Questions about Beelzebub's Tales

Questions

Viv said:
I'm beginning to feel like I am being interrogated by the thought police:). I was under the impression that this is a free-thinking website - may I express my understanding as it is without being flamed, or does it have to conform to a pre-conceived 'orthodoxy'? If so, what is that 'orthodoxy'?
Wiki said:
The word orthodox, from Gk. orthodoxos "having the right opinion," from orthos ("right, true, straight") + doxa ("opinion, praise", related to dokein, "thinking")
Hi Viv, I am not sure that is the appropriate word for what takes place on this forum. On opinions: http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=3925.msg25911#msg25911

The members on this forum aren’t the thought police. Quite the opposite, in fact. They encourage you to gather data, think for yourself and share your “results’ with other members to obtain an objective view. How the Universe sees itself, not how one person sees it. One person cannot see the truth.

The forum rules are relevant to your question about ‘orthodoxy’ imo. You might want to review them. In part:

Forum Rules said:
Okay people! Let's be clear on some things before you join up, now I know you are aching to get in there and comment on...stuff... but before you do you need to agree to some basic rules about politeness, kindness, and not being a total psycho. You also need to understand the philosophy of the owners of this forum and the associated websites.
First our Vision for this forum: to create an environment for the stimulation, development and then the alignment of objective consciousnesses as defined and described by Georges Gurdjieff.
"So that we can imagine the whole of humanity, known as well as unknown to us, as consisting so to speak of several concentric circles.
"The inner circle is called the 'esoteric'; this circle consists of people who have attained the highest development possible for man, each one of whom possesses individuality in the fullest degree, that is to say, an indivisible 'I,' all forms of consciousness possible for man, full control over these states of consciousness, the whole of knowledge possible for man, and a free and independent will. They cannot perform actions opposed to their understanding or have an understanding which is not expressed by actions. At the same time there can be no discords among them, no differences of understanding. Therefore their activity is entirely co-ordinated and leads to one common aim without any kind of compulsion because it is based upon a common and identical understanding.
"The next circle is called the 'mesoteric,' that is to say, the middle. People who belong to this circle possess all the qualities possessed by the members of the esoteric circle with the sole difference that their knowledge is of a more theoretical character.' This refers, of course, to knowledge of a cosmic character. They know and understand many things which have not yet found expression in their actions. They know more than they do. But their understanding is precisely as exact as, and therefore precisely identical with, the understanding of the people of the esoteric circle. Between them there can be, no discord, there can be no misunderstanding. One understands in the way they all understand, and all understand in the way one understands. But as was said before, this understanding compared with the understanding of the esoteric circle is somewhat more theoretical.
"The third circle is called the 'exoteric,' that is, the outer, because it is the outer circle of the inner part of humanity. The people who belong to this circle possess much of that which belongs to people of the esoteric and mesoteric circles but their cosmic knowledge is of a more philosophical character, that is to say, it is more abstract than the knowledge of the mesoteric circle. A member of the mesoteric circle calculates, a member of the exoteric circle contemplates. Their understanding may not be expressed in actions. But there cannot be differences in understanding between them. What one understands all the others understand.
It requires a group of objective truth seekers, discernment and lots of data crunching. As a newbie to the forum, I realized that what I thought I knew didn't mean much, scared cows had to be put to pasture, and I had to chose to start with a clean slate 'knowledge wise", if that makes sense.

SAO said:
You can weed, but weeding requires knowledge, and knowledge requires data. Your faith in your ability to just recognize the Truth when you see it is a major blind spot. No matter who you are and how much you know, there is always something that you don't know - which requires that you collect more data to be able to tell whether it is true or not.
Happy Reading:)
 
Questions

Vivitskaia said:
My references to terms used in Beelzebub's Tales are based on the assumption that we share an objective language derived from Work ideas (I also assume that you read Beelzebub's Tales). I had been told by people on other forums that sott.net would be a good place to discuss and perhaps further understanding of Beelzebub's Tales.
This forum is about Working via the Fourth Way, which did not spring into being with Gurdjieff. While the term "Fourth Way" might be his description of it, the concept represented does not "belong" to Gurdjieff or his schools, any more than the concept of Relativity "belongs" to Einstein.

I get the impression that you feel the Fourth Way method of work cannot exist without Beelzebub's Tales. In fact it can, and does so quite well here on this forum. This does not mean BTs has no place here, or that it is without value. The point I am trying to make is that codifying one's communication in the language of BTs is to adopt a certain "jargon" that is in many ways a hindrance to effective exchange. Out of everyone on this forum, I estimate that only a few are well-versed enough in BTs to translate your requests (for instance, about the fifth stopinder). It would be the same if someone insisted on talking only in Alchemical symbology a la Fulcanelli. Esoteric terminology can often be a barrier to the exchange of knowledge. And language is not Knowledge - even if a person of Gurdjieff's level of being invented the words/language in question. A symbol is not the thing it represents.

Vivitskaia said:
I'm beginning to feel like I am being interrogated by the thought police:). I was under the impression that this is a free-thinking website - may I express my understanding as it is without being flamed, or does it have to conform to a pre-conceived 'orthodoxy'?
Many claim they have understanding when they do not. You can read some of the threads in the "Baked Noodles" sub-forum to verify the truth of this point for yourself. We can only judge the the level of understanding (and willingness towards greater understanding) of others by their actions. As has been pointed out to you already, if you had an organic understanding of external considering you would have realized by now that your approach is creating confusion, not leading to a greater understanding, and you would have shown some adaption in your approach to others. Your rigidity reflects your lack of understanding.

If you cannot see your rigidity, then you cannot - that is no fault of your own. But it is there nonetheless. If you wish to buffer any realization of this with justifications such as "I am being interrogated by the thought police" and "I am expressing my understanding as it is and am being flamed for it", then that is something you have every right to do. Such responses are typical of certain types of people, and generally they end up leaving the forum of their own accord because their self-love and vanity cannot take the "hit" of being shown how poor their understanding actually is. Perhaps you will do the same.

And of course, I may be completely wrong in what I have inferred above from your posts to date. My own level of understanding is quite poor, and so I leave open the possibility that your level of being is so far above anyone here that we are simply unable to give you what you require for your own Work, or understand properly what you are trying to communicate to us. Unfortunately this results in somewhat of an impasse.

Best wishes. :)
 
Back
Top Bottom