Mouravieff Questions: Feed The Moon, The Absolute III, and our 987 'Little I's'

[SethianSeth]

I have been reading Gnosis II this week, and have been absolutely blown away by certain passages. The 'christian gloss' is difficult for me at times because I have to suspend a very strong skeptical impulse cultivated growing up Free Methodist. On the other hand, it has challenged me to re-evaluate the Bible (at least the New Testament and the teachings of Jesus) and give it real consideration again. He really uses the Bible beautifully. This has helped enormously with how to approach my relationship with my minister father, who has always been put off or intimidated by my "science stuff" and analytical attitude toward religion.

I have been pondering a few questions. I wonder if anyone here would be willing to help me gain some clarity on a few aspects that I haven't yet cracked:

* The mechanics of the Three Cosmic Octaves really blew open some doors regarding a way to begin thinking about the table of hydrogens and how one might learn to label, identify, and utilize/refine them in an actually practical way. That had been missing for me with Ouspensky's The Fourth Way, which has been my only other exposure thus far to 4th Way ideas outside of Laura's work and this forum (fear not! ISOTM begins tomorrow!). With Ouspensky (who didn't talk about the third cosmic octave), it went right over my head. Not enough to grasp onto for me...

However, I keep returning to the idea of octave's completion will result in the earth becoming a star (body of christ) and the moon developing organic life (the new earth). A lot of the ways the moon plays a role in the Ouspensky/Mouravieff stuff has made perfect sense to me, but I can't get behind this notion completely. I wonder if this might be an example of what the C's were referring to when they said that Mouravieff often confused issues with 3D thinking? I could more comfortably conceive of a completion of the octave including 4D human's being able to be involved in the creation of new organic life on another "laboratory" so to speak? Perhaps most likely: I am just misunderstanding his deeper meaning.

* Further, I was very struck by the description of the Absolute III. It seemed to me to be Mouravieff/"The Tradition's" way of addressing the reptilian issue? If so, it is an incredibly beautiful way of framing a viewpoint on their role regarding this planet. He is the only source so far that I have read that has spoken so clearly about OPs, which Laura and the C's elaborated on/confirmed. It makes sense that maybe he would be trying to address the reptilian problem, but I also have doubts that he had seen the picture in this full light. Would it make sense to take this analogy all the way? If so, would that mean that reptilians are the origin of all sexual impulse? I am pretty sure I read the C's saying that all orgasm energy drains to 4D STS, which does make sense to me. I am having trouble gaining clarity on this one, but perhaps a reread of the C's material regarding 'The Fall' will give some new illuminations...

* Finally, regarding the issue of "Fusion." I am currently in the first stage as outlined by Mouravieff. I am wondering if it would be wise to take literally the idea of the 987 'Little I's' that must individually be identified in order to reach the second stage of 'Inner Peace?' Am I seeking this exact number? I am determined, but this seems a very daunting task! It seems necessary to make a list and grab them one by one from very long observation. I can understand why it is reiterated again and again that this work usually takes years! Where I am currently with my observations is a sort of vague grouping of tendencies, with most of the key recurring characters identified because they are active. I can see progress with determination every day, but I wonder if anyone might have some advice as to begin to categorize these 'Little I's' in a more distinct fashion?

Alright, enough questions. Back to the books! :D

 

[Iron]

I can comment on the little I's question.
You see, one way to go about the situation of the little I's, is to realize that every single one of them has its own likes and deslikes. By these affinities they form groups, and these groups determine mechanical reactions you have to external and internal stimuli. If you observe yourself, how you react in any and every situation, paying special atention to situations where the emotional rise is more obvious, you will get to know your machine.

Here is what the Cassiopaea.org esoteric glossary has to say on the matter:

[quote author=Esoteric Glosary]

The 4th Way teaches that man in his normal state is not a single being. Instead, man is a collection of mechanical effects which all call themselves 'I.' Man is compared to a nation where every citizen gets to be king for 5 minutes, with absolute power to enter into whatever commitments and to generally do what he pleases. The concept is related to the concept of 'program,' 'personality' and 'buffer.'

The QFS associates the concept of little I to a neurological imprint or conditioned response or to a mental state that is characterized by typical conditional responses. Social roles which one assumes automatically without conscious decision are for example due to different little I's coming in control in different combinations at different times. .

Little I's are typical of the default state of man and are not a pathological condition like multiple personality disorder (MPD). Psychiatric conditions like MPD can arise if little I's are unusually split, which is not the case in normal 'sleeping' man. What contemporary psychology calls normal personality is however from the viewpoint of the 4th Way a mechanical chaos of competing little I's, far removed from having a 'fixed self' or 'real I.'

[/quote]

So you are correct in saying that there are some key players most active, for these represente the mechanical response to the more common themes that you encounter every day. There are however other groups that may emerge in more specific, and rarer, situatiations. You must self observe and remember yourself to be able to catch these mechanical reactions on their arising.

There is no hurry friend. Better to move quickly slowly and surely, with steps that are within your possibilities, to try to grab the world in one day and give up in the next for sheer dificulty.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

* The mechanics of the Three Cosmic Octaves really blew open some doors regarding a way to begin thinking about the table of hydrogens and how one might learn to label, identify, and utilize/refine them in an actually practical way. That had been missing for me with Ouspensky's The Fourth Way, which has been my only other exposure thus far to 4th Way ideas outside of Laura's work and this forum (fear not! ISOTM begins tomorrow!). With Ouspensky (who didn't talk about the third cosmic octave), it went right over my head. Not enough to grasp onto for me...

For another take on octaves and hydrogens, check out Keith Buzzell's books. He puts everything in terms of modern science, and reading his books made a lot of stuff in ISOTM 'click' for me.

However, I keep returning to the idea of octave's completion will result in the earth becoming a star (body of christ) and the moon developing organic life (the new earth). A lot of the ways the moon plays a role in the Ouspensky/Mouravieff stuff has made perfect sense to me, but I can't get behind this notion completely. I wonder if this might be an example of what the C's were referring to when they said that Mouravieff often confused issues with 3D thinking? I could more comfortably conceive of a completion of the octave including 4D human's being able to be involved in the creation of new organic life on another "laboratory" so to speak? Perhaps most likely: I am just misunderstanding his deeper meaning.

Knowing what we know about Mouravieff, I don't think even he was aware of his "deeper meaning". He was just passing on what he gleaned from Ouspensky, along with tidbits he found elsewhere (e.g. polar opposites, adamic man) and his own wiseacring. But I think Gurdjieff was getting at something deeper, only he knew what he was talking about. What was he trying to say by relating inner processes with those of the solar system? First of all, take cosmology. With the Electric Universe stuff of McCanney, G's cosmology makes more sense. Comets become moons become planets become stars. But he spoke in parables. How does this apply to humanity? In Beelzebub's Tales he tells the store about how a "comet" split Earth into three sections: Earth, Moon, Anulios. I've read different interpretations of what those three fragments represent, but it's pretty much unanimous that they represent our three centers, disharmonized and unequally developed. So in those terms, along with the stuff Fulcanelli wrote, I think G's use of astronomical bodies makes more sense.

* Finally, regarding the issue of "Fusion." I am currently in the first stage as outlined by Mouravieff. I am wondering if it would be wise to take literally the idea of the 987 'Little I's' that must individually be identified in order to reach the second stage of 'Inner Peace?' Am I seeking this exact number? I am determined, but this seems a very daunting task! It seems necessary to make a list and grab them one by one from very long observation. I can understand why it is reiterated again and again that this work usually takes years! Where I am currently with my observations is a sort of vague grouping of tendencies, with most of the key recurring characters identified because they are active. I can see progress with determination every day, but I wonder if anyone might have some advice as to begin to categorize these 'Little I's' in a more distinct fashion?

Others can chime in, but personally I don't think it's essential to fully categorize these "987 little i's".

 

[Tigersoap]

Am I seeking this exact number? I am determined, but this seems a very daunting task! It seems necessary to make a list and grab them one by one from very long observation. I can understand why it is reiterated again and again that this work usually takes years! Where I am currently with my observations

Hi SethianSeth,

Maybe you can also keep some kind of journal for your personal journey, writing your thoughts, fears, feelings and so on.
This may perhaps help to see yourself more clearly.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Am I seeking this exact number? I am determined, but this seems a very daunting task! It seems necessary to make a list and grab them one by one from very long observation. I can understand why it is reiterated again and again that this work usually takes years! Where I am currently with my observations

Hi SethianSeth,

Maybe you can also keep some kind of journal for your personal journey, writing your thoughts, fears, feelings and so on.
This may perhaps help to see yourself more clearly.

Yep. Another good exercise is to write what you see as your "good" and "bad" traits. Then, put the paper away somewhere and don't look at it for a year or two. When you look at it again after that time, don't be too upset when you exclaim, "What the heck was I thinking??" ;)

 

[SethianSeth]

Re: Mouravieff Questions: Feed The Moon, The Absolute III, and our 987 'Little I

There is no hurry friend. Better to move quickly slowly and surely, with steps that are within your possibilities, to try to grab the world in one day and give up in the next for sheer dificulty.

This is something I have to keep reminding myself. It is so difficult to keep calm, patient, and diligent, knowing that giving everything now is not only enough - it is the only way to actually move. Otherwise, one is frozen with the sheer magnitude of the thing. I remember reading somewhere the idea that activating a "now awareness" of conscious STO action even once with free will is enough to color the entirety of one's linear timeline. Not to mention the idea of amplification at play.

Also, always good to be reminded of the cassiopedia! Every time i sit down to actively explore it, the server seems to be acting funny. But I need to delve further soon. :)

For another take on octaves and hydrogens, check out Keith Buzzell's books. He puts everything in terms of modern science, and reading his books made a lot of stuff in ISOTM 'click' for me.

I will look into it right away. I actually haven't heard of Buzzell yet. Exciting!

Knowing what we know about Mouravieff, I don't think even he was aware of his "deeper meaning". He was just passing on what he gleaned from Ouspensky, along with tidbits he found elsewhere (e.g. polar opposites, adamic man) and his own wiseacring. But I think Gurdjieff was getting at something deeper, only he knew what he was talking about. What was he trying to say by relating inner processes with those of the solar system? First of all, take cosmology. With the Electric Universe stuff of McCanney, G's cosmology makes more sense. Comets become moons become planets become stars. But he spoke in parables. How does this apply to humanity? In Beelzebub's Tales he tells the store about how a "comet" split Earth into three sections: Earth, Moon, Anulios. I've read different interpretations of what those three fragments represent, but it's pretty much unanimous that they represent our three centers, disharmonized and unequally developed. So in those terms, along with the stuff Fulcanelli wrote, I think G's use of astronomical bodies makes more sense.

This is why I am reading Mouravieff with caution. I am still working to cultivate an ability to separate the wheat from the chaff with esoteric writing. With the Fourth Way/Alchemy stuff, I want to meditate on the parable aspect first and see if it leads deeper. I get caught in literalism sometimes.

personally I don't think it's essential to fully categorize these "987 little i's".

Again, a literal interpretation seems to be me missing the point which is simply 'There are MANY and they correspond to every combination of centers possible.'

Thanks for the help! :D

 

[SethianSeth]

Re: Mouravieff Questions: Feed The Moon, The Absolute III, and our 987 'Little I

Maybe you can also keep some kind of journal for your personal journey, writing your thoughts, fears, feelings and so on.
This may perhaps help to see yourself more clearly.

Absolutely! I have been keeping a journal, and have been trying to practice recapitulation based on what I write on a semi-regular basis (weekly or so). I also keep a master "Be A Better Human" list which I have been compiling at the end of each year (2-3 years now), and they keep getting more and more elaborate. I am finding that going into that list and actively revising it based on what I learn/new approaches/broader scope helps keep it active and really shows me areas I am growing and areas I am stagnating. This year includes a huge chunk of the QFS recommended reading list and FOTCM guidelines.

Something I have been curious to try is an actual timeline in which significant events are discovered and highlighted from each year of one's life, maybe in cluster form. If nothing else, could be an interesting art project ;)

 

[mcb]

I have been reading Gnosis II this week, and have been absolutely blown away by certain passages. The 'christian gloss' is difficult for me at times because I have to suspend a very strong skeptical impulse cultivated growing up Free Methodist. On the other hand, it has challenged me to re-evaluate the Bible (at least the New Testament and the teachings of Jesus) and give it real consideration again. He really uses the Bible beautifully. This has helped enormously with how to approach my relationship with my minister father, who has always been put off or intimidated by my "science stuff" and analytical attitude toward religion...

I had similar "gloss" issues when I read this material the first time, quite a number years ago. I am now re-reading Gnosis I after nearly 3 years of self-observation and not only is the "gloss" not a problem any more, but the material in the book has somehow become very, very relevant. It is matching with my internal experience in ways that help me to see my way through it.

I think that reading Needleman's Lost Christianity, as well as ISOTM, also helped put the Bible references in perspective. Of course one other thing you can do is observe yourself reacting to the Bible quotes.

 

[3DStudent]

I had the opposite reaction to the Bible quotes; I'm in the middle of Gnosis 2 as well. While I've had quite a bit of Christian programming, I steer away from it these days. But I liked to see that Mouravieff was putting them into an esoteric perspective that made sense. For me it was like there was actually something in the scriptures in that context.

 

[RyanX]

* The mechanics of the Three Cosmic Octaves really blew open some doors regarding a way to begin thinking about the table of hydrogens and how one might learn to label, identify, and utilize/refine them in an actually practical way. That had been missing for me with Ouspensky's The Fourth Way, which has been my only other exposure thus far to 4th Way ideas outside of Laura's work and this forum (fear not! ISOTM begins tomorrow!). With Ouspensky (who didn't talk about the third cosmic octave), it went right over my head. Not enough to grasp onto for me...

For another take on octaves and hydrogens, check out Keith Buzzell's books. He puts everything in terms of modern science, and reading his books made a lot of stuff in ISOTM 'click' for me.

Hey AI,

Is there any particular book by Buzzell that you'd recommend to start with? I see he has several out there on the market. I would be interested to read about octaves and hydrogens in modern science terminology since I struggled with that particular part in ISOTM.

Thanks for mentioning this! :)

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Hey AI,

Is there any particular book by Buzzell that you'd recommend to start with? I see he has several out there on the market. I would be interested to read about octaves and hydrogens in modern science terminology since I struggled with that particular part in ISOTM.

Thanks for mentioning this! :)

I'd recommend reading them in the order they were written: 1) Man A Three-Brained Being 2) Perspectives on Beelzebub's Tales 3) Explorations in Active Mentation. He also wrote a book on the negative effects of TV on child brain development, but I haven't read that one yet, and he's working on a new one: Reflections on Gurdjieff's Whim. While I recommend his books, they aren't perfect. For one, he focuses on mainstream science for the most part (i.e. doesn't get into parapsychology that much at all) and tends to be verbose at times, but I think they're good books despite the flaws. While reading them I found myself asking questions, "Well, what about this?" and sure enough either later in the book, or in the next one, he'd deal with that very question (the difference between true and false emotion, for one). He also makes the enneagram intelligible, so that's a bonus. I like his approach because he's not a Gurdjieff 'purist' or 'literalist'. He tries to verify the things Gurdjieff taught with science and his own experience, and at times is very insightful in that regard.

 

[go2]

Hey AI,

Is there any particular book by Buzzell that you'd recommend to start with? I see he has several out there on the market. I would be interested to read about octaves and hydrogens in modern science terminology since I struggled with that particular part in ISOTM.

Thanks for mentioning this! :)

I'd recommend reading them in the order they were written: 1) Man A Three-Brained Being 2) Perspectives on Beelzebub's Tales 3) Explorations in Active Mentation. He also wrote a book on the negative effects of TV on child brain development, but I haven't read that one yet, and he's working on a new one: Reflections on Gurdjieff's Whim. While I recommend his books, they aren't perfect. For one, he focuses on mainstream science for the most part (i.e. doesn't get into parapsychology that much at all) and tends to be verbose at times, but I think they're good books despite the flaws. While reading them I found myself asking questions, "Well, what about this?" and sure enough either later in the book, or in the next one, he'd deal with that very question (the difference between true and false emotion, for one). He also makes the enneagram intelligible, so that's a bonus. I like his approach because he's not a Gurdjieff 'purist' or 'literalist'. He tries to verify the things Gurdjieff taught with science and his own experience, and at times is very insightful in that regard.

I have worked with Buzzell's books and find them the best Fourth Way material of this generation, not to mention the paper and printing are of the finest quality. Keith Buzzell has been in the Work most of his life and is more than a biographer. The books require and are derivative of active participation and effort in the Work. Buzzell's work unearths a significant portion of the deeply buried dog of All and Everything. Buzzell's reliance on Gurdjieff's written work go a long way to eliminating the deflections of modern psychology and the distraction of Fourth Way history.

As noted by AI, the enneagramatic expression of Work concepts is a valuable aid in understanding Man and our purpose in the Cosmos. What is attention? What is will? What does is mean to be created in the image of God? These are questions approached by Buzzell's diagrams of the enneagramatic expression of All and Everything.

Buzzell, the country doctor, has an organic impression of our possibilities, rather than the mechanical view of fused "I's" as advanced by Mouravieff. His work incorporates the advances of evolutionary biology and neuroscience into the presentation of Work concepts. I find Buzzell's work an advance in modeling man as a biological organism with three basic functions of the instinctive-motor, feeling, and thinking centers. The enneagram combined with Bennett's triads provide an accessable model of Man and the Cosmos and our possible evolution.

Edit: I have followed off topic. Perhaps, Buzzell should have a thread and a place on the reading list.

 

[fabric]

Thanks for the tip AI! I've also had trouble fully 'getting' the whole hydrogens and octaves thing. I feel like I'm grasping at straws at times. Will definitely look into these books :)

 

[Approaching Infinity]

I have worked with Buzzell's books and find them the best Fourth Way material of this generation, not to mention the paper and printing are of the finest quality.

Gotta agree with both points here. His little Work group collaborates on production of the books. They're beautiful creations with helpful diagrams, artwork, and great design overall. His approach is actually very similar to the approach we take here with regard to diet and health (although he doesn't focus on those issues per se): our evolutionary history designed us in a particular way that is NOT served well by modern practices and technologies. I'll be away for a few days, but when I can I'll post some quotes from the introduction of his first book that basically sums up his take on modern life.

 

[SethianSeth]

Re: Mouravieff Questions: Feed The Moon, The Absolute III, and our 987 'Little I

I'd recommend reading them in the order they were written: 1) Man A Three-Brained Being 2) Perspectives on Beelzebub's Tales 3) Explorations in Active Mentation.

In tackling the bulk of Gurdjieff's work over the next few months, I am certainly now planning to insert Buzzell's commentary between them.

Buzzell, the country doctor, has an organic impression of our possibilities, rather than the mechanical view of fused "I's" as advanced by Mouravieff. His work incorporates the advances of evolutionary biology and neuroscience into the presentation of Work concepts. I find Buzzell's work an advance in modeling man as a biological organism with three basic functions of the instinctive-motor, feeling, and thinking centers. The enneagram combined with Bennett's triads provide an accessable model of Man and the Cosmos and our possible evolution.

Edit: I have followed off topic. Perhaps, Buzzell should have a thread and a place on the reading list.

It seems that the dialogue between Mouravieff and Gurdjieff as well as the students/commentary of either seem to be a crucial part of the learning process regarding their construction. To view the transmission and subsequent distortion of esoteric traditions as part of the process of discovery has proven invaluable in an ability to allow the puzzle to be ever-expanding. I want to fight at every step the tendency and desire to collapse understanding to a set and manageable package, because it feels so much like burning bridges or shutting down the dialogue with the universe (which never ceases to amaze when I am open to it).

So, in no way does the Buzzell direction of this thread feel "off topic." Just increases the stack of books! :)