Legominism and 'lawful inexactitudes' in Beelzebub's Tales to his Grandson

[RflctnOfU]

Hello everyone. I want to start a thread detailing my understanding of how to approach decoding the deeper truths contained within Gurdjieff's All and Everything.

To start, we must look at 'lawful-inexactitudes' from the chapter Art. Refer to pp. 461-491

It is my opinion that the apparent focus in this section on the Law of Sevenfoldedness is a smokescreen of sorts. The important information, in relation to beginning to decode G's Legominism, is the concept of lawful inexactitudes, or 'otherwises'.

This is a very subtle way of describing what could be termed absurdities. There are many 'absurdities' scattered throughout the books, some obvious, some very subtle. These absurdities are like red flags, screaming (sometimes very softly) 'something interesting be here'. They are meant to attract our attention. They also take a variety of forms, and express many different characters. An example is found in the chapter Hypnotism, just before the story of Pedrini and Bambini. The absurdity I wish to draw your attention to, and it's subtlety, is the 'by the way' mention of the contemporary founders of hypnotism. Misdirection is used regarding Brade (actually spelled Braid), through the suggestion Beelzebub gives that Braid showed signs of being a Hasnamuss (not to mention the misspelling of his name). A reading of his book on this subject, Neurypnology, available online at _www.hypno1.co.uk/BookNeurypnology.htm, clarifies that this suggestion of Beelzebub is patently false. Connected with this is the following excerpt from the Tales:

[...]"For the second time that day, I could not on account of this terrestrial being see any way out of the situation that had arisen.

"This time there was mixed in this state, so unusual for me, my 'being-Hikhdjnapar,' or, as your favorites say there, 'pity,' for that terrestrial three-brained being, chiefly because he was suffering through me.

"And this was because I was then clearly aware that if I spoke a few words to him, not only would he be calmed, but thanks to them, he would even understand that the fact that no boil was formed on my left leg proved the truth and precision of his adored science still more.

"I had full moral right to tell him the truth about myself, because by his attainments he was already 'Kalmanuior,' that is, a three-brained being of that planet with whom it is not forbidden us from Above to be frank.

"But at that moment I could in no way do this, because there was also present there the dervish Hadji-Bogga-Eddin who was still an ordinary terrestrial three-brained being, concerning whom, already long before, it was forbidden under oath from Above to the beings of our tribe to communicate true information to any one of them on any occasion whatsoever.

"This interdiction upon the beings of our tribe was made it seems on the initiative of the Very Saintly Ashiata Shiemash.

"This interdiction on beings of our tribe was made chiefly because it is necessary for the three-brained beings of your planet to have 'knowledge-of-being.'

And any information, even if true, gives to beings in general only 'mental knowledge,' and this mental knowledge, as I have already once told you, always serves beings only as a means to diminish their possibilities of acquiring this knowledge-of-being.

"And since the sole means left to these unfortunate three-brained beings of your planet for their complete liberation from the consequences of the properties if the organ Kundabuffer are just this knowledge-of-being, therefore this command was given to the beings of our tribe under oath concerning the beings of Earth.

"And that is why, my boy, I did not just then in front of the dervish Bogga-Eddin decide to explain to this worthy terrestrial sage Hadji-Asvatz-Troov the real reason of his failure.

Another thing that must be kept in mind is the two types of mentation:

In view if the fact that I have happened here accidentally to touch upon a question which has lately become on of my so to speak "hobbies," namely, the process of human mentation, I consider it possible, without waiting for the corresponding place predetermined by me for the elucidation of this question, to state already now in this first chapter at least something concerning that axiom which has accidentally become known to me, that on Earth in the past it has been usual in every century that every man, in whom there arises the boldness to attain the right to be considered by others and to consider himself a "conscious thinker," should be informed while still in the early years of his responsible existence that man has in general two kinds of mentation: one kind, mentation by thought, in which words, always possessing a relative sense, are employed; and the other kind, which is proper to all animals as well as man, which I would call "mentation by form."

The second kind of mentation, that is, "mentation by form," by which, strictly speaking, the exact sense of all writing must be also perceived, and after conscious confrontation with information already possessed, be assimilated, is formed in people in dependence upon the conditions of geographical locality, climate, time, and, in general, upon the whole environment in which the arising of the given man has proceeded and in which his existence has flowed up to manhood.

Accordingly, in the brains of people of different races and conditions dwelling in different geographical localities, there are formed about one and the same thing or even idea, a number of quite independent forms, which during functioning, that is to say, association, evoke in their being some sensation or other which subjectively conditions a definite picturing, and which picturing is expressed by this, that, or other word, that serves only for its outer subjective expression.

That is why each word, for the same thing or idea, almost always acquires for people of different geographical locality and race a very definite and entire,y different so to say "inner content."

In The Arousing of Thought, contained within the story of G getting his wisdom tooth knocked out, there is an absurd monologue after the setting of snares for pigeons on the roof of a neighbors house. Now that our attention is drawn to this section - remember this is a book about psychology, and everything has a relation to some aspect of our inner worlds - we must ask ourselves 'Just what is a pigeon?' Also 'what is the neighbors house'? This is where formal mentation comes in (among many, many other places).

A pigeon is an idiot child of avian species, aware of almost nothing. I don't know if any of you have been to Philly, but the edges of the roads in downtown, particularly where taxi-cabs stop, are constantly covered by squished pigeons. I was somewhat shocked when I witnessed this. I thought, 'God, what dumb birds'! I interpret this as pigeons being roughly equivalent with any of our legion of little i's, lack of awareness being caused by 'buffers,' as spoken of in ISOTM.

What would be a 'neighbor' in our psyche? As we are stuck in personality, our 'neighbor' would logically be essence. As mention is made during the absurd monologue about 'possessors of that soft and slippery something' in relation to pigeons - I think this is attention (any other ideas on this?) - it seems to me that this picture he paints with words is dealing with an aspect of the nature of inner work. Snaring the little i's to be made use of by essence. There is much more in this little vignette, but I shall leave the rest for now.

On top of all of this, Gurdjieff plays word games and gives clues through Philological discussion. One part of an example of this is the talk about how Kundabuffer became Kundalina (I shall leave the other part to you, though I will say it has to do with one of the speeches quoted in the Tales).

I hope this helps with your efforts at deciphering the puzzle that is All and Everything.

Kris

edit: typo

 

[Archaea]

Do you think that what this stuff is trying to describe is the idea of different cognitive systems, or different ways of thinking among different groups of people? Then taking that idea and suggesting the possibility that a single individual can have multiple cognitive systems, these being one aspect of the little i's idea?

Just FYI, I haven't read any of these books, but BT's has been on my reading list for about a year now..

 

[RflctnOfU]

Do you think that what this stuff is trying to describe is the idea of different cognitive systems, or different ways of thinking among different groups of people? Then taking that idea and suggesting the possibility that a single individual can have multiple cognitive systems, these being one aspect of the little i's idea?

Just FYI, I haven't read any of these books, but BT's has been on my reading list for about a year now..

I think there is a difference between mentation and a cognitive system. Mentation is a process while a cognitive system is a structure from which flows the process of mentation. The excerpt quoted is specifically talking about the process of mentation. I think it would be more accurate to say that, in a general sense, mentation by thought is a property of the little i's, or personality, and mentation by form is a property of essence/potential big I. A clue to this is the statement that formal mentation is proper to animals as well as man.

If you have a lot of other pressing materials to assimilate, I would recommend waiting on BT's. To start getting past the literal text, into the 'meat', if you will, requires a very thorough familiarity with the whole of the text, as well as the passage of time for things to settle. Just as with eating, digesting this material takes time, and there is a lot of it to digest! It is not something to be taken lightly.

Kris

 

[Archaea]

I think there is a difference between mentation and a cognitive system. Mentation is a process while a cognitive system is a structure from which flows the process of mentation. The excerpt quoted is specifically talking about the process of mentation. I think it would be more accurate to say that, in a general sense, mentation by thought is a property of the little i's, or personality, and mentation by form is a property of essence/potential big I. A clue to this is the statement that formal mentation is proper to animals as well as man.

I think I understand the difference. Perhaps mentation by form is a process of mentation which doesn't involve a cognitive system, that is to say that a thought or an idea doesn't need to fit into a specific way of thinking. An example of this might be like how the idea of using a parachute to fly doesn't fit into the cognitive system of physics. Also do you think that mentation by form might be a bodily understanding or process instead of a purely mental one?

 

[RflctnOfU]

I think there is a difference between mentation and a cognitive system. Mentation is a process while a cognitive system is a structure from which flows the process of mentation. The excerpt quoted is specifically talking about the process of mentation. I think it would be more accurate to say that, in a general sense, mentation by thought is a property of the little i's, or personality, and mentation by form is a property of essence/potential big I. A clue to this is the statement that formal mentation is proper to animals as well as man.

I think I understand the difference. Perhaps mentation by form is a process of mentation which doesn't involve a cognitive system, that is to say that a thought or an idea doesn't need to fit into a specific way of thinking. An example of this might be like how the idea of using a parachute to fly doesn't fit into the cognitive system of physics. Also do you think that mentation by form might be a bodily understanding or process instead of a purely mental one?

Mentation by form has everything to do with "inner content". Have a read of the quoted excerpt again, and if you have a copy of BT's, continue for a few paragraphs after the selected excerpt ends. There is an excerpt in the last chapter, From the Author, pp. 1214-1216, that has a bearing on this topic. You may have read it elsewhere - how different men on hearing the word "world" will understand it in completely different ways...the "inner content" is completely different for each man who hears this word.

Kris