Opinions
- Thread starter Laura
- Start date
Buddy
The Living Force
Rob said:
Hi Rob. It seems you misunderstood me. I did not offer 'my definition' of the word opinion. If I actually have a definition, it would closely match yours because my own 'opinions' are nothing more than unsubstantiated beliefs.
If you will re-read my post, you will see that I stated an inference I drew from reading every post in its entirety - including the quotes from Gurdjieff, whether I believe it or not.
[quote author=Rob]
I believe aliens exist for eg, because of the statistical probabilities that even common sense provides, let alone what scientists have mentioned. But it is still an opinion because i have not met an alien so i cannot prove my opinion/theory.[/quote]
If you have the ability to reason yourself to a conclusion that explains this belief as representative of a general statistical high-probability, then I would think you've formed a belief on a solid probability foundation. That is not equivalent to a mere 'opinion', as I see it. And I see nothing inherent in an opinion that earns any respect - although I do agree that people should be treated with external consideration.
Not that I couldn't be wrong about something here, of course. I'm open to more input as well. :)
Talas
Jedi Master
Opinions are an easy way to Couch a `Lie`or Create a reality without Truth as a firm base for Discussion,anything can be created to fit an Opinion and there is its Fault..
Its a lie to the self if not based in Real truth.
What is True or the Truth now is analised much easier in the Mechanical mind or for someone who is using every scientific/spiritual pathway to arrive at an awakened state.
Also An opinion is like bits of Lego that can be added to if we wish the ego to make our opinion fit or seem better than anothers in most situations there is its most cunning trap,
only progrees with truth at the heart of all be can an advancement for the self.
Thats My Truth on the Word `Opinion = Lie/Confusion/Division
Its a lie to the self if not based in Real truth.
What is True or the Truth now is analised much easier in the Mechanical mind or for someone who is using every scientific/spiritual pathway to arrive at an awakened state.
Also An opinion is like bits of Lego that can be added to if we wish the ego to make our opinion fit or seem better than anothers in most situations there is its most cunning trap,
only progrees with truth at the heart of all be can an advancement for the self.
Thats My Truth on the Word `Opinion = Lie/Confusion/Division
I just finished ISOTM, then read this thread.
I was also struck by the ending of Ouspensky's and Gurdjieff's time together; also by the brevity of the time covered, 3 years.
When I was a child, my father had a mid-life identity crisis, left his job in insurance, and joined a commune in Iowa, IPM - the Inner Peace Movement. Late 60s.
It was a mess! Ridiculous powerplays, control through humiliation...parents would pay to come to 'camp' for two weeks to learn 'astral projection' & 'psychic healing' and then get ripped all night while the kids made the food, kept the place clean and gardened. The kids felt used.
My dad climbed the ranks of this cult for a few years, then continued on his own alcoholic way, dragging us to a new town every year or so. On Sunday mornings he & his series of wives sent us kids to all kinds of churches, one of which was the freakishly fear-mongering Assembly of God, whose movies were nightmarish enactments of Armaggedon. After I left home, I was well-programmed: one of the first things I did was join a bunch of Sheet People, who, fortunately, while spiriting me to their compound in Colorado, were picked up by State troopers and Thank God they did not get me, because I knew I had surrendered my will to them. And I was horrified to discover that my will was that weak and handicapped.
I bring all that up because ego-tripping, powerplays and manipulation abound.
So naturally, the part where Gurdjieff says a person cannot adequately grow without surrendering their will to their teacher seems incongruous in the mix of ALL THE OTHER GREAT STUFF HE IS RELAYING.
And, truthfully, maybe there is a situation in the work where it is appropriate.
That said, I think about essence and personality. Maybe Gurdjieff's essence was spot-on, but maybe he had a manipulating or conniving aspect to his personality that Ouspensky couldn't stomach? Because charismatic people, especially, can have some big contradictions going on. I mean we all do, how can we not in this environment?
On the other hand, as was pointed out, didn't Ouspensky do just what Gurdjieff had warned against? What I really wonder is if Gurdjieff felt it was a correct time for Ouspensky to move on, or if G thought O was breaking down and veering off the path?
The waters get murky when it comes to surrendering one's will to another: I can only surmise that is it Always a Bad Idea. That does not preclude compromising and learning to respond in new ways to challenging situations; I.e. not being willfully immature.
And to tie opinions into this, and as I am new at posting , I observe as I write this that it full of opinions.
If we all state only the facts then where is the growth? Facts are known and confirmed already. Is there a way to speculate without opinions, and is speculation appropriate in this setting? I don't want to unknowingly stray from the group's aim or misuse people's valuable attention.
I'm curious to know what others impressions are of the way G and O broke up...and if I'm missing the boat on my delivery or content.
Thanks!
I was also struck by the ending of Ouspensky's and Gurdjieff's time together; also by the brevity of the time covered, 3 years.
When I was a child, my father had a mid-life identity crisis, left his job in insurance, and joined a commune in Iowa, IPM - the Inner Peace Movement. Late 60s.
It was a mess! Ridiculous powerplays, control through humiliation...parents would pay to come to 'camp' for two weeks to learn 'astral projection' & 'psychic healing' and then get ripped all night while the kids made the food, kept the place clean and gardened. The kids felt used.
My dad climbed the ranks of this cult for a few years, then continued on his own alcoholic way, dragging us to a new town every year or so. On Sunday mornings he & his series of wives sent us kids to all kinds of churches, one of which was the freakishly fear-mongering Assembly of God, whose movies were nightmarish enactments of Armaggedon. After I left home, I was well-programmed: one of the first things I did was join a bunch of Sheet People, who, fortunately, while spiriting me to their compound in Colorado, were picked up by State troopers and Thank God they did not get me, because I knew I had surrendered my will to them. And I was horrified to discover that my will was that weak and handicapped.
I bring all that up because ego-tripping, powerplays and manipulation abound.
So naturally, the part where Gurdjieff says a person cannot adequately grow without surrendering their will to their teacher seems incongruous in the mix of ALL THE OTHER GREAT STUFF HE IS RELAYING.
And, truthfully, maybe there is a situation in the work where it is appropriate.
That said, I think about essence and personality. Maybe Gurdjieff's essence was spot-on, but maybe he had a manipulating or conniving aspect to his personality that Ouspensky couldn't stomach? Because charismatic people, especially, can have some big contradictions going on. I mean we all do, how can we not in this environment?
On the other hand, as was pointed out, didn't Ouspensky do just what Gurdjieff had warned against? What I really wonder is if Gurdjieff felt it was a correct time for Ouspensky to move on, or if G thought O was breaking down and veering off the path?
The waters get murky when it comes to surrendering one's will to another: I can only surmise that is it Always a Bad Idea. That does not preclude compromising and learning to respond in new ways to challenging situations; I.e. not being willfully immature.
And to tie opinions into this, and as I am new at posting , I observe as I write this that it full of opinions.
If we all state only the facts then where is the growth? Facts are known and confirmed already. Is there a way to speculate without opinions, and is speculation appropriate in this setting? I don't want to unknowingly stray from the group's aim or misuse people's valuable attention.
I'm curious to know what others impressions are of the way G and O broke up...and if I'm missing the boat on my delivery or content.
Thanks!
Hi melissa, it is my understanding that while Ouspensky had a brilliant mind, he never could get over his self importance. As Castaneda pointed out, self importance is one of our greatest enemies, and getting rid of it is essential for progress. I think that Gurdjieff recognized this in Ouspensky very early on, and was trying to get him to see this.
As for recognizing the false teacher, developing your discernment by gaining knowledge is crucial. I found a great post explaining this by obyvatel HERE.
As for recognizing the false teacher, developing your discernment by gaining knowledge is crucial. I found a great post explaining this by obyvatel HERE.
obyvatel
The Living Force
William Patrick Patterson's "Struggle of the Magicians" provides a detailed account of the relationship between Gurdjieff and Ouspensky and Ouspensky's life after separating from Grurdjieff. Laura provided a synopsis here .
This post quotes Gurdjieff's description of a "black magician" which is very different from popular understanding of the term. Ouspensky fits the bill of a black magician who did good - his "In Search Of The Miraculous" forms an excellent introduction to Gurdjieff's system.
This post quotes Gurdjieff's description of a "black magician" which is very different from popular understanding of the term. Ouspensky fits the bill of a black magician who did good - his "In Search Of The Miraculous" forms an excellent introduction to Gurdjieff's system.
~melissa said:
Hi melissa,
Fwiw, the links from, obyvatel's post, to Laura's discussion on the teacher aspect, can be seen in this quote:
I don't follow Buddhism as such, however, this quote has always been remembered, and it, i believe, is what is fostered here in this work:
It seems to me that some that followed after him forgot; if he truly said this, these words, and set themselves up as "teachers" in the extremes, who dd not allow for the "will" of critical thinking and i don't think Gurdjieff ever wont for the abandonment of critical thinking, osit.
