Observation must begin from the beginning

[Buddy]

Hi Nick_A. Thanks for elaborating your views.

I noted Weil's admiration of Pascal and can see why. Pascal was one of the first who intuited quantum science. Pascal was capable of quantum-like (non-separatist) thinking and intuitive modes and it showed in various places in his work, IMO. Obviously, Gurdjieff knew corresponding 'truth' through his exposure to early depth psychology, or Gnostic thought modes as well. One can learn to see the difference as well as notice other philosophers and thinkers who share that type of perception.

Long story short, IMO, the part that must die in this work is the foreign and mechanical, not anything actually living. The part that is foreign could be referred to as those formal devices of our intellect producing prosaic and plain work of contradiction, moroseness, etc and which produce nothing but static, mechanical, axiomatic analogies of reality - not to mention mental and emotional process loops that go nowhere and produce no content which is needed by another process for its own maintenance.

Gurdjieff's reciprocal maintenance comes to mind here and when understood within the background of his two fundamental laws (law of process and law of phenomena), then we see that it is better to view reality in terms of evolving, expanding dynamic flux, where "truth is made" (William James).

IMO, quantumists, even in this work (as you can tell by reading posts on here) view reality more like this:

[quote author=Will Durant on William James]
"The value of a multiverse, as compared with a universe, lies in this, that where there are cross-currents and warring forces our own strength and will may count and help decide the issue; it is a world where nothing is irrevocably settled, and all action matters. A monistic world is for us a dead world; in such a universe we carry out, willy-nilly, the parts assigned to us by an omnipotent deity or a primeval nebula; and not all our tears can wipe out one word of the eternal script. In a finished universe individuality is a delusion; 'in reality,' the monist assures us, we are all bits of one mosaic substance. But in an unfinished world we can write some lines of the parts we play, and our choices mould in some measure the future in which we have to live. In such a world we can be free; it is a world of chance, and not of fate; everything is 'not quite;' and what we are or do may alter everything.

If Cleopatra's nose, said Pascal, had been an inch longer or shorter, all history would have been changed."
[/quote]

Gurdjieff was such a thinker, else his cosmology wouldn't allow for a possibility of Man rising above his automatic-functioning, evolutionary nature. IOW, we can be more than who we are and what we worry about at the moment.

For a genuine warrior, some 'stories' about what we fear may be confabulations and some sadness that we feel may not be ours. From G's cosmology, take the time to understand the Heropass and why the "Worlds" had to be brought into manifestation in the first place. If you are inclined to understand Gurdjieff's work and assist in creation, your "old name" is of less value to you than a "new name" that belongs only to you because you are then "individual" - having worked on your "Individual reason" in Gurdjieff's terms. That's probably what's really scary - lack of familiarity and a need to self-remember and to start life anew every moment - if that's what it comes down to for a given person.

 

[Nick_A]

Hi Buddy:

Long story short, IMO, the part that must die in this work is the foreign and mechanical, not anything actually living. The part that is foreign could be referred to as those formal devices of our intellect producing prosaic and plain work of contradiction, moroseness, etc and which produce nothing but static, mechanical, axiomatic analogies of reality - not to mention mental and emotional process loops that go nowhere and produce no content which is needed by another process for its own maintenance.

The trouble is that our personality within which these “buffers” function are dominant in our lives. Add to this that the i’s willing to suffer experiential truth are few. This fear of dying and the resistance created is far stronger than we believe.

Gurdjieff spoke of our lives reflecting forty eight laws and the potential from becoming more consciously free first by reflecting 24 laws. The movement from 24 to 48 is involution while the movement from 48 towards 24 is conscious evolution. Simone suggests the same idea through her concept of “decreation.” For example:

http://www.ascentmagazine.com/articles.aspx?articleID=326&issueID=41

“I have been reading the great French philosopher, mystic and political activist Simone Weil recently. In the years before World War II, in a Europe torn apart by the rise of fascism, workers’ struggles for rights and the surrealist revolt against all authority, Weil wrote of something she called “decreation.” Although Weil was mostly ignored in her lifetime, her writing has the power today to help us think outside of all the predictable words and categories that seem to define our situation—including “deflation.” She defines decreation as follows: “Decreation: To make something created pass into the uncreated.” And she contrasts decreation with destruction, which she defines as: “To make something created pass into nothingness. A blameworthy substitute for decreation.”

What is the difference between the “uncreated” and “nothingness”? The uncreated is that which exists whether we want it to or not, beyond our ideas, plans and egos; it is not created by us, yet the fact that we can create anything at all is entirely reliant on it. Nothingness, on the other hand, is an idea, a forced absence or closure, a word we use to try to control the way things, including ourselves, come and go in the realm of the created and uncreated. It is the illusion of an end, and an end that we think we can control through naming. For Weil, decreation is not just an idea; it is a spiritual practice. At the end of the essay she says.........................................”

Decreation is a conscious process separating the wheat from the tares. I can understand it from my knowledge of Gurdjieff. The author may be touched by this new direction of thought without knowing of Gurdjieff yet may profit from becoming aware. My gut feeling is that eventually people will come to the Work because of her influence creating the need for and willingness to “know thyself” and the truths Work efforts reveal.

 

[Nick_A]

Hi Pj

You may appreciate Simone's explanation of faith as it concerns consolation:

"Religion in so far as it is a source of consolation is a hindrance to true faith; and in this sense atheism is a purification. I have to be an atheist with that part of myself which is not made for God. Among those in whom the supernatural part of themselves has not been awakened, the atheists are right and the believers wrong."
- Simone Weil, Faiths of Meditation; Contemplation of the divine
the Simone Weil Reader, edited by George A. Panichas (David McKay Co. NY 1977) p 417

Now compare it with how Gurdjieff describes three kinds of faith in the 35th aphorism:

35.Conscious faith is freedom. Emotional faith is slavery. Mechanical faith is foolishness.

It becomes clear that Simone is actually warning against the power of emotional and mechanical faith and indicates the value of conscious faith. This is what I mean. Simone seems to project a living element beneficial for the Work. When she died seven outsiders attended her funeral. Since then, she has become an international figure arousing real thought. How did this happen? How could she project something so meaningful in her writing? I don't know but she did and I know I've felt it. She wrote from her being, not from her head. So rather than argue about it I try to contemplate the value of these insights rather than just superficially as subjects for debate.

For example, what would it be like if atheists had the humility to accept the possibility of a supernatural part and believers that they have allowed it to become corrupt? There would be nothing to argue about but just the concern for where we went wrong. We know it won't happen collectively within Plato's cave. yet a minority will benefit. Welcome to the human condition.

 

[Buddy]

The trouble is that our personality within which these “buffers” function are dominant in our lives. Add to this that the i’s willing to suffer experiential truth are few. This fear of dying and the resistance created is far stronger than we believe.

I understand, but I'm speaking of a possibility of making gains in the work, not of rationalizing fixation and standstill. For kick-starting some effort it might be useful to see off the theory of a homuncular audience, i.e., little men running around in the head as well as the "Cartesian Theater" that other people seem to use and adopt something more global that also includes others in the picture - like a global consciousness stage. Mainly because this seems to work better for people for exploring the adaptive unconscious and it's not my metaphor. Using such a metaphor,though, one thinks in terms of multiple brain modules that serve as both generators and consumers of information and can contribute to the global consciousness stage to have their "fame in the brain" so that your higher cortical processes can become aware of the goings on and take whatever action is necessary. From this perspective, these 'data centers' are not "I"s in the literal sense of the word but can feel like it if you have a predilection to identify with their information streams, OSIT. Also, I'm trying to be practical here. :)

What is the difference between the “uncreated” and “nothingness”? The uncreated is that which exists whether we want it to or not, beyond our ideas, plans and egos; it is not created by us, yet the fact that we can create anything at all is entirely reliant on it.

Indeed, this "uncreated" could just as well be the Vacuum Energy Space of some quantum physicists, or even the electroplasmatic foundation of some electric universe proponents (of which I'm one ).

Nothingness, on the other hand, is an idea, a forced absence or closure, a word we use to try to control the way things, including ourselves, come and go in the realm of the created and uncreated. It is the illusion of an end, and an end that we think we can control through naming. For Weil, decreation is not just an idea; it is a spiritual practice. At the end of the essay she says.........................................”

I suppose she speaks here, of the 'thought of Non-being', which is the destination of, say, the fatalists and nihilists. It is easy enough to see that "nothingness" is just an idea. The syntax itself is a clue: Nothingness is [insert anything here]. See the "is"? To even speak this one has to borrow from the ontology of Being (the word: is) to do so.

My gut feeling is that eventually people will come to the Work because of her influence creating the need for and willingness to “know thyself” and the truths Work efforts reveal.

That would be grand!

Thanks for this conversation.

 

[Vic]

Hi Pj

You may appreciate Simone's explanation of faith as it concerns consolation:

"Religion in so far as it is a source of consolation is a hindrance to true faith; and in this sense atheism is a purification. I have to be an atheist with that part of myself which is not made for God. Among those in whom the supernatural part of themselves has not been awakened, the atheists are right and the believers wrong."
- Simone Weil, Faiths of Meditation; Contemplation of the divine
the Simone Weil Reader, edited by George A. Panichas (David McKay Co. NY 1977) p 417

Now compare it with how Gurdjieff describes three kinds of faith in the 35th aphorism:

35.Conscious faith is freedom. Emotional faith is slavery. Mechanical faith is foolishness.

It becomes clear that Simone is actually warning against the power of emotional and mechanical faith and indicates the value of conscious faith. This is what I mean. Simone seems to project a living element beneficial for the Work. When she died seven outsiders attended her funeral. Since then, she has become an international figure arousing real thought. How did this happen? How could she project something so meaningful in her writing? I don't know but she did and I know I've felt it. She wrote from her being, not from her head. So rather than argue about it I try to contemplate the value of these insights rather than just superficially as subjects for debate.

For example, what would it be like if atheists had the humility to accept the possibility of a supernatural part and believers that they have allowed it to become corrupt? There would be nothing to argue about but just the concern for where we went wrong. We know it won't happen collectively within Plato's cave. yet a minority will benefit. Welcome to the human condition.

I don't put any faith in the fact that Weil has become an international figure arousing real thought. Throughout history those propagating evil, disinformation, and messages designed to implement and reinforce the hypnosis of the masses, have been raised to global prominence by the PTB. On the face of it, from your quotes, she certainly strikes me as having been one of the 'awake' ones, and conveyed that through her writings. But I can't be sure of her true value until I've researched her work.

Emotional and mechanical faiths are phenomenon I experienced a great deal of in my time - mainly through religions and self-help books. I am now here to achieve conscious faith, through conscious learning, and conscious observation of myself and my environment.

Consolation is of course a powerful force for distraction of the individual, as well as the masses. It creates an endless loop that directs energy to STS entities. Well, endless until it is seen for what it is. Consolation can spring on the unaware through devotion to the teacher, rather than the teaching itself. Your obvious admiration for 'Simone' throws up a small but persistent red light for me. This might easily be my own projection, so please don't be offended if I ask you if you are really conscious of the nature of consolation. Through your own experience of it I mean. Or are you only conscious of it as you see it through Weil's filter, or through contemplation of her thoughts on it.

The latter has great value, of course. But individual evolution depends on the awareness and application of knowledge in one's own everyday existence here in 3D reality. As you mentioned before, you come from a different inner space to Simone Weil.

It's good to have you here with us, Nick_A :)

 

[Nick_A]

Pj, I’m the first to admit that there are many charlatans out there. But there is no profit in Simone that attracts charlatans. There is no money in Simone. There is no Simone school or anything like it. All I know of is the American Weil Society which keeps its members up to date on books and such and has a colloquy once a year in a university. Since many members are PhDs, there is no problem. Member dues are only $12. a year which barely pays for postage. It is a labor of love. We simply cannot know the results of her life and work:

Existentialist philosopher Albert Camus wrote in a letter to Simone Weil's mother in 1951:
“Simone Weil, I still know this now, is the only great mind of our times and I hope that those who realize this have enough modesty to not try to appropriate her overwhelming witnessing.
For my part, I would be satisfied if one could say that in my place, with the humble means at my disposal, I served to make known and disseminate her work whose full impact we have yet to measure.”

She emphasized the necessity for conscious attention, detachment you know of as identification, and the power of imagination which keeps us in Plato’s cave with the potential for awakening to this 3D reality. Does any of this conflict with the Work? No. The Work teaches how to verify our situation initially through impartial self observation.

Her brother Andre cautioned not to make an idol out of Simone because she spent her life opposing idolatry. Just contemplate her ideas. Simone raises questions with a quality that touches a person’s being and Gurdjieff provides the means for dealing with them once a person has become aware of the human condition as it exists in the world and in themselves.

Julia Haslett was so touched by Simone during a difficult time in her life that she created a documentary. She was touched but doesn’t know why. She puts a question out there. I believe the Work is valuable for anyone questioning in this way and willing to make the sincere initial efforts in self observation to “Know Thyself.” Here is the trailer. No charlatan here; just a seeker of truth which is one reason why she is so attractive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOCE_d2R5lw

 

[Buddy]

Pj, I’m the first to admit that there are many charlatans out there. But there is no profit in Simone that attracts charlatans. There is no money in Simone. There is no Simone school or anything like it. All I know of is the American Weil Society which keeps its members up to date on books and such and has a colloquy once a year in a university. Since many members are PhDs, there is no problem. Member dues are only $12. a year which barely pays for postage. It is a labor of love. We simply cannot know the results of her life and work:

Existentialist philosopher Albert Camus wrote in a letter to Simone Weil's mother in 1951:
“Simone Weil, I still know this now, is the only great mind of our times and I hope that those who realize this have enough modesty to not try to appropriate her overwhelming witnessing.
For my part, I would be satisfied if one could say that in my place, with the humble means at my disposal, I served to make known and disseminate her work whose full impact we have yet to measure.”

She emphasized the necessity for conscious attention, detachment you know of as identification, and the power of imagination which keeps us in Plato’s cave with the potential for awakening to this 3D reality. Does any of this conflict with the Work? No. The Work teaches how to verify our situation initially through impartial self observation.

Her brother Andre cautioned not to make an idol out of Simone because she spent her life opposing idolatry. Just contemplate her ideas. Simone raises questions with a quality that touches a person’s being and Gurdjieff provides the means for dealing with them once a person has become aware of the human condition as it exists in the world and in themselves.

Julia Haslett was so touched by Simone during a difficult time in her life that she created a documentary. She was touched but doesn’t know why. She puts a question out there. I believe the Work is valuable for anyone questioning in this way and willing to make the sincere initial efforts in self observation to “Know Thyself.” Here is the trailer. No charlatan here; just a seeker of truth which is one reason why she is so attractive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOCE_d2R5lw

Nick_A, you joined back in November 2008 and made a few posts about Simone Weil. Now, after a 5 + year hiatus, you enter this thread with more Simone Weil promotion while confessing a sincerity incapacity over some question of "truth" vs consolation" in order to introduce Weil on this thread.

You seem to know a lot about Simone and her writings and the PhDs that inhabit a $12.00 per year American Weil Society. You quote Weil and talk about her questions, yet from your own writing I get the impression that for at least the past five years you are no closer to benefiting from any knowledge of Weil's writings than you were when you first posted about Weil on this forum. You are saying the same things now that you said then. So what, then, is the point? To be forever preoccupied with intellectual discussions related to Simone Weil?

Paddyjohn has clearly been made aware of Simone Weil, has indicated that he is a cautious explorer and is willing to research Weil further at his own leisure. However, this discussion seems to continue on a wholly intellectual level only because your posts are just provocative enough to stimulate a question which you attempt to answer with more pointers to Weil and now, her existential promoters and supporters.

IMO, a specific form of existentialism spilled all over this thread starting on page four and interestingly, I only noticed in retrospect after you brought Camus into the picture. Yes, during his lifetime, Camus denied being an existentialist just as his "absurdism" denied being just another monistic, Aristotelian-based thought framework and his mentor, Sartre, denied being an existentialist until he thought about it and then changed his mind.

What has started out on this thread with attempts to assist Paddyjohn with answers to his questions and his invitations to comment, developed into a line of suggestions about finding an inner center, and, from a metaphysical perspective, trade Aristotle's tertium non-Datur limitations for a sense of Becoming that fills in excluded middles (and which is in accord with my interpretation of Laura's exposition on Being and the Thought of Non-Being and Third Force), and which allows a person to feel grounded while gaining something of benefit.

Now it's an intellectual discussion involving concerns expressed within a camouflaged Camus-Sartrean-atheistic-line of existentialism which postulates a fundamental either/or, black and white distinction between "Being-in-Itself", which is supposed to be all of nonconscious (non-aware) reality, and "Being-for-Itself" and which threatens to undo real work.

To me that is one scenario scarier than the idea of dying. Have you ever traced the history of Rhetoric and Dialectic back to the ancient Greeks ending with Parmenides and compared what you then understood of philosophic thought with the Sophists, Essenes, Gnostics and mixtures that reigned for 10 millennia before that time? If you did, then you might see a horror similar to what Gurdjieff must have been aware of in order to speak of and imply damage clearly done to humanity's birthright natural mentation ability which he also clearly defines (though you may credit his source to something more mysterious sounding). You might also come to appreciate the position here on an individual's freewill and then refrain from further efforts to make the horse drink (apologies, Paddyjohn).

Perhaps my imagination just runs away with me and there's a perfectly reasonable answer for why Simone Weil is still being promoted at the expense of Laura's, the QFG's and Gurdjieff's enormous contributions? Are there no other seekers of truth attractive to you?

In any case, I feel moved to ask you if you have read Laura's Wave series or Adventures series?

 

[Nick_A]

Buddy, how can I possibly verify my own experiences during the past five years? But one thing I’ve learned is the way in which the experience of ones nothingness is lost in favor of the defensive feeling of “doing.” That is why the foundation for self observation is important. Simone Weil’s influence furthers a necessary humility.

I am in a strange place. It has become evident that it is beneficial for me to unite the power of language and ideas with a quality of art I am related to by heredity. I recently experienced the necessity. So as much as I appreciate my music business and private life, I know I have to share with the young who are still open to appreciate what Gurdjieff conveyed to Ouspensky in chapter one of ISM. So I’m back in business so to speak. That attitude, the brief conscious recognition of the human condition, is the foundation. I shared once and as a result sold the books I quoted from since some students were impressed by the presentation using a quality of art to assist and wanted to explore it.

So it appears at this time of my life I must share what has been given to me with the help of heredity. I also learn by reading resistance and doubts from those like you and Pj. They are natural and meaningful for me.

I haven’t read the wave series yet but the Work is the Work. That is what concerns me and it must begin with a certain brief experienced recognition of a quality of verticality. The Gospel of Thomas provides a good description:

(3) Jesus said, "If those who lead you say to you, 'See, the kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."

That which consciously knows can become consciously known. It is a vertical relationship. Imagination only leads to imagination of a different form.

As an aide, are you familiar with Basarab Nicolescu's explanation of the Law of the INCLUDED middle and how it compares to the Law of the EXCLUDED miidle? It explains a lot about verticality.

 

[Vic]

Quote Buddy:

You might also come to appreciate the position here on an individual's freewill and then refrain from further efforts to make the horse drink (apologies, Paddyjohn).

Love it, Buddy. I ain't quite ready for the knackers yard though. OSIT :D

 

[Vic]

Buddy, how can I possibly verify my own experiences during the past five years? But one thing I’ve learned is the way in which the experience of ones nothingness is lost in favor of the defensive feeling of “doing.” That is why the foundation for self observation is important. Simone Weil’s influence furthers a necessary humility.

I am in a strange place. It has become evident that it is beneficial for me to unite the power of language and ideas with a quality of art I am related to by heredity. I recently experienced the necessity. So as much as I appreciate my music business and private life, I know I have to share with the young who are still open to appreciate what Gurdjieff conveyed to Ouspensky in chapter one of ISM. So I’m back in business so to speak. That attitude, the brief conscious recognition of the human condition, is the foundation. I shared once and as a result sold the books I quoted from since some students were impressed by the presentation using a quality of art to assist and wanted to explore it.

So it appears at this time of my life I must share what has been given to me with the help of heredity. I also learn by reading resistance and doubts from those like you and Pj. They are natural and meaningful for me.

I haven’t read the wave series yet but the Work is the Work. That is what concerns me and it must begin with a certain brief experienced recognition of a quality of verticality. The Gospel of Thomas provides a good description:

(3) Jesus said, "If those who lead you say to you, 'See, the kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."

That which consciously knows can become consciously known. It is a vertical relationship. Imagination only leads to imagination of a different form.

As an aide, are you familiar with Basarab Nicolescu's explanation of the Law of the INCLUDED middle and how it compares to the Law of the EXCLUDED miidle? It explains a lot about verticality.

Now I'm confused, Nick_A. Not having read The Wave means that you lack understanding of the community with which you are attempting to interact. Rather than give my own clumsy version of the point I want to make, and that I hope will be helpful to you, I'll just quote a brief extract from ISOTM that influences my own interaction here:

If we continue our talks you will see that we speak a special language. It is not worthwhile talking in ordinary language because, in that language, it is impossible to understand one other. This also, at the moment, seems strange to you. But it is true. In order to understand it is necessary to learn another language ...

Without knowing the language we use here means we will be speaking at cross-purposes. With that in mind I ask you to take time out to read The Wave series.

I'm now going to risk having people jump all over me. My perception, for what it's worth, is that you are swimming in an ocean of consolation. But the current is against you and you are finding it difficult. Consolation is no longer doing it for you, but you don't know how to get back to the shore. In your responses to Buddy and I it seems to me that instead of responding to the points we are making, you are coming back with justifications for the objects of your consolation. Your arms are getting heavy though.

Do you really want to do The Work? Do you really know what The Work is?

You said "I am in a strange place." This might be accurate in two senses.This forum is a strange place to you because you don't yet speak the language.Your everyday life is strange because, and I accept that I may be wrong, you spend most of your energy on the very consolation that you opened your contribution to this thread with. Discovering teachers/ings that hit a chord with you, and then projecting them on to 'the young' makes you sound like some sort of evangelist. I can say that with authenticity because I have been one.

Nick_A, I still hope that truth is the reason you are here. Where does the alternative lead? You said in your reply to Buddy - "I also learn by reading resistance and doubts from those like you and Pj. They are natural and meaningful for me." If that's really the case please give examples of what you have learned from them so far?

You have a lot to gain, and nothing to lose, by reading The Wave series. An unwillingness to do so might suggest an unhealthy clinging to your current position. There is so much to learn. It would be a waste for you to miss out on it.

 

[obyvatel]

Hi Nick_A,
From your posts, it seems that Simone Weil has touched you deeply. Such experiences have the potential to be a catalyst for growth if it stirs something up in us and motivates us to understand ourselves and the reality we find ourselves in. But sometimes, we can also fall into fascination with what initially evoked a meaningful experience, and such fascination can be a detriment for growth - so it is something to watch out for.

I have not read Simone Weil. I looked at the wikipedia entry on her and this caught my eye.

[quote author=wikipedia]
Lectures on Philosophy is a compilation of the lectures that Weil composed for her lycée students. Focussing on the materialist philosophical project, she deals with truth not logically or scientifically but psychologically or phenomenologically. Here she discusses the conditions necessary for an experience of truth to emerge for the human subject, or for an object or concept to emerge as real within human experience.[citation needed]

However, she does not advocate a general theory of human "truth-production", justified by empirical observation.[47] As distinguished from the writings of William James, Lectures describe the problem of truth as deeply personal, to be approached through introspection.
[/quote]

There is a difference between the approaches of this forum and Gurdjieff to the one ostensibly used by Simone Weil in that objective rather than personal truth is pursued through the application of scientific methods on empirical observations collected from various sources and includes networking with others.

Like suggested by Buddy and Paddyjohn, reading the Wave series available in book form as well as on the internet here would give you a better idea of the approach used here.

fwiw

 

[Buddy]

Buddy, how can I possibly verify my own experiences during the past five years?

Perhaps a brief explanation of some sort of substantial (measurable) improvement in your life or the lives of loved ones touched by your existence?

But one thing I’ve learned is the way in which the experience of ones nothingness is lost in favor of the defensive feeling of “doing.” That is why the foundation for self observation is important. Simone Weil’s influence furthers a necessary humility.

Perhaps feeling a fuller brunt of this will speed you on your way. Truly understanding Gurdjieff's position on the struggle between "yes/no" and a dedicated effort of practicing in all and everything you do should fairly quickly bring you to a point resembling a bankruptcy where you come face to face with that box we find ourselves in. That's a diplomatic way of referring to "doing impotence" in an esoteric context.

I am in a strange place. It has become evident that it is beneficial for me to unite the power of language and ideas with a quality of art I am related to by heredity.

What is this heredity?

That attitude, the brief conscious recognition of the human condition, is the foundation.

You might enhance other-perceived credibility if you could develop this "brief conscious recognition" into something that could help someone discern ponerization from their perspective and maybe overcome pathological influences from people in their lives who continually say one thing and yet do another while fully expecting others to be blind to their manipulations. That seems like a useful aim.

I shared once and as a result sold the books I quoted from since some students were impressed by the presentation using a quality of art to assist and wanted to explore it.

Is this a reference to a personal agenda of selling art? I ask because I'm unsure of what 'sharing' you are referring to.

So it appears at this time of my life I must share what has been given to me with the help of heredity.

What heredity?

I haven’t read the wave series yet but the Work is the Work.

The Wave series is a representation of the work and it matters, IMO. Everything matters in that way in which the mattering requires one to discern the third force, the third man and the contexts in which anything with meaningfulness applies.

That is what concerns me and it must begin with a certain brief experienced recognition of a quality of verticality.

Nothing 'wrong' with verticality, horizontalicality, Bono's lateral thinking, thinking with a hammer, that Russian's multi-dimensional critical thinking (MDCT), Quantum logic, Polycontextural logic, modal logics or any other kind of thinking your mind might be capable of. After all, we want to avoid that stuckness described as "if you only have a hammer you'll see everything as a nail" don't we?

The Gospel of Thomas provides a good description:

(3) Jesus said, "If those who lead you say to you, 'See, the kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."[/b]

I am familiar with The Gospel of Thomas in its entirety and I see in this, the very same gnostic, quantum-like non-separatist kind of thinking that reveals a moving life where some existentialists put a slash mark (e.g., either/or).

That which consciously knows can become consciously known. It is a vertical relationship. Imagination only leads to imagination of a different form.

Break out of a vicious cycle. Rise above the slash mark. Try out thinking in ways that are novel and more creative. Perhaps ways that might be characterized by the meanings involved in adaptability (possibility for dynamic and creative change via work) and viscosity (less likelihood of doing anything but getting stuck in a status quo like a herd of snails stampeding through peanut butter).

As an aide, are you familiar with Basarab Nicolescu's explanation of the Law of the INCLUDED middle and how it compares to the Law of the EXCLUDED miidle? It explains a lot about verticality.

I am now, thanks to the pointer. FWIW, currently I am less occupied with developing my knowledge of the various pretty bananas in the jungle and more occupied with efforts to bring my Being up to the level of my knowledge, such as it is.

From where I stand and look, no one yet has the whole banana and few of us even have the whole grasp of the partial banana of others. We are all doing the best we can with what we seem to have to work with.

Humility is very simple. As mammals, nature prematurely (Gabor Maté) dumps us in the lap of our environment after reaching a certain level of development which requires that we ineptly, at first, interact with our environments to gain the feedback or other input which our organism needs to be molded into whatever is needed to survive in that environment in which we find ourselves dumped.

Perhaps it is unfortunate that some of us start out in much worse conditions than others; or perhaps it is a soul plan? It doesn't matter because in the beginning, when coming to work, we are basically monkey man with monkey mind making faces in the mirror while full of hubris and believing our pretense that we are something more than we are.

The good news is that we can be more and the how and the secret of why is hidden in plain sight in Gurdjieff's and Laura's own work. IMO, we've just got to get our heads straight enough to find the right way to view the whole (like looking at a hologram).


As an aside: the 'special language' Paddyjohn refers to may not be correctly perceived when viewed strictly from the framework of formal subject-object metaphysics and its axiomatic belief in One Global Truth in One Global Context. From my perspective, that mechanism appears to prevail in your linguistic and thought structures (although much less so than that of many others I've read). That, I'm happy about, which is why I appreciate the discussion, but caution that without the foundation of the recommended reading which this forum and work is based on, you are likely to mis-interpret what you read as you lack the framework of context which provides meaning. Absolutes are few and tend to be invisible to most of us at this stage of development, so there's little point in anyone assuming they understand someone's meaning just because they recognize words. Perhaps there are places more appropriate than others for peddling our wares if we are uninterested in expanding our current line of work?

That's 'not' an invitation to leave, rather an invitation to really think about and to 'become' who or what you really intend to become. That effort might be hastened via the kind and quality of network and interactions to which obyvatel refers.

 

[Nick_A]

Hi Nick_A,
From your posts, it seems that Simone Weil has touched you deeply. Such experiences have the potential to be a catalyst for growth if it stirs something up in us and motivates us to understand ourselves and the reality we find ourselves in. But sometimes, we can also fall into fascination with what initially evoked a meaningful experience, and such fascination can be a detriment for growth - so it is something to watch out for.

I have not read Simone Weil. I looked at the wikipedia entry on her and this caught my eye.

[quote author=wikipedia]
Lectures on Philosophy is a compilation of the lectures that Weil composed for her lycée students. Focussing on the materialist philosophical project, she deals with truth not logically or scientifically but psychologically or phenomenologically. Here she discusses the conditions necessary for an experience of truth to emerge for the human subject, or for an object or concept to emerge as real within human experience.[citation needed]

However, she does not advocate a general theory of human "truth-production", justified by empirical observation.[47] As distinguished from the writings of William James, Lectures describe the problem of truth as deeply personal, to be approached through introspection.

There is a difference between the approaches of this forum and Gurdjieff to the one ostensibly used by Simone Weil in that objective rather than personal truth is pursued through the application of scientific methods on empirical observations collected from various sources and includes networking with others.

Like suggested by Buddy and Paddyjohn, reading the Wave series available in book form as well as on the internet here would give you a better idea of the approach used here.

fwiw
[/quote]

Well if you're a real obyvatel you can't be all bad. :) Just kidding.

Yes Simone has touched me because of her brilliant intellect combined with a purity of heart which led her to seek experiential truth over pleasure. There is no essential opposition between Simone Weil and Gurdjieff

Would you agree with the following observation from Simone? Does it oppose the Work? Must the TRUTH of universal Laws necessarily oppose the "GOOD" of the source. What is the relationship between lawful FRAGMENTATION of universal laws and the GOOD from which they originate? These are questions the Work deals with. Gurdjieff told Ouspensky that something is necessary to be able to put facts into a realistic perspective. Does it really come from more facts or from a change in what we ARE?

I believe that one identical thought is to be found—expressed very precisely and with only slight differences of modality—in. . .Pythagoras, Plato, and the Greek Stoics. . .in the Upanishads, and the Bhagavad Gita; in the Chinese Taoist writings and. . .Buddhism. . .in the dogmas of the Christian faith and in the writings of the greatest Christian mystics. . .I believe that this thought is the truth, and that it today requires a modern and Western form of expression. That is to say, it should be expressed through the only approximately good thing we can call our own, namely science. This is all the less difficult because it is itself the origin of science. Simone Weil….Simone Pétrement, Simone Weil: A Life, Random House, 1976, p. 488

"To restore to science as a whole, for mathematics as well as psychology and sociology, the sense of its origin and veritable destiny as a bridge leading toward God---not by diminishing, but by increasing precision in demonstration, verification and supposition---that would indeed be a task worth accomplishing." Simone Weil

There is an artificial division between science and religion that is the result of imagination normal for existence in Plato's cave. Can it be resolved through more facts or does it require a conscious rather than a conditioned perspective? What is necessary to change from expressions of conditioned perspectives into a conscious perspective? Simone arouses these questions and Gurdjieff provides a method to deal with them. Where is the opposition?

 

[Buddy]

I believe that this thought is the truth, ...

If "source" is "Good", then why emphasis on a polysemous term like "truth?"

Can it be resolved through more facts or does it require a conscious rather than a conditioned perspective?

Maybe it requires understanding the same trick involved in creating paradox and suffering an incapacity to resolve them? Simply, paradox, like certain undecidable questions, quantum uncertainty and questions with the Buddhist's "Mu" answer, exist due to people's tendency to assume that propositions and questions must be set up, understood and resolved logically or mathematically within a single axiomatic framework, or context (re: Magritte's The Treachery of Images vis-a-vis his La condition humaine) which they define and monitor for violations.

Science and religion do not peacefully co-exist because each wants theirs to be "the" only axiom set for all and everything.

My 2 cents.

 

[Nick_A]

Hi Pj

I was attracted to the forum since it dealt with topics such as esoteric Christianity and the Work. I was curious how they were understood here. The special language Gurdjieff refers to includes scale and relativity. For example what is a man? Gurdjieff defined gradations of man. What is man #4 ? Is it just a man? Have you discussed what man#4 is on this forum? Would it be worthwhile?

My consolation has been a verification that I am a machine in a madhouse but the situation isn’t hopeless. You can call this consolation but I cannot see it as harmful.

By “strange place” I mean simultaneously not wanting to share but feeling compelled to do so because of what I’ve been given. I have no interest in evangelizing but just revealing a “choice” normally overlooked in the chaos of modern life. Must a person be just a necessity, a thing reacting in obedience to universal laws, or can a person also serve a conscious purpose?