My response to this question is on
another thread , but I will reproduce it here:
Amir said:
I've been suspcious of Patterson ever since reading "Taking with the Left Hand". He seems to take considerable liberty to make his own interpretations of what others were thinking, particularly Gurdjieff. This is when alarms ring in me, when people believe they are an authority and take it upon themselves to interpret the psychology or inner world of these figures through the knowledge (or rather, information) of them provided in records and accounts of books. It is my understanding that Gurdjieff too has horror stories attributed to him by the accounts of some others, perhaps these stories are less shared for certain Gurdjieffians to maintain their mythology.
What you say has some truth to it. It is particularly problematical for one person to interpret the thoughts of another based on reports of their actions if that person reporting has never found themselves in a similar situation. However, it sometimes becomes a lot easier to figure out what a person may have been thinking based on reports of their actions, if one has a good account of the overall situation, has experienced similar situations themselves, reacted in similar ways, and therefore have an "inside awareness" of what was going on in their own experience that compares to the experience of the other.
I don't think that Patterson can really interpret Gurdjieff's inner world accurately because he hasn't lived Gurdjieff's life and really has no frame of reference with which to interpret Gurdjieff's actions in specific situations.
Nevertheless, having said that, he is a careful researcher and at least makes an effort to present the data.
Amir said:
I asked someone who is somewhat a part of the Ouspensky-line what his opinion of Ouspensky was and he replied that he had never met him. That rings well with me.
Too bad. That is an example of "ignorance endangers." One should become as informed as possible in every way possible, and including networking, in order to form as accurate a mental map as possible. Keeping it open for new data, of course.
But Patterson's book seems to be very useful and factual in presentation; it'll just take some work to verify it all. If we take them (the chronology and description of events) all as is, they seem somewhat..."formatory".
[/quote]
Amir said:
The problem with books like the Struggle of the Magicians is that it strains itself on the horizontal. It lists events through time like a calendar and attempts to explain away the situation from the vantage of a one-dimensional perspective. Who knows what is going on in the inner world of a man like Gurdjieff, Ouspensky, or man #5 onwards?
Many things can be assessed by collecting data, particularly if the individual assessing the matter has had similar experiences. And, if this is done in a network, if one member does not have a particular experience, another may and a more complete picture can be built up.
Of course such a process can never be entirely perfect, but a close approximation can be achieved. And we definitely need approximations otherwise we fall into the PostModernist trap of never being able to think or do anything because we can never interpret anything... Have a look at Ernest Gellner's book "Postmodernism, Reason and Religion" to get an idea of this problem.
Amir said:
There is a vertical dimension to their psychology which cannot simply be investigated by horizontally examining the events of their lives.
See my comments above. Just because we know that we may never be able to perfectly put ourself in another's shoes, that is no reason that we should not make the attempt.
Amir said:
Did Gurdjieff and Ouspensky really 'break' from each other? Who knows. Was Ouspensky an alcoholic who considered himself a failure? Not by Rodney Collin's account. All of this is moot because what matters is the vertical and, speaking from personal experience, I do not have access to the vertical dimension of these men. I will not be naïve or delusional and try to pretend that I can. The system, as far as my approach and perspective, does not cohere with the C-Transcripts. The latter is of highly suspicious quality relative to the Fourth Way.
Many of these things become more transparent when a person has had experiences similar to Gurdjieff's and can "get inside his skin" and also, especially, when one has spent years working with other people and has experienced the many things recounted by Ouspensky and Gurdjieff in their various accounts.
Amir said:
The Fourth Way is of elegant design, superior to anything else I know of in the realms of available knowledge. The C-Transripts, in comparison, do not reflect the same quality. They do not cohere in quality.
Then you are welcome to remain with what you perceive to be the "Fourth Way" and excuse yourself from this forum!
Amir said:
My health, I believe, is compromised by improper breathing. By Essence type (mercurial) I am susceptible to fast and erratic thoughts, emotions, movements, and instinctive impulses. From compulsive talking, poor posture, and off-kilter attitudes poor breathing results. Breathing is connected to the rest of my physiology and therefore poor breathing results in poor functioning of the rest of the system -- poor health.
I am posting here to inquire on the experience of those who frequent these boards. Some of you are no doubt well practiced in yoga and breathing techniques connected with methods of meditation. There is also something else I have come across today which promotes shallow breathing, Buteyko -- this method opposes deep breathing.
Abdominal breathing is certainly crucial. What about deep versus shallow breathing? Artificial breathing will be visible when you are functioning from the mask of false personality. Right breathing should draw and connect us closer to Essence where we have the possibility to remember ourselves.
What do you think?
Links to Buteyko Breathing:
http://www.highbloodpressureinfo.org/buteyko-breathing.html
http://www.pe2000.com/buteyko.htm
Amir
Why would you inquire of anything on this forum when you have posted the following:
Amir said:
The Fourth Way is of elegant design, superior to anything else I know of in the realms of available knowledge. The C-Transripts, in comparison, do not reflect the same quality. They do not cohere in quality.
Obviously, you need to be inquiring of those who are more qualified (in your opinion) to answer your questions.
