?

You seem to have a tendency to take bits and pieces of information and create elaborate theories with them, without a basic understanding of the core concepts, so perhaps going back to the beginning and really delving into those core concepts might help? In the meantime I would sincerely advise that you stop thinking that you can think with the way you think?
 
anart said:
whitecoast said:
Okay. I suppose it's a good thing I asked then, so I don't try and pursue things further off-track or further misunderstand. For what that's worth. :-[
I did write a lot, so I'm not expecting a thorough response to everything any time soon.

I think the point is that it's almost impossible to respond to, without taking enormous amounts of time, because you've confused and jumbled together so many concepts that it bears no resemblance to reality. Maybe it would help to outline what reading you've done at this point? Perhaps some solid time spent reading the Wave, Gnosis, Secret History of the World, Gurdjieff (not his students, other than Ouspensky's ISOTM) might clarify things for you?

You seem to have a tendency to take bits and pieces of information and create elaborate theories with them, without a basic understanding of the core concepts, so perhaps going back to the beginning and really delving into those core concepts might help? In the meantime I would sincerely advise that you stop thinking that you can think with the way you think?

I think this is a good point. Also, whitecoast, have you read any of the Big 5 Psychology books on Narcissism yet? I've found that reading the psychology books actually gave me a better grasp of the esoteric material once I started reading that.
 
RyanX said:
anart said:
whitecoast said:
Okay. I suppose it's a good thing I asked then, so I don't try and pursue things further off-track or further misunderstand. For what that's worth. :-[
I did write a lot, so I'm not expecting a thorough response to everything any time soon.

I think the point is that it's almost impossible to respond to, without taking enormous amounts of time, because you've confused and jumbled together so many concepts that it bears no resemblance to reality. Maybe it would help to outline what reading you've done at this point? Perhaps some solid time spent reading the Wave, Gnosis, Secret History of the World, Gurdjieff (not his students, other than Ouspensky's ISOTM) might clarify things for you?

You seem to have a tendency to take bits and pieces of information and create elaborate theories with them, without a basic understanding of the core concepts, so perhaps going back to the beginning and really delving into those core concepts might help? In the meantime I would sincerely advise that you stop thinking that you can think with the way you think?

I think this is a good point. Also, whitecoast, have you read any of the Big 5 Psychology books on Narcissism yet? I've found that reading the psychology books actually gave me a better grasp of the esoteric material once I started reading that.

And Levine's "In An Unspoken Voice".
 
Approaching Infinity said:
RyanX said:
anart said:
whitecoast said:
Okay. I suppose it's a good thing I asked then, so I don't try and pursue things further off-track or further misunderstand. For what that's worth. :-[
I did write a lot, so I'm not expecting a thorough response to everything any time soon.

I think the point is that it's almost impossible to respond to, without taking enormous amounts of time, because you've confused and jumbled together so many concepts that it bears no resemblance to reality. Maybe it would help to outline what reading you've done at this point? Perhaps some solid time spent reading the Wave, Gnosis, Secret History of the World, Gurdjieff (not his students, other than Ouspensky's ISOTM) might clarify things for you?

You seem to have a tendency to take bits and pieces of information and create elaborate theories with them, without a basic understanding of the core concepts, so perhaps going back to the beginning and really delving into those core concepts might help? In the meantime I would sincerely advise that you stop thinking that you can think with the way you think?

I think this is a good point. Also, whitecoast, have you read any of the Big 5 Psychology books on Narcissism yet? I've found that reading the psychology books actually gave me a better grasp of the esoteric material once I started reading that.

And Levine's "In An Unspoken Voice".

Wow thanks a bunch for your reading recommendations. :D

To Anart, yes I do realize that my major energy sieve or chief feature is fiddling with ideas in my head passively and automatically. I try and compartmentalize my active from my passive thinking as much as possible - not always with success though. It seems the correct course of action is to try and make all thinking 100% active and deliberate.

Here are the books/documents related to "what we do" on the Forum that I've read so far:
-Cass Transcripts (up to 2000 or so, and some of the latter ones sporadically)
-The Wave, and Adventures with Cassiopaea (which are online)
-The Fourth Way (since you said no students of G's, I'll search what's so objectionable about it to decrystallize some of the misinformation)
-Beelzebub's Tales to His Grandson (:love:)
-Meetings with Remarkable Men (etc.)
-Gnosis I: Exoterica
-Teachings of Don Juan (I found the amount of drugs used a bit strange, considering the work's attitude toward phenomena chasing... but I suppose that's why it's not recommended as an essential read anyhow)

I'm in the process of reading High Strangeness, and will move onto Political Ponerology and Secret History of the World shortly after. Then I'll finish more books by Mouravieff and Castenada.

Ryanx, thanks for recommended reading list - it's bookmarked now. :) For whatever reason I've been avoiding books on psychology for one reason or another, favoring books related more directly to spiritual development... I guess I don't find psychology as interesting as spirituality... which is kind of strange and lopsided of me when I think about it. :rolleyes: I have a strong interest in reading Polyvagal Theory (due to my interest in Eiriu Eolas), but I suppose it would be more valuable if I delved into some lighter topics on psychology and neurology first. And thank you, Approaching Infinity, for bringing In An Unspoken Voice to my attention.

In the meantime I would sincerely advise that you stop thinking that you can think with the way you think?

:lol: Are you intentionally adjusting the wording to be optimally agitating to mechanical digestion like the way Gurdjieff spoke through Beelzebub? Either way, point taken!
 
From this:

whitecoast said:
I've been studying myself independently for about four years relating to these questions, and I want to ask others who are doing/studying similar activities in themselves for feedback and maybe some assistance with some things I'm beginning to encounter. The goal of this is to bring these observations of mine into the context of the work so that I may more fully understand my experiences with your assistance. There’s a lot here, because I’ve been carrying on these observations of my centers for a few years. I wanted to get this all out here because I recognize how critical it is to get feedback from the network/school on my development and such, and I think I’m a bit backlogged as far as that goes, hehe. So I want to see if I’m on the right track or if there are either things I am missing, or things that I am going about incorrectly.

and this:

whitecoast said:
Here are the books/documents related to "what we do" on the Forum that I've read so far:
-Cass Transcripts (up to 2000 or so, and some of the latter ones sporadically)
-The Wave, and Adventures with Cassiopaea (which are online)
-The Fourth Way (since you said no students of G's, I'll search what's so objectionable about it to decrystallize some of the misinformation)
-Beelzebub's Tales to His Grandson (:love:)
-Meetings with Remarkable Men (etc.)
-Gnosis I: Exoterica
-Teachings of Don Juan (I found the amount of drugs used a bit strange, considering the work's attitude toward phenomena chasing... but I suppose that's why it's not recommended as an essential read anyhow)

I'm in the process of reading High Strangeness, and will move onto Political Ponerology and Secret History of the World shortly after. Then I'll finish more books by Mouravieff and Castenada.

Ryanx, thanks for recommended reading list - it's bookmarked now. :) For whatever reason I've been avoiding books on psychology for one reason or another, favoring books related more directly to spiritual development... I guess I don't find psychology as interesting as spirituality... which is kind of strange and lopsided of me when I think about it. :rolleyes: I have a strong interest in reading Polyvagal Theory (due to my interest in Eiriu Eolas), but I suppose it would be more valuable if I delved into some lighter topics on psychology and neurology first. And thank you, Approaching Infinity, for bringing In An Unspoken Voice to my attention.

In the meantime I would sincerely advise that you stop thinking that you can think with the way you think?

:lol: Are you intentionally adjusting the wording to be optimally agitating to mechanical digestion like the way Gurdjieff spoke through Beelzebub? Either way, point taken!

I would have to suggest some of the more "down to earth" big-5 psychology books on our Cass reading list. It is very easy to get excited when reading these esoteric books and start re-framing everything that has happened in our lives in terms of the concepts outlined in these books. This, however, is a trap because it is rather neatly side-stepping the issue of the profound bankruptcy that occurs to pretty much everyone who pursues The Work.

I don't think Anart was trying to be provocative or clever but quite literal. Your thinking has got you to this point in your life. Imagining that the same thinking you have always had can help you live your life any differently than you ever have is one of the most profound and damaging lies you can tell yourself. Getting a glimpse of how fundamentally mechanical every aspect of our existence up to this moment has been is the beginning of the bankruptcy that it takes to seriously consider choosing The Work.

You have to let all of your past "observations" go or at least admit the possibility that they were fundamentally flawed with respect to gaining some kind of objective knowledge. If you try to integrate your past observations into The Work before understanding how constrained these observations were by the mechanical personality, then you end up accepting lies and reservations as truth.

If you are quite content with your life up to this point and the way you were living it, the way you have been thinking and feeling, etc, then I don't understand why you would want to do The Work. It is rather challenging to the assumptions we have about ourselves. However, if you are not content, if you are sensing there is somethign keeping you back from understanding truth, and if you would like to challenge whatever it is that keeps you from understanding truth, then you have to pay something.

The First Initiation comes to mind:

The 'First Initiation' written by Mme Jeanne de Salzmann:


You will see that in life you receive exactly what you give. Your life is the mirror of what you are. It is in your image. You are passive, blind, demanding. You take all, you accept all, without feeling any obligation. Your attitude toward the world and toward life is the attitude of one who has the right to make demands and to take, who has no need to pay or to earn. You believe that all things are your due, simply because it is you! All your blindness is there! ...

You live exclusively according to "I like" or "I don't like," you have no appreciation except for yourself. You recognize nothing above you-theoretically, logically, perhaps, but actually no. That is why you are demanding and continue to believe that everything is cheap and that you have enough in your pocket to buy everything you like. You recognize nothing above you, either outside yourself or inside. That is why, I repeat, you have no measure and live passively according to your likes and dislikes.

Yes, your "appreciation of yourself" blinds you. It is the biggest obstacle to a new life. You must be able to get over this obstacle, this threshold, before going further.

This test divides men into two kinds: the "wheat" and the "chaff." No matter how intelligent, how gifted, how brilliant a man may be, if he does not change his appreciation of himself, there will be no hope for an inner development, for a work toward self-knowledge, for a true becoming. He will remain such as he is all his life.

The first requirement, the first condition, the first test for one who wishes to work on himself is to change his appreciation of himself. He must not imagine, not simply believe or think, but see things in himself which he has never seen before, see them actually. His appreciation will never be able to change as long as he sees nothing in himself. And in order to see, he must learn to see; this is the first initiation of man into self-knowledge.

... If he sees one time he can see a second time, and if that continues he will no longer be able not to see. This is the state to be looked for, it is the aim of our observation; it is from there that the true wish will be born, the irresistible wish to become: from cold we shall become warm, vibrant; we shall be touched by our reality.

Today we have nothing but the illusion of what we are. We think too highly of ourselves. We do not respect ourselves. In order to respect myself, I have to recognize a part in myself which is above the other parts, and my attitude toward this part should bear witness to the respect that I have for it. In this way I shall respect myself. And my relations with others will be governed by the same respect.

You must understand that all the other measures - talent, education, culture, genius-are changing measures, measures of detail. The only exact measure, the only unchanging, objective real measure is the measure of inner vision. I see - I see myself - by this, you have measured. With one higher real part, you have measured another lower part, also real. And this measure, defining by itself the role of each part, will lead you to respect for yourself.

But you will see that it is not easy. And it is not cheap. You must pay dearly. For bad payers, lazy people, parasites, no hope. You must pay, pay a lot, and pay immediately, pay in advance. Pay with yourself. By sincere, conscientious, disinterested efforts. The more you are prepared to pay without economizing, without cheating, without any falsification, the more you will receive. And from that time on you will become acquainted with your nature. And you will see all the tricks, all the dishonesties that your nature resorts to in order to avoid paying hard cash. Because you have to pay with your ready-made theories, with your rooted convictions, with your prejudices, your conventions, your "I like" and "I don't like." Without bargaining, honestly, without pretending. Trying "sincerely" to see as you offer your counterfeit money.

Try for a moment to accept the idea that you are not what you believe yourself to be, that you overestimate yourself, in fact that you lie to yourself. That you always lie to yourself every moment, all day, all your life. That this lying rules you to such an extent that you cannot control it any more. You are the prey of lying. You lie, everywhere. Your relations with others - lies. The upbringing you give, the conventions - lies. Your teaching - lies. Your theories, your art- lies. Your social life, your family life - lies. And what you think of yourself - lies also.

But you never stop yourself in what you are doing or in what you are saying because you believe in yourself. You must stop inwardly and observe. Observe without preconceptions, accepting for a time this idea of lying. And if you observe in this way, paying with yourself, without self-pity, giving up all your supposed riches for a moment of reality, perhaps you will suddenly see something you have never before seen in yourself until this day.

You will see that you are different from what you think you are.

You will see that you are two.

One who is not, but takes the place and plays the role of the other. And one who is, yet so weak, so insubstantial, that he no sooner appears than he immediately disappears. He cannot endure lies. The least lie makes him faint away. He does not struggle, he does not resist, he is defeated in advance. Learn to look until you have seen the difference between your two natures, until you have seen the lies, the deception in yourself. When you have seen your two natures, that day, in yourself, the truth will be born.
 
whitecoast said:
In the meantime I would sincerely advise that you stop thinking that you can think with the way you think?

:lol: Are you intentionally adjusting the wording to be optimally agitating to mechanical digestion like the way Gurdjieff spoke through Beelzebub? Either way, point taken!

No. I'm simply telling you the truth.

If you continue on as you have been, you will end up as nothing other than a 'candidate for the insane asylum', as Gurdjieff would put it.

It's not a game and Patience has hit the mark with his post. I would also point out that you don't know what your Chief Feature is - you can't See that yet. In your case, I would suggest that until you can viscerally apply each line of First Initiation to yourself and know it to be true, everything you do is an exercise in futility.
 
If I may chime in with 2 cents...

Patience said:
You have to let all of your past "observations" go or at least admit the possibility that they were fundamentally flawed with respect to gaining some kind of objective knowledge. If you try to integrate your past observations into The Work before understanding how constrained these observations were by the mechanical personality, then you end up accepting lies and reservations as truth.

whitecoast, fwiw, if you want to speak in terms of centers, it seems to me that your intellectual center is extremely active, perhaps over-active like that of Ouspensky... I have the same problem (if I am accurate in my observation of you). In my case there is always a great temptation to always expound or elaborate on the topic at hand. The battle is to suppress that urge to intellectualize, and instead focus great concentration on one simple aspect of what I am studying; or, in the company of others, being present with them and listening.

You are obviously quite well read and good at writing. Ironically, this can be a problem, because there is a possibility that instead of allowing the knowledge you encounter to really sink in piece by piece, you may plow head-long through it and miss some very salient points.

Jacob Needleman says (paraphrased) that one must live with the question, allow it to steep inside of themselves while not purposefully seeking an answer. I agree with this practice and would heartily recommend slowing down your purposeful search for intellectual answers to these questions and instead concentrate on much more basic aspects of the questions themselves.

I may be wrong, but from the tone of your writing it appears that your emotional sense of yourself drives your intellect. This can (on the surface) be applied to the Work and cause one to seem very spot-on, while in fact you may be hindering yourself by trying to "explain" too much at one time to your own self.

That is, to echo what anart said:

anart said:
[...] until you can viscerally apply each line of First Initiation to yourself and know it to be true, everything you do is an exercise in futility.
 
whitecoast, you cannot fully understand the esoteric development ideas without understanding them in the practical terms of modern cognitive science and psychology. For example, there are clear descriptions of the neurological bases of those principles that Gurdjieff discusses in the books "The Myth of Sanity" by Martha Stout and "The Prehistory of the Mind" by Steven Mithen.

There are clear and unequivocal descriptions of buffers in the books about narcissism. Many programs can be uncovered in very practical ways by reading "Caricature of Love" by Cleckley.

Necessary understanding for what happens to the individual as they are growing up come from reading about psychopathology. If you can't name it, you can't understand it and therefore, can't see it and if you can't see it, you can't deal with it.

Then, the books on diet and health add the physiological keys because the brain is powerfully affected by the state of the body, including nutritionally.

Finally, what ties it all together is "Polyvagal Theory." In fact, all of these are required reading for EE teacher applicants. If that hasn't been spelled out before, I'm spelling it out now.

You cannot develop esoterically without a clean AND CALIBRATED machine and the knowledge of how it works, exactly and precisely, not in some vague and mysterious esoteric terms of the past. That is the beauty of the Cassiopaean Experiment and why the way we work is superior to every other. We deal with the issues from the inspirational level right on through to the absolutely practical, scientific level.
 
Jonathan said:
I may be wrong, but from the tone of your writing it appears that your emotional sense of yourself drives your intellect. This can (on the surface) be applied to the Work and cause one to seem very spot-on, while in fact you may be hindering yourself by trying to "explain" too much at one time to your own self.

Not only that, but there is an undeniable energy of the sex center flavor in all you write about and do. That is, abuse of sex.

It's probably useful to quote Gurdjieff's discussion on the abuse of sex here:

Gurdjieff said:
"Is complete sexual abstinence necessary for transmutation and is sexual abstinence, in general, useful for work on oneself?" we asked him.

"Here there is not one but a number of questions," said G. "In the first place sexual abstinence is necessary for transmutation only in certain cases, that is, for certain types of people. For others it is not at all necessary. And with yet others it comes by itself when transmutation begins. I will explain this more clearly.

"For certain types a long and complete sexual abstinence is necessary for transmutation to begin; this means in other words that without a long and complete sexual abstinence transmutation will not begin. But once it has begun abstinence is no longer necessary. In other cases, that is, with other types, transmutation can begin in a normal sexual life — and on the contrary, can begin sooner and proceed better with a very great outward expenditure of sex energy. In the third case the beginning of transmutation does not require abstinence, but, having begun, transmutation takes the whole of sexual energy and puts an end to normal sexual life or the outward expenditure of sex energy.

"Then the other question—'Is sexual abstinence useful for the work or not?'

"It is useful if there is abstinence in all centers. If there is abstinence in one center and full liberty of imagination in the others, then there could be nothing worse. And still more, abstinence can be useful if a man knows what to do with the energy which he saves in this way. If he does not know what to do with it, nothing whatever can be gained by abstinence."

"Speaking in general, what is the most correct form of life in this connection from the point of view of the work?"

"It is impossible to say. I repeat that while a man does not know it is better for him not to attempt anything. Until he has new and exact knowledge it will be quite enough if his life is guided by the usual rules and principles. If a man begins to theorize and invent in this sphere, it will lead to nothing except psychopathy. {Gurdjieff did not mean psychopathy as we use the term, but rather as a "sickness of the soul".}

"But it must again be remembered that only a person who is completely normal as regards sex has any chance in the work. Any kind of 'originality,' strange tastes, strange desires, or, on the other hand, fears, constantly working 'buffers,' must be destroyed from the very beginning. Modern education and modem life create an enormous number of sexual psychopaths. They have no chance at all in the' work.

"Speaking in general, there are only two correct ways of expending sexual energy— normal sexual life and transmutation. All inventions in this sphere are very dangerous.

"People have tried abstinence from times beyond memory. Sometimes, very rarely, it has led to something but in most cases what is called abstinence is simply exchanging normal sensations for abnormal, because the abnormal are more easily hidden.

"But it is not about this that I wish to speak. You must understand where lies the chief evil and what makes for slavery. It is not in sex itself but in the abuse of sex.

"But what the abuse of sex means is again misunderstood. People usually take this to be either excess or perversion. But these are comparatively innocent forms of abuse of sex. And it is necessary to know the human machine very well in order to grasp what abuse of sex in the real meaning of these words is. It means the wrong work of centers in relation to sex, that is, the action of the sex center through other centers, and the action of other centers through the sex center; or, to be still more precise, the functioning of the sex center with energy borrowed from other centers and the functioning of other centers with energy borrowed from the sex center."

"Can sex be regarded as an independent center?" asked one of those present.

"It can," said G. "At the same time if all the lower story is taken as one whole, then sex can be regarded as the neutralizing part of the moving center."
[...]

"In the first place it must be noted that normally in the sex center as well as in the higher emotional and the higher thinking centers, there is no negative side. In all the other centers except the higher ones, in the thinking, in the emotional, in the moving, in the instinctive, in all of them there are, so to speak, two halves—the positive and the negative; affirmation and negation, or 'yes' and 'no,' in the thinking center, pleasant and unpleasant sensations in the moving and instinctive centers. There is no such division in the sex center. There are no positive and negative sides in it. There are no unpleasant sensations or unpleasant feelings in it; there is either a pleasant sensation, a pleasant feeling, or there is nothing, an absence of any sensation, complete indifference.

"But in consequence of the wrong work of centers it often happens that the sex center unites with the negative part of the emotional center or with the negative part of the instinctive center. And then, stimulation of a certain kind of the sex center, or even any stimulation at all of the sex center, calls forth unpleasant feelings and unpleasant sensations. People who experience unpleasant feelings and sensations which have been evoked in them through ideas and imagination connected with sex are inclined to regard them as a great virtue or as something original; in actual fact it is simply disease. Everything connected with sex should be either pleasant or indifferent. Unpleasant feelings and sensations all come from the emotional center or the instinctive center.

"This is the 'abuse of sex.'

"It is necessary, further, to remember that the sex center .... is stronger and quicker than all other centers. Sex, in fact, governs all other centers. The only thing in ordinary circumstances, that is, when man has neither consciousness nor will, that holds the sex center in submission is 'buffers.'

'Buffers' can entirely bring it to nought, that is, they can stop its normal manifestation. But they cannot destroy its energy. The energy remains and passes over to other centers, finding expression for itself through them; in other words, the other centers rob the sex center of the energy which it does not use itself.

"The energy of the sex center in the work of the thinking, emotional, and moving centers can be recognized by a particular 'taste,' by a particular fervor, by a vehemence which the nature of the affair concerned does not call for.

"The thinking center writes books, but in making use of the energy of the sex center it does not simply occupy itself with philosophy, science, or politics — it is always fighting something, disputing, criticizing, creating new subjective theories.

"The emotional center preaches Christianity, abstinence, asceticism, or the fear and horror of sin, hell, the torment of sinners, eternal fire, all this with the energy of the sex center. ... Or on the other hand it works up revolutions, robs, bums, kills, again with the same energy.

"The moving center occupies itself with sport, creates various records, climbs mountains, jumps, fences, wrestles, fights, and so on.

"In all these instances, that is, in the work of the thinking center as well as in the work of the emotional and the moving centers, when they work with the energy of the sex center, there is always one general characteristic and this is a certain particular vehemence and, together with it, the uselessness of the work in question.

"Neither the thinking nor the emotional nor the moving centers can ever create anything useful with the energy of the sex center.

"This is an example of the 'abuse of sex.

"But this is only one aspect of it. Another aspect consists in the fact that, when the energy of the sex center is plundered by the other centers and spent on useless work, it has nothing left for itself and has to steal the energy of other centers which is much lower and coarser than its own. And yet the sex center is very important for the general activity, and particularly for the inner growth of the organism, because, working with 'hydrogen' 12, it can receive a very fine food of impressions, such as none of the ordinary centers can receive. The fine food of impressions is very important for the manufacture of the higher 'hydrogens.' But when the sex center works with energy that is not its own, that is, with the comparatively low 'hydrogens' 48 and 24, its impressions become much coarser and it ceases to play the role in the organism which it could play. At the same time union with, and the use of its energy by, the thinking center creates far too great an imagination on the subject of sex, and in addition a tendency to be satisfied with this imagination. Union with the emotional center creates sentimentality or, on the contrary, jealousy, cruelty. This is again a picture of the 'abuse of sex.'"
 
whitecoast said:
For whatever reason I've been avoiding books on psychology for one reason or another, favoring books related more directly to spiritual development... I guess I don't find psychology as interesting as spirituality... which is kind of strange and lopsided of me when I think about it.

You seem to see psychology as 'not-spirituality' and spirituality as 'not-psychology'. How can there be a study of the one without a study of the other? Seems we learn to think with false opposition patterns like this around about the time we're make-believing that the self we're constructing in the imagination is proof that there is a 'me' and there is the 'universe' and that makes two different things. That may explain why the 'First Initiation' is directly relevant here.
 
I would have to suggest some of the more "down to earth" big-5 psychology books on our Cass reading list. It is very easy to get excited when reading these esoteric books and start re-framing everything that has happened in our lives in terms of the concepts outlined in these books. This, however, is a trap because it is rather neatly side-stepping the issue of the profound bankruptcy that occurs to pretty much everyone who pursues The Work.

I don't think Anart was trying to be provocative or clever but quite literal. Your thinking has got you to this point in your life. Imagining that the same thinking you have always had can help you live your life any differently than you ever have is one of the most profound and damaging lies you can tell yourself. Getting a glimpse of how fundamentally mechanical every aspect of our existence up to this moment has been is the beginning of the bankruptcy that it takes to seriously consider choosing The Work.

Thanks again for recommending the 5 psychology books - I read Unholy Hungers over the weekend, and am hunting down copies of the others :p I do try and apply as much knowledge that I newly acquire as possible to my recapitulations and observations, but I must say I don't understand your comment on how reframing or applying that which we've learned to our lives and self-knowledge necessarily side-steps the issue of bankruptcy. Wouldn't this wall only occur if we refuse to alter our self-image based on our new understandings and observations? Are you referring to how some may confuse "gaining self-knowledge" with the useless reshuffling of the psychic material?


whitecoast, fwiw, if you want to speak in terms of centers, it seems to me that your intellectual center is extremely active, perhaps over-active like that of Ouspensky... I have the same problem (if I am accurate in my observation of you). In my case there is always a great temptation to always expound or elaborate on the topic at hand. The battle is to suppress that urge to intellectualize, and instead focus great concentration on one simple aspect of what I am studying; or, in the company of others, being present with them and listening.

You are obviously quite well read and good at writing. Ironically, this can be a problem, because there is a possibility that instead of allowing the knowledge you encounter to really sink in piece by piece, you may plow head-long through it and miss some very salient points.

Jacob Needleman says (paraphrased) that one must live with the question, allow it to steep inside of themselves while not purposefully seeking an answer. I agree with this practice and would heartily recommend slowing down your purposeful search for intellectual answers to these questions and instead concentrate on much more basic aspects of the questions themselves.

I may be wrong, but from the tone of your writing it appears that your emotional sense of yourself drives your intellect. This can (on the surface) be applied to the Work and cause one to seem very spot-on, while in fact you may be hindering yourself by trying to "explain" too much at one time to your own self.

Thank you for your concrete tips Johnathan. I keep these in mind as often as possible, and stay on the lookout. :)

whitecoast, you cannot fully understand the esoteric development ideas without understanding them in the practical terms of modern cognitive science and psychology. For example, there are clear descriptions of the neurological bases of those principles that Gurdjieff discusses in the books "The Myth of Sanity" by Martha Stout and "The Prehistory of the Mind" by Steven Mithen.

There are clear and unequivocal descriptions of buffers in the books about narcissism. Many programs can be uncovered in very practical ways by reading "Caricature of Love" by Cleckley.

Necessary understanding for what happens to the individual as they are growing up come from reading about psychopathology. If you can't name it, you can't understand it and therefore, can't see it and if you can't see it, you can't deal with it.

Then, the books on diet and health add the physiological keys because the brain is powerfully affected by the state of the body, including nutritionally.

Finally, what ties it all together is "Polyvagal Theory." In fact, all of these are required reading for EE teacher applicants. If that hasn't been spelled out before, I'm spelling it out now.

You cannot develop esoterically without a clean AND CALIBRATED machine and the knowledge of how it works, exactly and precisely, not in some vague and mysterious esoteric terms of the past. That is the beauty of the Cassiopaean Experiment and why the way we work is superior to every other. We deal with the issues from the inspirational level right on through to the absolutely practical, scientific level.

Thank you for your reading recommendations and fuller elaborations on how critical it is to link the inspiration to science, in terms of the multilevel approach taken by the group toward gaining knowledge. It is what I love the most about Cass/SOTT. I guess my error in that regard was always starting at the inspiration end and working my way back to the science, instead of building the bridge from both sides of the river. This was what was most interesting to me, but unfortunately it left me with the least ability to contextualize and ground my observations and understandings. :oops:

Laura said:
Jonathan said:
I may be wrong, but from the tone of your writing it appears that your emotional sense of yourself drives your intellect. This can (on the surface) be applied to the Work and cause one to seem very spot-on, while in fact you may be hindering yourself by trying to "explain" too much at one time to your own self.

Not only that, but there is an undeniable energy of the sex center flavor in all you write about and do. That is, abuse of sex.


It is interesting to mention abuse of sex, especially given Mister Gurdjieff's saying that, "The energy of the sex center in the work of the thinking, emotional, and moving centers can be recognized by a particular 'taste,' by a particular fervor, by a vehemence which the nature of the affair concerned does not call for". If I had no knowledge the fourth way, I would have been led too think that adding passion and stylization to all one thinks and does would have led to a passionate or fulfilling life. Especially with regard to the functions of intellect, which I could easily mistake for being of "another order" as Ouspensky originally thought. Alas, it is precisely that lust and passion that helps to imprison us in unconsciousness and materiality. OSIT. This abuse of sex is evident even in what I write now, or at least in my preview drafts, disappointingly.

I have my homework cut out for me, represented best by the rest of the ISOTM quote:

"What must be done to struggle against the 'abuse of sex'?" asked somebody present.

G. laughed.

"I was just waiting for that question," he said. "But you already ought to understand that it is just as impossible to explain to a man who has not yet begun to work on himself and does not know the structure of the machine what the 'abuse of sex' means, as it is to say what must be done to avoid these abuses.

"Right work on oneself begins with the creation of a permanent center of gravity. When a permanent center of gravity has been created everything else begins to be disposed and distributed in subordination to it.

"The question comes to this: From what and how can a permanent center of gravity be created?

"And to this may be replied that only a man's attitude to the work, to school, his valuation of the work, and his realization of the mechanicalness and aimlessness of everything else can create in him a permanent center of gravity.

"The role of the sex center in creating a general equilibrium and a permanent center of gravity can be very big. According to its energy, that is to say, if it uses its own energy, the sex center stands on a level with the higher emotional center. And all the other centers are subordinate to it. Therefore it would be a great thing if it worked with its own energy. This alone would indicate a comparatively very high level of being. And in this case, that is, if the sex center worked with its own energy and in its own place, all other centers could work correctly in their places and with their own energies."

I thank you all for your insights and consideration.
 
whitecoast said:
, but I must say I don't understand your comment on how reframing or applying that which we've learned to our lives and self-knowledge necessarily side-steps the issue of bankruptcy.

It's the difference between using the information as a buffer that builds up ones self-importance and using it to actually See oneself and how 'nothing' one is. If this material is used to 'build oneself up' (the false personality up), one ends up a candidate for the insane asylum, because with each new concept, the wall between the Real I and the false i's grows thicker. I would imagine that is the worse thing that could happen to a man.

One absolutely, necessarily, must reach a state of deep knowing that one is nothing, knows nothing, can see nothing and that all and everything they think they know about themselves and reality is a lie. Only from that point of bankruptcy can Real learning begin. Ascribing these concepts to the self, to the false personality, to build oneself up, to engage in it as a hobby that feeds self-importance, to be a dilettante and pick and choose aspects of the Work that most appeal to the self (false personality) is ultimate entropy and the result is the same. One absolutely, necessarily, must be completely fed up with all other 'paths' they've explored, with all aspects of outward life that they've looked to for guidance or comfort - until one sees the futility of it all, feels the futility of it all, understands the futility of it all, they will forever be between two stools, sinking more deeply into illusion. In that state, they can never truly awaken. Bankruptcy isn't a theory, or an idea, it is a very real, very visceral process that leaves a person not only on their knees but free to take the first real steps of growth they've ever taken in their life. Buffers and the false personality stop all of that. At least, this is my current understanding.
 
Back
Top Bottom