Mastery of ordinary life

[Gaby]

As may easily be seen, this difficulty also extended into study and sharing in the Work here.

I was reviewing some inspiring quotes the other day

One must have faith. The test takes the form of a need for man to surmount his fear of 'abandonment' to Faith. Jesus reassured His sheep on this subject: 'Be not therefore anxious saying, What shall we eat? or What shall we drink? or Wherewithal shall we be clothed? For after all these things do the Gentiles seek ;your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. But seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His truth; and all these things shall be added unto you.'[Gnosis, Book I, Boris Mouravieff]

Cs: We direct you as long as you have faith in us, as we
are you! Attack is always designed to destroy that faith, either
directly or indirectly. Think of the instances, to see if there is a
familiar pattern to the "root."
Q: (L) So, attack is always directed at undermining our faith.
A: In a roundabout way.

A: Life is religion.
Q: (L) What does that mean?
A: Life experiences reflect how one interacts with God.
Those who are asleep are those of little faith in terms
of their interaction with the creation. Some people
think that the world exists for them to overcome or
ignore or shut out. For those individuals, the worlds will
cease. They will become exactly what they give to life.
They will become merely a dream in the "past." People
who pay strict attention to objective reality right and
left, become the reality of the "Future."

Keep the faith ;)

 

[Novelis]

Good thread guys, there's a lot to think about here.

what constitutes "mastery of ordinary life" from an esoteric point of view? I guess a balance between various activities and factors is crucial, but what exactly are the factors? What qualities, actions, attainments should be brought into focus? In what proportions?

I see "mastery of ordinary life" as learning how to move properly (Walking, sitting and using the moving centre...) and how to function properly internally. (Breathing, digesting and all other organic functions...)

that when Gurdjieff is talking about obyvatels, he is speaking of organic portals. I agree, and I think that the normal function of ordinary life would necessitate the proper functioning of our lower centers. Our programming has deformed our lower centers to the point that even if we have 'soul potential,' we're not even good OP's. Deformed lower centers would seem to be as G. describes "lower than ordinary life." So before we can access the esoteric we do need to work on developing the right use of these centers, osit.

I agree. These seemingly "base" level functions of our organic being seem to have profound links to the higher functions too, OSIT. For example, talking isn't simply a method of communication, by using our knowledge in harmony with esoteric work, leaps and bounds of "higher" learning can be achieved through effective networking (With all the principles of networking that are discussed on this site in mind). But the act of talking also involves using the most mechanical functions like coordinating vocal cords with breathing along with many organic functions we don't need to think about. Perhaps Mastery of ordinary life includes mastering these mechanical functions by learning about them? I think one can use all the right words and explain themselves with great proficiency with the mind, but still unable to be EFFECTIVE in carrying their meaning to others.

But... what then, instead of a 'mastery' of ordinary life? What then, instead of this global scale panorama?: The aim to activate the normal functions. And this work will develop SEEing, to degree at least instinctual, which is already a lot to say given the actual dysfunctional state of our instinctual body.

I think you've hit the nail on the head. I can't speak for anyone else, but my instinctual body is terrible, which sends a wave of dysfunction throughout all other centres, making it very hard to remain emotionally and mentally balanced. Thus, even if I want to work on higher centres and achieve something of value, it is virtually impossible.

Well, I guess I won't be "famous" illustrator or animator anytime soon, but indeed - I have some more important matters to attend to

Yes, I too have had my dreams of great work (in terms of an ordinary career) shattered to pieces. Funnily enough, since I can remember I too have always wanted to be an animator. For many years I worked on a great idea for a story that is virtually infinite in development and excitement (For me), funny that when the idea was finally pieced together, I found Cassiopaea, and the information blew away all of my wishful thinking that the idea can ever be "externalised" from being just an idea in my head. Because of, you know, the doom and all.
This idea and the dream of being able to share it with the world has been the major driving force of my desire to draw and study art for my entire life, so it was difficult learning about the imminent Armageddon facing us, but just because the world is coming to an end won't stop me from drawing. Besides, the idea is too vast for all the 3d means of materializing the idea in its entirety anyway, (For now, with the rapid development in computer technology you never know...) maybe I just need to wait until "fourth grade" when artistic expression won't be as limited as it is now...

I think, too often, we all get confused and trapped within other people's perceptions of success - within society's perception of success, which, more often than not, is the predator's perception of success. This does not mean that we should not be able to provide for ourselves and make our own way through life, it simply means that being a 'superman' may not be the point.

I agree fully, at the end of the day, when I think about this idea that I devoted so much time thinking about, it's all just observations acquired from an STS 3d environment, and its meaning may be an illusion. Also, my dreams of expressing the idea in a form that people can understand all strictly stems from self gratification and other STS ideals anyway. So for now, I've put the idea on a back burner while I concentrate on developing my being, hopefully when/if I have the means of producing this idea it can be done in the name of serving others, not I.

In terms of careers and supporting oneself financially, it's important to stay alive, so pursuing a job that is the most likely one to keep you going even if the economy goes down the toilet might be a good idea, if that's possible! Not only that, but I'd like to choose a career that enables me to keep my soul. Virtually all organizations one could join corrupt people and it's hard to keep one's integrity in this "dog eat dog" world. Right now I'm thinking about moving to the Far East and teaching English. (But that's a major decision I'm not sure about at all at the moment.) At least by doing that I could probably stay more on track with my moral values, and stand a better chance of staying alive if the going gets tough, relative to my current situation that is.

 

[Amanecer]

So, my striving for "mastery" in my profession can serve ME, but can it serve others in the same time? I have no illusions regarding educational value of my work - cartoons are simply entertainment, mostly stupid, unrequiring one. If I can think of something positive in my work in wider meaning - then I can only provide impression of aestetics for viewers. I may become more skilled, more creative, learn the art to some great degree, but of what use will it be in regards to serving others.

I was initially "educated" about psychopathic behavior through a cartoon! I was in a relationship with a psychopath(although I did not realize it), but was able to pinpoint his behaviour through a "character" from the INCREDIBLES. (I have two boys who love the movie!) Don't know if you have seen it, but KRONOS was a machine/robot in the movie who could defeat any opponent. He did this by quickly learning the opponents strengths/weaknesses/strategies, then used it against them. It was a "learning machine" and I realized the person I was in the relationship with was exactly that.......a LEARNING MACHINE. I realized the anxiety and fear I felt around this person, and finally got away from the situation So, all that to say, truth is truth, even if it is in a cartoon....and you never know who might benefit from it.

 

[Gaby]

Gurdjieff said,

"Remember that work cannot begin and cannot proceed on a level lower than that of the obyvatel, that is, on a level lower than ordinary life. This is a very important principle which, for some reason or other, is very easily forgotten."

Laura suggested in the OP thread that when Gurdjieff is talking about obyvatels, he is speaking of organic portals.

Good point Shane! Yeah, I know I'm a few months late with this reply, but I actually missed this entry. I was reviewing the concept of obyvatel that Gurdjieff explains in the book "In Search of the Miraculous" and realized that it has to do with mastery of ordinary life and I thought that the whole concept of obyvatel should be posted here. [Hm, just realized that it was posted on the OP thread by Laura, but I'll re-posted here because it also belongs here ;)]

The spanish version even refers to "obyvatel" as "hombre de la calle" (man from the street), in other words, man of ordinary life. The basic concept is not to have lots of money or great success in life, nor share the goals of this selfish world, etc, but rather to not look down to the obyvatel because it puts you in a lower level and work cannot begin on a level lower than the obyvatel. When a person is looking down to the obyvatel, that person is not having external consideration, but rather that person is having internal consideration. In any case, in a sense, we are all "organic portals" until we start working otherwise. This concept of not looking down to the obyvatel is further explained by Gurdjieff in the book "In search of the miraculous":

"Right external considering is very important in the work. It often happens that people who understand very well the necessity of external considering in life do not understand the necessity of external considering in the work; they decide that just because they are in the work they have the right not to consider. Whereas in reality, in the work, that is, for a man's own successful work, ten times more external considering is necessary than in life, because only external considering on his part shows his valuation of the work and his understanding of the work; and success in the work is always proportional to the valuation and understanding of it. Remember that work cannot begin and cannot proceed on a level lower than that of the obyvatel, that is, on a level lower than ordinary life. This is a very important principle which, for some reason or other, is very easily forgotten. But we will speak about this separately afterwards." [...]

"It often seems to people of the 'way,' that is, of the [fakir, monk, yogi and fourth way], especially those who are just beginning, that other people, that is, people of the [ordinary life], are not moving. But this is a great mistake. A simple obyvatel may sometimes do such work within him that he will overtake another, a monk or even a yogi.

"Obyvatel is a strange word in the Russian language. It is used in the sense of 'inhabitant,' without any particular shade. At the same time it is used to express contempt or derision-'obyvatel'-as though there could be nothing worse. But those who speak in this way do not understand that the obyvatel is the healthy kernel of life. And from the point of view of the possibility of evolution, a good obyvatel has many more chances than a 'lunatic' or a 'tramp.' Afterwards I will perhaps explain what I mean by these two words. In the meantime we will talk about the obyvatel. I do not at all wish to say that all obyvatels are people of the [ordinary life] way. Nothing of the kind. Among them are thieves, rascals, and fools; but there are others. I merely wish to say that being a good obyvatel by itself does not hinder the 'way' And finally there are different types of obyvatel. Imagine, for example, the type of obyvatel who lives all his life just as the other people round him, conspicuous in nothing, perhaps a good master, who makes money, and is perhaps even close-fisted. At the same time he dreams all his life of monasteries, for instance, and dreams that some time or other he will leave everything and go into a monastery. And such things happen in the East and in Russia. A man lives and works, then, when his children or his grandchildren are grown up, he gives everything to them and goes into a monastery. This is the obyvatel of which I speak. Perhaps he does not go into a monastery, perhaps he does not need this. His own life as an obyvatel can be his way.
"People who are definitely thinking about ways, particularly people of intellectual ways, very often look down on the obyvatel and in general despise the virtues of the obyvatel. But they only show by this their own personal unsuitability for any way whatever. Because no way can begin from a level lower than the obyvatel. This is very often lost sight of on people who are unable to organize their own personal lives, who are too weak to struggle with and conquer life, dream of the ways, or what they consider are ways, because they think it will be easier for them than life and because this, so to speak. Justifies their weakness and their inadaptability. A man who can be a good obyvatel is much more helpful from the point of view of the way than a 'tramp' who thinks himself much higher than an obyvatel. I call 'tramps' all the so-called 'intelligentsia'- artists, poets, any kind of 'bohemian' in general, who despises the obyvatel and who at the same time would be unable to exist without him. Ability to orientate oneself in life is a very useful quality from the point of view of work. A good obyvatel should be able to support at least twenty persons by his own labor. What is a man worth who is unable to do this?"

"What does obyvatel actually mean?" asked somebody. "Can it be said that an obyvatel is a good citizen?"
"Ought an obyvatel to be patriotic?" someone else asked. "Let us suppose there is war. What attitude should an obyvatel have towards war?"
"There can be different wars and there can be different patriots," said G. "You all still believe in words. An obyvatel, if he is a good obyvatel, does not believe in words. He realizes how much idle talk is hidden behind them. People who shout about their patriotism are psychopaths for him and he looks upon them as such."
"And how would an obyvatel look upon pacifists or upon people who refuse to go to the war?"
"Equally as lunatics! They are probably still worse."
On another occasion in connection with the same question G. said: "A good deal is incomprehensible to you because you do not take into account the meaning of some of the most simple words, for instance, ' you have never thought what to be serious means. Try to give yourselves an answer to the question what being serious means."
"To have a serious attitude towards things," someone said.
"That is exactly what everybody thinks, actually it is exactly the reverse," said G.
"To have a serious attitude towards things does not at all mean being serious because the principal question is, towards what things? Very many people have a serious attitude towards trivial things. Can they be called serious? Of course not.
"The mistake is that the concept 'serious' is taken conditionally. One thing is serious for one man and another thing for another man. In reality seriousness is one of the concepts which can never and under no circumstances be taken conditionally. Only one thing is serious for all people at all times. A man may be more aware of it or less aware of it but the seriousness of things will not alter on this account.
"If a man could understand all the horror of the lives of ordinary people who are turning round in a circle of insignificant interests and insignificant aims, if he could understand what they are losing, he would understand that there can be only one thing that is serious for him-to escape from the general law, to be free. What can be serious for a man in prison who is condemned to death? Only one thing: How to save himself, how to escape: nothing else is serious.
"When I say that an obyvatel is more serious than a 'tramp' or a 'lunatic,' I mean by this that, accustomed to deal with real values, an obyvatel values the possibilities of the 'ways' and the possibilities of 'liberation' or 'salvation' better and quicker than a man who is accustomed all his life to a circle of imaginary values, imaginary interests, and imaginary possibilities.
"People who are not serious for the obyvatel are people who live by fantasies, chiefly by the fantasy that they are able to do something. The obyvatel knows that they only deceive people, promise them God knows what, and that actually they are simply arranging affairs for themselves-or they are lunatics, which is still worse, in other words they believe everything that people say."
"To what category do politicians belong who speak contemptuously about 'obyvatel,' 'obyvatels' opinions,' 'obyvatels' interests'?" someone asked. "They are the worst kind of obyvatels," said G., "that is, obyvatels without any positive redeeming features, or they are charlatans, lunatics, or knaves." "But may there not be honest and decent people among politicians?" someone asked. "Certainly there may be," said G., "but in this case they are not practical people, they are dreamers, and they will be used by other people as screens to cover their own obscure affairs.
"The obyvatel perhaps may not know it in a philosophical way, that is to say, he is not able to formulate it, but he knows that things 'do themselves' simply through his own practical shrewdness, therefore, in his heart, he laughs at people who think, or who want to assure him, that they signify anything, that anything depends on their decisions, that they can change or, in general, do anything. This for him is not being serious. And an understanding of what is not serious can help him to value that which is serious."

 

[D Rusak]

Very late reply, as I was searching the forum for things related to "Meetings with Remarkable Men", which I haven't been able to put down the last few days. One thing I think it's important to note is that G himself had many different "jobs" over the course of his life. He pursued his [general] studies intensely in his youth, and due to his scientific curiosity and ability to observe and analyze all facets of life, was able to quickly adapt to the specific situation at hand, no matter what his resources nor where he was. So what does this teach us (I'm one too) as artists? Well, G never was identified with his work; it was a way to earn money to enable him to travel and continue his pursuit of essential questions. He was not, however, an artist. One of his closest pupils, Thomas de Hartmann, was a musician. De Hartmann did not identify closely enough with being a musician to hold him back from pursuing his spiritual development. He was able to use his talents in a variety of ways (composing, transcribing, teaching, performing) to support both his material life and his spiritual education. De Hartmann did have to give up playing and composing for a large portion of the beginning of his studies with G, and I wonder if G made him do so for this reason, to force de Hartmann to ask himself, "What am I without music?" (or insert appropriate career here). The arts I think do differ from some other disciplines (say, flipping burgers) in that a large portion of who we are goes directly into the work we produce.

We obviously do not live in the time and place that G did, and our tutelage under Laura, Ark, the QFS/SOTT team, and others is in a drasically different manner than the Institute for the Harmonious Development of Man. So the first thing is to ask yourself is if the way you live as an artist hinders your spiritual development in any way. If so, what changes can you make? One that seems obvious to me is teaching- it is increasingly apparent to me that as the C's say, "all there is- is lessons"- we can teach, and we can learn. And we usually learn through teaching, as well. If you find that living as an artist is completely intolerable in terms of your development, you very well may have to move to a career that you identify less with. Hopefully that is not the case; I was not getting that vibe from what you wrote but of course I do not know you. After you've made your career choices and daily routine compatible with your real aim, then I'd say to see if you can use your gifts as an artist to aid others' spiritual development as well. This is something I am struggling with as well; and I don't know what the answer is. It just seems to me there's a lot of things I can work on before throwing my career (and vocation) out the window just yet.

 

[Thomas Alan]

"On another occasion in connection with the same question G. said: "A good deal is incomprehensible to you because you do not take into account the meaning of some of the most simple words, for instance, ' you have never thought what to be serious means. Try to give yourselves an answer to the question what being serious means."
"To have a serious attitude towards things," someone said.
"That is exactly what everybody thinks, actually it is exactly the reverse," said G.
"To have a serious attitude towards things does not at all mean being serious because the principal question is, towards what things? Very many people have a serious attitude towards trivial things. Can they be called serious? Of course not.
"The mistake is that the concept 'serious' is taken conditionally. One thing is serious for one man and another thing for another man. In reality seriousness is one of the concepts which can never and under no circumstances be taken conditionally. Only one thing is serious for all people at all times. A man may be more aware of it or less aware of it but the seriousness of things will not alter on this account.
"If a man could understand all the horror of the lives of ordinary people who are turning round in a circle of insignificant interests and insignificant aims, if he could understand what they are losing, he would understand that there can be only one thing that is serious for him-to escape from the general law, to be free. What can be serious for a man in prison who is condemned to death? Only one thing: How to save himself, how to escape: nothing else is serious. "

Wow, this powerful. Taking an ordinary word "serious" boiling it down to it's very essence. Any sentence that we utter in our lives. Why did I select those exact words? What does each one actually mean? Not what do I mean by them but what do then really mean?
How will my life change if I insist on exact, objective information?

"Ordinary" life to me is taking care of myself physically, financially, intellectually. If I don't do this I will swept into the currents of "A" influences, all freedom will be lost. If I take care of the ordinary I create slivers of time to shake myself awake.

Perhaps, the wealthy have a better oppurtunity to wake up simply because they have more time to devote to it. But if I had the free time that wealth brings would I ever get around to it? When we have no money concerns, we have a comfortable family life and a great fullfilling career there is no motivation search for the truth. The camel through the eye of a needle

 

[j0da]

So before we can access the esoteric we do need to work on developing the right use of these centers, osit.(...) This usage may also relate to experiencing a moral bankruptcy because at this point one sees themselves as they are - which is not a pretty sight. In ordinary life humans are callous, manipulative, lie, and are immersed in the dysfunction of lower three centers. A 'good obyvatel' sees that s/he lies, manipulates and recognizes his condition for what it is.

Well, basically that's what has happened to me last fall and speaking frankly - Shane's description of moral bankruptcy as being "not a pretty sight" turned out to be a gross understatement. I have plunged into such a deep hole, that I disappeared from this forum for quite a time, even though I received significant help and commentary at casschat, where I have described my experience. I thought I knew what a depression was, until it really hit me and there were days when I even hadn't enough strenght or good enough reason to get up from bed. Days were passing by and I was dwelling in my room, in pyjama, dirty, groggy, unresponsive and absolutely uninterested in any god damned Work, reading, learning, whatever. "Bankruptcy my arse!" I thought few times, imagining that if anyone wanted to create a definition of "nobody" for some encyclopedia, he would done just fine by putting my photo right there to better illustrate the concept.

It was hard to understand, how such experience might be a step to "mastery of ordinary life", when due to such condition I became almost unable to provide for my most basic needs. It was so far from the "small mastery" that it wasn't even seen on the horizon, not mentioning the versatility G was showing in his life (as described in "Meetings with Remarkable Men")! However, now that I've read D Rusak's remark concerning identification, I'd like to share with you an observation, that through "moral bankruptcy" or "bankruptcy of the soul" my most persistent identification crumbled into dust. Quite unexpectedly, I noticed that I don't care about being an artist/animator/illustrator anymore. If there was anything else I could do in a competent manner to earn money or contribute to the group, I would do it as gladly, as I create my "pictures" or "animated sequences". Settling down with the awareness that I'm just a craftsman, who simply does the job contracted to me was a great relief and a moment, from which I SLOWLY began to emerge from the pit. From this realization there was born freedom to choose, to decide that from now on, I'm going to build my daily routine not around art, but around Work. Hopefully, there comes a time, when this quote will apply to me somehow:

For instance, instead of "what WE can do?" you will ask: "what can I do" - and you may find something that YOU can do better than others. Something, as Gurdjieff sets it, that "no else can do."

Dammit, I may never create a piece of artwork concerning what we do here, my contribution may take whole another form. In the meantime however, I managed to write a post with hell lot of "I" and "me" words. :O

 

[nf3]

I may never create a piece of artwork concerning what we do here, my contribution may take whole another form.

Exactly, so why anticipate? :) If you continue learning about yourself you are bound to learn what it is that you can objectively give back to the universe.

Here's another inspirational quote, borrowed from Ark's website:

Every man has his own vocation. The talent is the call. There is one direction in which all space is open to him. He has faculties silently inviting him thither to endless exertion. He is like a ship in a river; he runs against obstructions on every side but one; on that side all obstruction is taken away, and he sweeps serenely over God's depths into an infinite sea.

This talent and this call depend on his organisation, or the mode in which a general soul incarnates in him. He inclines to do something which is easy to him, and good when it is done, but which no other man can do. He has no rival. For the more truly he consults his own powers, the more difference will his work exhibit from the work of any other. When he is true and faithful, his ambition is exactly proportional to his powers.

By doing his work he makes the need felt which only he can supply.

 

[kinyash]

Hi all. I’ve been studying this thread with great interest. I think that matters relating to mastery of ordinary life. What I have come to understand when contemplating the excellent posts here is that is especially important for me gain the attitude that one needs to have towards the “work” and the attitude towards ones vocation or way of making a living. The first thing to understand is where does our day to day life, our ordinary life fall in the general scheme of things.

To my understanding, the widely promoted guidelines of what it is to be successful mean very little - for me, success has been to begin waking up, in a way that has changed my life more than I could have imagined before I began. I think, too often, we all get confused and trapped within other people's perceptions of success - within society's perception of success, which, more often than not, is the predator's perception of success. This does not mean that we should not be able to provide for ourselves and make our own way through life, it simply means that being a 'superman' may not be the point.

Somewhere in all of those descriptions of success you've provided, is there something that rings true for you in your life? For me, in my small life - and it is a small life - I have come to realize that what matters to me, what I consider personal success is pretty much as foreign to the generally accepted idea of success as possible. Success to me is an increase in understanding. It is not giving up and not letting the true horror of the situation drive me back into the caverns of depression in which I spent most of my life. It is very often what 'normal people' would consider the smallest things.

He is absolutely correct. In the context of “the work”, what you do on an everyday basis that is not related to the “work” is really an ‘A” influence.

In “The Fourth Way", Ouspensky says:

“ Q. If we are machines, are we to conclude that you are trying teach us, machines, in a certain desirable direction, or are we capable of discriminating between truth and falsity? If so, with what faculty?

A. With magnetic centre. Men are machines, there is no question about that; only they are not quite the same machines as an engine or something of that kind. You have heard already that man can live in four states of consciousness, but that in ordinary life he lives only in two. These two other states of conciousness can be developed in man, but they cannot develop by themselves, they have to be developed through knowledge and effort. And the faculty that helps man to understand and discriminate is the magnetic centre.

Now we are speaking about man before he meets a school. He lives in life under ordinary conditions. Conditions may be very different, but, in any conditions, he lives under the two kinds of influence I was speaking about. What are Influences A?
All interests of life, struggle for existence, desires, excitements, possessions, riches, amusements and so on. They are created without intention and are mechanical both in their origin and their action. But at the same time man also lives under influences originally created in schools but thrown into the general turnover of life. These influences B are as it were a life apart. They are arranged for a certain purpose, to serve as ‘lights on the way’. The rest depends on man himself. All his interests may concentrate only on influences of the first kind, or part of him may remain interested in influences created in life, while another part may be interested in this other kind of influences. If a man notices and studies them, they may accumulate in him.”

It is very likely that at the stage in which you chose your vocation, i.e. at the stage you finished school, university etc, you were very much under “A” influences. Your total set of talents and the circumstances that surrounded the decisions that you made were completely mechanical. When you later developed an interest in the work and started seeking knowledge and understanding, and most importantly joined this 4th way school (QFS), you started experiencing B influences. However, the A influences did not disappear and if anything may even have increased.

Therefore I do not really think that one can really start thinking of changing their profession or changing their job to be “more aligned” with the “work”. This is really a new age / human potential movement concept of “love what you do and the money will follow”, or in another variation “follow your bliss”. My understanding is that what matters is the time you spend on the “work”, and everything else is a distraction. Because we have to eat, put a shelter over our heads and feed our families, we must of necessity spend time in the matrix and interact with OP’s, psychopathic leaders and organizations, and the law of accident. This is very different from doing the “work” and most of the people who are involved in professions or jobs that “help others” are to a certain extent confusing issues. If I am say a “life coach”, and I train people how to get in control of their lives, I can claim that I am “helping people”. I can then develop courses, tapes, books etc. that expound on my method. I may get some very enthusiastic people who had good results with my methods, and get very good testimonials. I may even genuinely help out those people to deal with certain basic issues in their lives like improving their ability to plan and set goals, and techniques to avoid procrastination, stress etc. However under no circumstances should I consider this as contributing to my ‘work’. This is really just my way of earning an honest living and I should treat it exactly as such. If I am able to develop this practice so that I can get more free time, then now I can consider that I have a viable working model. The objective of my profession, vocation, job or whatever I do for a living is to earn enough for my upkeep without getting distracted by fame, money, doodads etc. My focus must be very precise so that I always keep this in balance. Ideally if I have the skill to invest some money for example in the stock market in such a way that I am able to make good returns, and it only requires me to spend say 10 minutes a day, then this is ideal. It allows me flexibility to devote more time to working on myself. However, if I get distracted with my “success”, and then start to focus more and more energy on the “A” influences, then I am lost. My destiny will then be determined by the law of accident.

In another quote from the same book:

“Q. Is total immersion in influences “B” and complete rejection of influences “A “a correct attitude to life? Can we altogether dispense with influences “A”?

A. Why should we? Influences “A” may be quite legitimate interests in life. If you do not disappear in them they are quite harmless. One has to accept everything that comes, only not identify. Influences “A” are not dangerous in themselves, only identification is dangerous. So there is no question of dispensing, there is only the question of having some interest in the influences “B”, they have a magnetic centre; if not, they have no magnetic centre. “

From this, you can see that there are legitimate “A” influences. These are those “A” influences that allow us to survive in an STS environment and interact with the world around us even as we focus on growth and gathering true knowledge.

Gurdjieff was immensely practical and incredibly innovative in raising money to meet his mission. Quoting from “Meetings with remarkable Men:-The Material Question”;

“The strongest intentional influence exerted upon me was that my father, who understood education quite his on way. I even intend at some time to write a book about all the direct and indirect methods of my father which ensued from his original views of education. As soon as there appeared in me signs of a more or less comprehension, he began, among other things, to tell me all kinds of extraordinary tales, which led to a series of stories about a certain lame carpenter, named Mustapha, who knew how to do everything, and one day even made a flying armchair. By this means and by other “persistent procedures” my father fostered in me, along with the desire to be like this expert carpenter, the irresistible urge always to be making something new. All my childhood games, even the most ordinary ones, were enriched by my imagining that I was somebody who did everything not as it is usually done, but in quite a special way. This tendancy, as yet ill defined, which my father inculcated in my nature from my early childhood in an indirect way, was later, in the first years of my youth, given more definite form because the ideas of my first teacher about education turned out to be, in certain respects, in keeping with it; and so, in addition to the fulfillment of my scholastic duties, I practiced various manual crafts and skills under this special instruction. The most characteristic educational procedure of my first teacher was that, as soon as he noticed that I was becoming familiar with any particular craft and was beginning to like it, he immediately made me give it up and pass on to another. <my emphasis> As I understood much later, his aim was not that I should learn all sorts of crafts but should develop in myself the ability to surmount the difficulties presented by any kind of new work. And indeed, from that time on, work of every kind had sense and interest for me, not in itself, but only in so far as I did not know it and did not know how to do it. In short, owing to their original views on education, these two men who consciously or even unconsciously-in the present case it does not matter- had taken upon themselves my preparation for responsible age, engendered in my nature a certain subjective property which developed gradually as the years passed and finally became fixed in the form of an urge frequently to change my occupation. As a result, I acquired even if only automatically, abilities of both theoretical and practical nature for carrying on various manual and commercial occupations. My comprehension was also gradually increased as my horizon widened in various fields of knowledge. I will even add that, if I am recognized today in different countries as a representative of true knowledge in many fields of learning, I owe it in part to this early education of mine. Thanks to the resourcefulness, breadth of view and, above all, common sense, developed in me by correct education, I was able to grasp, from all the information I collected intentionally or accidentally in the subsequent course of my life, the very essence of each branch of learning, instead of being left with merely ban accumulation of empty rubbish, which is the inevitable result among contemporary people of the general use of their famous educational method called learning by heart. And so, at an early age, I was already well equipped and able to earn sufficient money to provide for my immediate needs. However, as I had come to be interested, when still young, in those abstract questions which lead to an understanding of the sense and aim of life, and gave all my time and attention to this, I did not direct my capacities for earning money towards the self- sufficient aim of existence on which, owing to my abnormal education, all the “conscious” and instinctive strivings of contemporary people, and particularly of you Americans are concerned. I turned to earning money only from time to time, and only in so far as it was needed fro my ordinary existence, and to enable me to accomplish whatever was necessary for attaining the aim I had set myself. Coming from a poor family and not being materially secure, I had to resort rather often to earning this indeed despicable and maleficient money for unavoidable needs. However, the process itself of earning money never took much of my time, because, owing to the resourcefulness and common sense developed in me by correct education, I was already in all these life matters what might be called an expert, cunning old blade. “

So what lessons does this hold for us in the 21st Century looking to support our families and take care of our day to day needs and most importantly grow our magnetic centres? Well clearly it does not matter what you do to earn a living. Whether you pump gas or cut grass, it does not really matter. What matters is that you are able to find enough time and the resources to increase your knowledge and to work on yourself through a fourth way school like QFS. Spending time trying to figure out whether you should move from company A to company B because you get a parking space and your own private loo is to me just the same as trying to figure out how you can make your “tick tock” job more “spiritual”. Fact is, you can’t, it’s just a necessary “A” influence. If your job takes up too much of your time and energy, and if you have to deal with petty tyrants that you cannot handle, then vote with your feet. Don’t forget that the work front is also part of your interaction with life and gives you a great opportunity to grow through self remembering. If you have the opportunity to emulate Laura, Ark and the SOTT team, and spend all your time on the most important thing that you can do, then go for it.

I’m not a big fan of New Year resolutions, but decisions that I make on the work front from now will be measured against how well that decision will help me to balance my spiritual work with my physical needs. The law of I will strive to increase my available productive time so that more and more of it will be spent on the work, and less and less actually earning a living. To do this intelligently (for my specific situation) will mean that I may need to re-skill myself, take some courses, drop some responsibilities and maybe even plan for a cut in income.
What matters most is clear and there is a sense of urgency.

 

[kenlee]

So what lessons does this hold for us in the 21st Century looking to support our families and take care of our day to day needs and most importantly grow our magnetic centres? Well clearly it does not matter what you do to earn a living. Whether you pump gas or cut grass, it does not really matter. What matters is that you are able to find enough time and the resources to increase your knowledge and to work on yourself through a fourth way school like QFS. Spending time trying to figure out whether you should move from company A to company B because you get a parking space and your own private loo is to me just the same as trying to figure out how you can make your “tick tock” job more “spiritual”. Fact is, you can’t, it’s just a necessary “A” influence. If your job takes up too much of your time and energy, and if you have to deal with petty tyrants that you cannot handle, then vote with your feet. Don’t forget that the work front is also part of your interaction with life and gives you a great opportunity to grow through self remembering. If you have the opportunity to emulate Laura, Ark and the SOTT team, and spend all your time on the most important thing that you can do, then go for it.

This is a very good point. What it comes down to is "who you gonna serve"? The greater or the lesser? Bottom line it's a choice. In his book 'Heart Without Measure' Ravi Ravindra quoted Madame de Salzmann as saying:

"The important thing is 'to be'. If there is no real I, then the ego takes over. Energy cannot be without relationship. If it (the energy) does not serve I intentionally, then it automatically serves the ego."

 

[Mr. Premise]

Well put, Kinyash. I would only add that 4th Way Work is done while dealing with psychopathic leaders, etc. In other words, the Work is not just done after work. Petty Tyrants, to use Castaneda's term, abound in workplaces and can be very helpful.

Therefore I do not really think that one can really start thinking of changing their profession or changing their job to be “more aligned” with the “work”. This is really a new age / human potential movement concept of “love what you do and the money will follow”, or in another variation “follow your bliss”. My understanding is that what matters is the time you spend on the “work”, and everything else is a distraction. Because we have to eat, put a shelter over our heads and feed our families, we must of necessity spend time in the matrix and interact with OP’s, psychopathic leaders and organizations, and the law of accident. This is very different from doing the “work” and most of the people who are involved in professions or jobs that “help others” are to a certain extent confusing issues.

 

[SethianSeth]

This is an incredibly late addition, but the thread struck me as very important to anyone who has pursued art in their lives. As you expressed j0da, that path is thrown very much into question upon arrival at The Work. I went through a period quite recently in which I was certain that this contract I had subjected myself to was a huge mistake, and could only contribute to the world of A influences. Deep depression followed.

A huge help for me was the image Mouravieff uses in Gnosis 1 of the wheel inside a wheel, each turning in opposite directions. These are our A influences, and they form a cyclical current. Each A influence has its equal and opposite counter-influence, which level out to zero/stasis. The task is not to eliminate these influences, but to recognize them and bring their current to zero in the ordinary day to day. THAT takes an artful approach, if anything does! Therefore, the pursuit and perfection of these things (in your visual realm, you are dealing with aesthetics, etc), while not automatically B influences (as most artists are wont to believe due to ego), they can do wonders for helping one recognize the landscape of illusion and navigate through it.

And what is even more important is that art, properly free from identification, can be a mirror of one's magnetic center. To create "in the moment" as any artist knows how to do (whatever the line, and kids illustrations are in no way 'lesser' my friend) - that place where it all flows - can then be laid out on the table and dissected. It is for YOUR evolution. The further this grows, the more it must be for others as well. And, the result will "speak for itself" better! Ark said something pretty brilliant about this in a discussion about his article on 'contacting oneself in the future' on SOTT (http://www.sott.net/articles/show/221694-Feeling-the-Future-Premonitions-and-Precognition-Elements-of-Practice-and-of-a-Theory):

"It is quite possible that each of us communicates, without realizing it, with ourselves in the future in the moments of real creativity."

You've probably experienced this, no? The goal, then, is to trust it not as a fact, but as a possibility worth attention and try to listen to your work. Unlock the secret keys. Don't judge the value of it until you have let it rest and then combed over it for such illuminations. The focus for me has shifted entirely from "what do I want to communicate" before/during creation to "what is being communicated to me" after unidentified creation. So say 98% is crap. That 2% holds more value toward my own development than anything I "set out" to "say." Then, it is out of your hands. Share it and leave it.

This has been very tough for me, because like you I was ready to abandon my whole life's pursuit because it seemed pointless to me. But it certainly is NOT! What was pointless was the way in which I was utilizing the impulse. It is very difficult not to be needy as an artist. This is something that requires constant attention, lest I go back to auto-pilot (which often happens).

It is important to emphasize that one's "normal work" for survival is not something to be endured. Anything can be grounds for The Work, and no time is necessarily lost, as Mr. Premise "just" said.

In other words, the Work is not just done after work. Petty Tyrants, to use Castaneda's term, abound in workplaces and can be very helpful.

All of life becomes the art school.

So, it has been a few years since the initial post but I am certainly curious: have you continued to illustrate? I echo the sentiments of others here that it would be great to see any of it.