Qualities of essence

Buddy thank you for your interpretation. For me this is a very important topic and it was important that it was easy to decipher as I truly didn't understand the real meaning behind your first post.

I would love to put this in a note on my facebook especially for all those raising children, however I appreciate the privacy of this forum so refrained from doing so. Plus I don't think I would have got the context right either as we talk in a language here, through our cognitive science studies, that would just baffle the average Joe.
 
Ailén said:
So for me it's hard to imagine exactly what "essence" means, since it is probably different for every individual, and it is usually so fragile to begin with that we can only see glimpses of it as we have realizations and see others develop their potential.

Just an idea, and maybe I am off here, but perhaps essence has something to do with archetypes? It's the "spice" of the being, and each has its own blend. Some are "eagles", some are "mice", some are "lions", some are "slugs", and some are "praying mantises", etc. And if so, it is less about "innocence", but more about one's "nature" (and one's nature can be innocent, of course).
 
That's the problem with essence. It's so darn hard to pin down with just verbal descriptions and references to the concept. It's pretty easy to point to behaviors and call them examples of personality, so maybe we could we say it's what is left over when we subtract personality as Gurdjieff referred to it? Somehow that still doesn't seem very satisfying though, does it?
 
Keit said:
Ailén said:
So for me it's hard to imagine exactly what "essence" means, since it is probably different for every individual, and it is usually so fragile to begin with that we can only see glimpses of it as we have realizations and see others develop their potential.

Just an idea, and maybe I am off here, but perhaps essence has something to do with archetypes? It's the "spice" of the being, and each has its own blend. Some are "eagles", some are "mice", some are "lions", some are "slugs", and some are "praying mantises", etc. And if so, it is less about "innocence", but more about one's "nature" (and one's nature can be innocent, of course).

I think there is certainly some truth to this. It reminds me of the discussion last night, when the guys were talking about how people with certain traits are killed off. There are some who come into this world with a very strong sense of conscience, intellectual ability, and charisma, and they rise like lions. There is obviously a social component to this as well, but look at Diana, she grew up in the "royal" family for god sakes!

Some people may be destined to be mice, and be quite happy being so. Yet others may be conditioned to be mice by their social milieu, and be deeply unhappy with it, because it doesn't agree with their essence, so they strive to change.


Buddy said:
That's the problem with essence. It's so darn hard to pin down with just verbal descriptions and references to the concept. It's pretty easy to point to behaviors and call them examples of personality, so maybe we could we say it's what is left over when we subtract personality as Gurdjieff referred to it? Somehow that still doesn't seem very satisfying though, does it?

It isn't satisfying at all. From my short experience, essence is something that you feel, in very rare moments (for me), and is very difficult to put into words. It can be reached through the emotional center, but all the wiseacring in the world won't allow us to reach it through the intellectual center. And maybe at some level of development, you can spot somebody else's essence.

I'm reminded of the part in ISOTM where Gurdjieff somehow removes the false personalities of two men, leaving them to communicate just with their essence (I don't have my copy with me).
 
Carlisle said:
...all the wiseacring in the world won't allow us to reach it through the intellectual center.

Is that a reference to my post xor are you making what I see to be a very good point? :)

I remember that part in ISOTM too. I think some people have said those guys were hypnotized and it was that part of them that we might now refer to as the experiential self that was doing the speaking.
 
Carlisle said:
I'm reminded of the part in ISOTM where Gurdjieff somehow removes the false personalities of two men, leaving them to communicate just with their essence (I don't have my copy with me).

Here it is, including the part that explains the process of separation.

ISOTM said:
There exists a possibility of experimental verification of the relation of personality essence. In Eastern schools ways and means are known by the help of which it is possible to separate man's personality from his essence. For this purpose they sometimes use hypnosis, sometimes special narcotics, sometimes certain kinds of exercises. If personality and essence are for a time separated in a man by one or another of these means, two beings, as it were, are formed in him, who speak in different voices, have completely different tastes, aims, and interests, and one of these two beings often proves to be on the level of a small child. Continuing the experiment further it is possible to put one of these beings to sleep, or the experiment may begin putting to sleep either personality or essence.

Certain narcotics have the property of putting personality to sleep without affecting essence. And for a certain time after taking this narcotic a man's personality disappears, as it were, and only his essence remains. And it happens that a man full of the most varied and exalted ideas, full of sympathies and antipathies, love, hatred, attachments, patriotism, habits, tastes, desires, convictions, suddenly proves quite empty, without thoughts, without feelings, without convictions, without views. Everything that has agitated him before now leaves him completely indifferent. Sometimes he sees the artificiality and the imaginary character his usual moods or his high-sounding words, sometimes he simply forgets them as though they had never existed.

Things for which he was ready to sacrifice his life now appear to him ridiculous and meaningless and unworthy of his attention. All that he can find in himself is a small number of instinctive inclinations and tastes. He is fond of sweets, he likes warmth, he dislikes cold, he dislikes the thought of work, or on the contrary he likes the idea of physical movement. And that is all. Sometimes, though very seldom, and sometimes when it is least expected, essence proves fully grown and fully developed in a man, even in cases of undeveloped personality, and in this case essence unites together everything that is serious and real in a man. "But this happens very seldom. As a rule a man's essence is either primitive, savage, and childish, or else simply stupid. The development of essence depends on work on oneself.[...]

ISOTM said:
Conversations in groups continued as usual. Once G. said that he wanted to carry out an experiment on the separation of personality from essence. We were all very interested because he had promised "experiments" for a long time but till then we had seen nothing. I will not describe his methods, I will merely describe the people whom he chose that first evening for the experiment.

One was no longer young and was a man who occupied a fairly prominent position in society. At our meetings he spoke much and often about himself, his family, about Christianity, and about the events of the moment connected with the war and with all possible kinds of "scandal" that had very much disgusted him. The other was younger. Many of us did not consider him to be a serious person.

Very often he played what is called the fool; or, on the other hand, entered into endless formal arguments about some or other details of the system without any relation whatever to the whole. It was very difficult to understand him. He spoke in a confused and intricate manner even of the most simple things, mixing up in a most impossible way different points of view and words belonging to different categories and levels.

I pass over the beginning of the experiment.

We were sitting in the big drawing room.
The conversation went on as usual.
"Now observe," G. whispered to us.

The older of the two who was speaking heatedly about something suddenly became silent in the middle of a sentence and seemed to sink into his chair looking straight in front of him. At a sign from G. we continued to talk without looking at him. The younger one began to listen to the talk and then spoke himself. All of us looked at one another. His voice had become different. He told us some observations about himself in a clear, simple, and intelligible manner without superfluous words, without extravagances, and without buffoonery. Then he became silent; he smoked a cigarette and was obviously thinking of something. The first one sat still without moving, as though shrunken into a ball.

"Ask him what he is thinking about," said G. quietly.
"I?" He lifted his head as though waking up when he was questioned. "About nothing." He smiled weakly as though apologizing or as though he were surprised at anyone asking him what he was thinking about.
"Well, you were talking about the war just now," said one of us, "about what would happen if we made peace with the Germans; do you still think as you did then?"
"I don't know really," he said in an uncertain voice. "Did I say that?"
"Yes, certainly, you just said that everyone was obliged to think about it, that no one had the right not to think about it, and that no one had the right to forget the war; everyone ought to have a definite opinion; yes or no—for or against the war."
He listened as though he did not grasp what the questioner was saying.
"Yes?" he said. "How odd. I do not remember anything about it."
"But aren't you interested in it?"
"No, it does not interest me at all."
"Are you not thinking of the consequences of all that is now taking place, of the results for Russia, for the whole of civilization?"
He shook his head as though with regret.
"I do not understand what you are talking about," he said, "it does not interest me at all and I know nothing about it."
"Well then, you spoke before of your family. Would it not be very much easier for you if they became interested in our ideas and joined the work?"
"Yes, perhaps," again in an uncertain voice. "But why should I think about it?"
"Well, you said you were afraid of the gulf, as you expressed it, which was growing between you and them."
No reply.
"But what do you think about it now?"
"I am not thinking about it at all."
"If you were asked what you would like, what would you say?"
Again a wondering glance—"I do not want anything."
"But think, what would you like?"
On the small table beside him there stood an unfinished glass of tea. He gazed at it for a long time as though considering something. He glanced around him twice, then again looked at the glass, and said in such a serious voice and with such serious intonations that we all looked at one another:
"I think I should like some raspberry jam."

"Why are you questioning him?" said a voice from the corner which we hardly recognized.
This was the second "experiment."
"Can you not see that he is asleep?"
"And you yourself?" asked one of us.
"I, on the contrary, have woken up."
"Why has he gone to sleep while you have woken up?"
"I do not know."
With this the experiment ended.

Neither of them remembered anything the next day. G. explained to us that with the first man everything that constituted the subject of his ordinary conversation, of his alarms and agitation, was in personality. And when his personality was asleep practically nothing remained. In the personality of the other there was also a great deal of undue talkativeness but behind the personality there was an essence which knew as much as the personality and knew it better, and when personality went to sleep essence took its place to which it had a much greater right.
"Note that contrary to his custom he spoke very little," said G. "But he was observing all of you and everything that was taking place, and nothing escaped him."

"But of what use is it to him if he also does not remember?" said one of us.
"Essence remembers," said G., "personality has forgotten. And this was necessary because otherwise personality would have perverted everything and would have ascribed all this to itself." "But this is a kind of black magic," said one of us. "Worse," said G. "Wait and you will see worse than that"
 
I think essence could be defined as the level of knowledge or truth that a person embodies, that is, not just information that they have acquired and hold in their brains, but objective knowledge or truth that actually makes up a part of their being in a tangible (if not quantifiable by modern technology) way, and which has 'weight' and value because it is (usually) the product of very real suffering.

Young children, being as yet uncorrupted by lies they will later absorb and tell to themselves, are seen by adults as having this "essence", and they sometimes marvel at it, but maybe it is only fascinating or remarkable or admirable to an adult because, relatively, the adult is so inured in lies. So, as admirable as the honesty that children often exhibit is, I would hesitate to ascribe any lofty essence to it, although it can be used as an example for adults of what they need to get back to and, most importantly, build on in a conscious and determined way.
 
Perceval said:
I think essence could be defined as the level of knowledge or truth that a person embodies, that is, not just information that they have acquired and hold in their brains, but objective knowledge or truth that actually makes up a part of their being in a tangible (if not quantifiable by modern technology) way, and which has 'weight' and value because it is (usually) the product of very real suffering.

Young children, being as yet uncorrupted by lies they will later absorb and tell to themselves, are seen by adults as having this "essence", and they sometimes marvel at it, but maybe it is only fascinating or remarkable or admirable to an adult because, relatively, the adult is so inured in lies. So, as admirable as the honesty that children often exhibit is, I would hesitate to ascribe any lofty essence to it, although it can be used as an example for adults of what they need to get back to and, most importantly, build on in a conscious and determined way.

Well, I admire your way with words and I appreciate you saying that. I agree that "lofty" can be left out without losing anything of real importance.
 
I had an experience last night that I think relates to the subject of this thread (at least, I think it does).

I went to see a movie by myself, as I often do (called The Grandmaster, incidentally; really good if you like the idea of martial arts and historical high drama set in 1930s China). The theatre wasn't very full so I had a row to myself. About 5 minutes after the movie had already started, a couple of guys came in and sat in the same row as me, only a couple of seats away.

It didn't take long before I got a whiff of one of the guy's cologne. Hard not to - he was wearing enough of it to drown a rat! Immediately I was annoyed at this and thought about how I was being poisoned by this horrible noxious gas. I'd taken a class called "Nutrition in the Environment" in order to graduate from nutrition school, and in it we'd studied all sorts of household and environmental toxins and how horrible they are for the body. We'd spent some time looking into all the chemicals that are in the average perfume or cologne, and it's not a pretty picture. So naturally (or not so naturally, as it turned out) I was disgusted by the smell.

Shortly after, my mind drifted back to the movie and my dissociation tuned out my immediate environment. But in the back of my mind, just outside of my conscious awareness I was aware of some sort of pleasant sensation. As I started to become more aware of it, I realized I was actually enjoying the smell. And why not? It was sweet and flowery, and kind of nice, if not a little strong.

I realized then and there that my initial reaction of disgust was a learned reaction. It belonged totally to personality; the image I have of myself as a nutritionist and what I'm supposed to approve of and disapprove of. I even remember times in the past going on at length about how much I hate cologne and how I can't understand how anyone could like this horrible stuff. And I've actually gone to great lengths to avoid people wearing it.

Yet here I am, struck by the realization that I was actually enjoying the smell. Strip off the learned opinion that the personality has acquired and my essence was simply enjoying a pleasant smell. It didn't change the fact that I know it's toxic and that it's not a good idea to expose yourself to it much (although I think that with all of the other crap in our environment, this is probably one of the least of our worries), but none the less, I thought it smelled nice. I had the vague idea that it reminded me of something pleasant.

This started me thinking about how many false opinions, assurances and learned behaviours I have wrapped up in this personality. How much of "me" is actually not mine at all, but the product of my "education". And that started me on a bit of an exercise, trying one by one to remove all the things I have an opinion on, likes and dislikes, that were preoccupying me at that moment. I kept at it until I got to something that felt real.

I only engaged in it for a minute or so before my attention was, once again, wrapped up in the film. But I speculate that, if we're sincere enough and can put effort into seeing the falsity of everything that makes up "me", we can catch a glimpse of essence; or at least get closer to it. Easier said than done, of course.

OSIT.
 
Perceval said:
I think essence could be defined as the level of knowledge or truth that a person embodies, that is, not just information that they have acquired and hold in their brains, but objective knowledge or truth that actually makes up a part of their being in a tangible (if not quantifiable by modern technology) way, and which has 'weight' and value because it is (usually) the product of very real suffering.

Young children, being as yet uncorrupted by lies they will later absorb and tell to themselves, are seen by adults as having this "essence", and they sometimes marvel at it, but maybe it is only fascinating or remarkable or admirable to an adult because, relatively, the adult is so inured in lies. So, as admirable as the honesty that children often exhibit is, I would hesitate to ascribe any lofty essence to it, although it can be used as an example for adults of what they need to get back to and, most importantly, build on in a conscious and determined way.

That makes a lot of sense, and my understanding of essence has been that it is something internalized and not easily swayed or corrupted because the core of it is within, kind of like an anchor. But that over time with religious, cultural, familial and social programming, the false constructs that are made up of all this programming, the false personality, basically starts running the show and creates all sorts of elaborate narratives and defensive/attack or shutdown behaviours that start to blot out that 'inner' voice. And in some people, their essence eventually suffocates and dies because they start to believe the lies they've told themselves and identify with faulty programming as making up the gamut of 'who they are' and what they believe is true.

Added: In which case, if say a person reaches a point where they can no longer find or come into contact with that inner connection with themselves that is built on Truth and honesty, then maybe the false personality does eventually become the 'whole' of that person and through continuous small choices, eventually becomes that person's essence. Not unlike a miniature quantum wave collapse where a critical point is met where there's no going back...
 
Here are some excerpts from "Views From The Real World" which is a collection of talks by Gurdjieff.

[quote author=VFTRW]

Body, essence and personality

When a man is born, three separate machines are born with him which continue to form till his death. These machines have nothing in common with one another: they are our body, our essence and our personality. Their formation does not depend on us in any way. Their future development, the development of each one separately, depends on the data a man possesses and the data which surround him, such as environment, circumstances, geographical conditions and so on.

For the body these data are heredity, geographical conditions, food and movement. They do not affect personality.
In the course of a man's life, personality is formed exclusively through what a man hears and through reading.
Essence is purely emotional. It consists of what is received from heredity before the formation of personality, and later, only those sensations and feelings among which a man lives. What comes after merely depends on the transition.
So the body begins to develop in each man subjectively. The development of all three starts from the first days of a man's life. All three develop independently of one another. Thus it may happen, for instance, that the body begins its life in favorable conditions, on healthy soil and, as a result, is brave; but this does not necessarily mean that the man's essence is of a similar character. In the same conditions, essence may be weak and cowardly. A man may have a brave body contrasting with a cowardly essence. Essence does not necessarily develop parallel with the development of the body. A man may be very strong and healthy, yet as timid as a rabbit.

The center of gravity of the body, its soul, is the moving center. The center of gravity of the essence is the emotional center, and the center of gravity of the personality is the thinking center. The soul of the essence is the emotional center. Just as a man may have a healthy body and a cowardly essence, so personality may be bold and essence timid. Take for instance a man of common sense; he has studied and knows that hallucinations can occur; he knows that they cannot be real. So in his personality he does not fear them, but his essence is afraid. If his essence sees a phenomenon of this kind it cannot help being afraid. Development of one center does not depend on the development of another, and one center cannot transfer its results to another.

It is impossible to say positively that a man is such or such. One of his centers may be brave, another cowardly; one good, another wicked; one may be sensitive, another very coarse; one gives readily, another is slow in giving or quite incapable of giving. So it is impossible to say: good, brave, strong or wicked.
...................................

Movements, manifestations, perceptions by separate centers are manifestations of centers but not of man, if we bear in mind that man consists of three centers. The capacity to feel joy, sorrow, cold, heat, hunger, tiredness is in each center. These postures exist in every center and may be small or big and different in quality. We shall speak later about how this happens in each separate center and how to know to which center they belong. For the moment you must bear in mind and realize one thing: you must learn to distinguish the manifestations of man from the manifestations of centers. When people speak of a man, they say he is wicked, clever, a fool —all this is he. But they cannot say that this is John or Simon. We are accustomed to saying "he." But we must become used to saying "he" in the sense of he as body, he as essence, he as personality.
[/quote]

Essence by itself is not something which is superior to personality though it can be said that it is the least developed in most of us as a result of modern living and its proper development holds the key to overall development of being and consciousness. In the horse-carriage-driver analogy, the essence represents the horse, personality represents the driver while the body represents the carriage. When all three are in good condition, there is a possibility of a rider or master representing the higher self to "seat" in the contraption.

Some of the excerpts about essence in ISOTM state that G thought it was possible for essence to be dead in many modern people. He was probably alluding to psychopaths and some allied cluster B type disorders in modern terminology.
 
Why is it that some people can deal with great trauma, and come out of the other end as inspiring and empathic human beings?

An amazing question. One that I think about weekly. I believe it’s a combination of things. Nature and nurture mixed with some "thing" in a persons being that we cant explain with language.

But that over time with religious, cultural, familial and social programming, the false constructs that are made up of all this programming, the false personality, basically starts running the show and creates all sorts of elaborate narratives and defensive/attack or shutdown behaviors that start to blot out that 'inner' voice. And in some people, their essence eventually suffocates and dies because they start to believe the lies they've told themselves and identify with faulty programming as making up the gamut of 'who they are' and what they believe is true.

Yes! This is a real life explanation of what happens to he majority of people in the world. They are stuck in their paradigm. What they are told to believe as a child/teen/young adult. As G says it is crystallization on the wrong foundation. I have found that the toughest thing for people to do is step outside their comfort zone because this brings up emotions that aren’t pleasant and they aren't "strong" enough to face it and any slight smell of this unpleasant emotion causes them to run back to their safe zone inside their walls and they buffer. These walls that they have constructed around their intellectual center and then use their intellectual center to buffer (protect) themselves from unpleasant emotions. They can't face these emotions that if faced and examined can lead to the chipping away at their false personality to do away with programs sacred cows and take steps closer to essence and farther away from that point of no return. ISOTM is exactly that a search for the miraculous a search for the tools nessesary to do away with false personality and get back to essence a search for that "thing" in your being that you can trust that guides you down your individual "path" but I believe there are two miraculous things happening. One is individuals breaking through their personal paradigms researching for knowledge/truth and wanted to see life more objectively having the strength to deal with unpleasant emotions (so hard to do for most and it feels like they are going to die when they try to) and others opinions and then the other miraculous IMO are those fleeting feelings when you examine your life look at the stars and tears come to your eyes. You are not said or happy it is something I guess in your emotional center. Something words can't define.

I believe that the majority of people here are spinning in circles hurting others and themselves with their false personality constructed from parents and other institutions. I believe that you dig yourself a deeper whole the more you hurt others/yourself and then buffer your actions. I believe this is a soul/essence killing equation in action. I have felt something - I can't explain what it is but its a feeling that holds me back and I can not progress without examining/dealing with it. I have to "get over" or I can't move on. When I realize that I have hurt someone using my false personality at that moment I am stuck in my head analyzing going over the situation why I did it and so on. People's beings who aren’t ready for the information on this forum will forever be living life from their false personalities, hurting others, themselves and then buffering digging themselves a deep whole that as it was said before gets to a point of no return IMO. I believe that the miraculous in alive here in the forum in the dialogs between the forum members.
 
Menna said:
Why is it that some people can deal with great trauma, and come out of the other end as inspiring and empathic human beings?

An amazing question. One that I think about weekly. I believe it’s a combination of things. Nature and nurture mixed with some "thing" in a persons being that we cant explain with language.

I tend to agree and I wonder how related "inspiring and empathic" can be to what a person learns about himself and others while dealing with a trauma. I have a few thoughts about that following the next quote.

Menna said:
...hurting others, themselves and then buffering digging themselves a deep whole that as it was said before gets to a point of no return IMO.

I find it remarkable that you use an analogy for "depth" in the same sentence that speaks of hurting others. From my studies in psychology and sociology and my own recapitulations of personal conflicts, there seems to be a deep territorial instinct that often comes into play although by the time it makes it to conscious awareness, so much has been added to it that this animal instinct is not recognized for what it is.

So far, I posit it as a reflexive territoriality instinct, possibly based in the limbic system due to the accompanying emotions but also perhaps reaching down into the R-Complex and that when triggered, serves as a kind of a core of some automatic reactions. It's like, when it gets triggered by some cue (a perceived or misperceived threat) it mirrors upwards from the base of the brain to the neocortex. From there, the final result is some expression that resembles a pattern of behavior that we recognize in other terms like rage, argumentation, passive-aggressiveness, tyrant-like behaviors and any number of variations - behaviors which can be viewed from a "you violated my territory" point of view to really bring home the reality of how we can sometimes act like an animal while believing we're in a legitimate conflict.

For what seems to be the bulk of my contemplations, I've found that getting stuck in my head trying to figure out why I did what I did is not nearly as productive as admitting 1) that my territoriality instinct was triggered, 2) that I reacted in accordance with it and 3) my intellect simply rationalized it after-the-fact since it wasn't in charge at that time anyway. From that position, the "territory" can be more easily spotted in some contexts... as a sacred cow, for instance.

There's a clarity of understanding that seems to come from that simple acceptance. And it lets me know how deeply the "rewiring" needs to reach, as well.

So, I think you are sensing how deep the roots can go and if this is the case, I agree with you.
 
Buddy, your 'territoriality instinct' sounds a lot like the concept of neuroception by Porges. For those who are not familiar with Porges and his Polyvagal Theory, have a look at this thread..
 
To complicate things even more, G. said that behind personality lies essence, behind essence lies real I, behind real I lies God.
 
Back
Top Bottom