Schizophrenia, The Work, etc

[Jsf]

But no long and in-deth discussion is needed for some few things without significance. That's why when the subject is light and insignificant, like an error of posting under HMY's session, I answer the same way.

 

[Adaryn]

But no long and in-deth discussion is needed for some few things without significance. That's why when the subject is light and insignificant, like an error of posting under HMY's session, I answer the same way.

An apparently light and insignificant subject like an error of posting can be very revealing about someone's true condition and understanding of the Work, because of the reactions it can trigger and the way the person responds in the interaction. The way I've understand it, the Work asks to work on those states triggered in us by apparently 'light and insignificant' things, which reveal not so light and insignificant issues inside us. I think most of the time it's the most trifle things who really reveal our issues and where we are exactly as far as esoteric development is concerned. The main point of the long discussion we have here is not HeyMisterYoshu's error of posting but the way you particularly reacted to the moderators and members' questions. If you' re truly wishing to work on the Self, you'll certainly think and reflect over your own reaction, and practice self-observation (since you seem to be quite aquainted with Gurdjieff).

 

[Jsf]

The way I've understand it, the Work asks to work on those states triggered in us by apparently 'light and insignificant' things, which reveal not so light and insignificant issues inside us. I think most of the time it's the most trifle things who really reveal our issues and where we are exactly as far as esoteric development is concerned. The main point of the long discussion we have here is not HeyMisterYoshu's error of posting but the way you particularly reacted to the moderators and members' questions. If you' re truly wishing to work on the Self, you'll certainly think and reflect over your own reaction, and practice self-observation (since you seem to be quite aquainted with Gurdjieff).

In fact I am very pleased to find a conflict that triggers my mirror-thinking, it always give me some benefits.

 

[blackangel]

Hello, I'm a member of the Opus Network, and I have few questions for the SOTT community.

Every thought you have, every word you use, every action you take or refrain from taking is clear evidence of your depth of esoteric understanding.

I would like you to tell us why you say this. Can you prove it? I don't really understand your definition of the work, but I need different, contradictory descriptions to understant and to approach the truth.

Why would you want to create another website, in french, to discuss exactly the same things and basically copy/paste the whole idea of this forum and the SOTT over yours (news of tomorrow + opus) ?

The forum is online since january, that is to say largely BEFORE the french SOTT forum. And there isn't any " French SOTT " with alternate news. So where is the problem?

Jsf and HeyMrYoshu - coming back to this video of yours - "Esoteric Work" - is this how you understand The Work?

This sentence made me laughing. Playing with books is OBVIOUSLY not a sign of disrespect. I really don't understand why you say this. I imagine you are mind-formatted and you make a relation (which is clearly wrong) between playing with books and don't respect the books' authors or the knowledge. In my opinion, even if I was not here, they played with books to "clear their mind" after hours of work :) .

The way I've understand it, the Work asks to work on those states triggered in us by apparently 'light and insignificant' things, which reveal not so light and insignificant issues inside us. I think most of the time it's the most trifle things who really reveal our issues and where we are exactly as far as esoteric development is concerned.

Yesterday, I pissed beside the toilets, does it mean that I haven't understood Gurdjieff's work at all?

I think we have to stay critical, even concerning the work of Gurdjieff or LKJ. In my opinion, searching, more and more, criticizing and analysing informations, to make a coherent system is the best way to understand and to evoluate. I don't think a person can justify himself by saying "gurdjieff said that, so this is that!"

Cheers

 

[anart]

In fact I am very pleased to find a conflict that triggers my mirror-thinking, it always give me some benefits.

Great! Can you share with us what the conflict was that triggered your behavior and what benefit, or personal perspective you may have gained?

 

[Jsf]

Great! Can you share with us what the conflict was that triggered your behavior and what benefit, or personal perspective you may have gained?

I had to think again of my personnal interactions and how to reach the "fondamental attitude". The quote of beau was interesting. I'm always searching for more conflits, because, in the right conditions, they are increasing the speed of the work. Gurdjieff paid a "creator of conflits", Mr Rachmilevitch, to stay at the Prieuré : he "kept in life" everybody (alarm clock as well).

 

[nf3]

I had to think again of my personnal interactions

This is a non-answer. Can you provide details?

and how to reach the "fondamental attitude".

Can you define this term?

The quote of beau was interesting.

Why?

 

[nf3]

Yesterday, I pissed beside the toilets, does it mean that I haven't understood Gurdjieff's work at all?

That depends. If you were inebriated or just did it intentionally then I would say yes. If not then you might want to determine the medical reason for your lack of aim before worrying about Gurdjieff.

I think we have to stay critical, even concerning the work of Gurdjieff or LKJ. In my opinion, searching, more and more, criticizing and analysing informations, to make a coherent system is the best way to understand and to evoluate. I don't think a person can justify himself by saying "gurdjieff said that, so this is that!"

You have offered no critical data. Only opinions. You will find we are very critical of unsubstantiated opinions and beliefs here.

 

[Jsf]

and how to reach the "fondamental attitude".

Can you define this term?

Castaneda's impeccability. More conscious, more perfect.

The quote of beau was interesting.

Why?

Because it focus on external consideration, and how someone can sincerly considerate the others and 'help' in the same time. Humility, and the expression of humility, which is difficult.

 

[blackangel]

You have offered no critical data. Only opinions.

Hmm..I know I'm in a subjective state so if I want to criticize something this is everytime by giving my opinion, or so I think.



Can you tell me why you say Jsf has a depth of esoteric understanding? It could help me understanding.

 

[Adaryn]

The way I've understand it, the Work asks to work on those states triggered in us by apparently 'light and insignificant' things, which reveal not so light and insignificant issues inside us. I think most of the time it's the most trifle things who really reveal our issues and where we are exactly as far as esoteric development is concerned.

Yesterday, I pissed beside the toilets, does it mean that I haven't understood Gurdjieff's work at all?

I was most specially talking about our own reactions to apparently trifle and insignificant things, the way we respond to them. To answer your specific question, one would have to know why you pissed beside the toilet, as someone else suggested : was it intentional or not, what was the context, how you reacted to you pissing beside the toilet, and all the information that might help us determine the situation in the most objective possible way.
Btw, your pissing analogy is not innocent, and says quite a bit about you, imo.

 

[anart]

Hello, I'm a member of the Opus Network, and I have few questions for the SOTT community.

Every thought you have, every word you use, every action you take or refrain from taking is clear evidence of your depth of esoteric understanding.

I would like you to tell us why you say this. Can you prove it? I don't really understand your definition of the work, but I need different, contradictory descriptions to understant and to approach the truth.

Hello,

It is clear that you do not understand, but you are asking, which is good. Let me quote Gurdjieff (you are familiar with Gurdjieff, are you not?).

"We have approached the problems of esotericism.

"It was pointed out before when we spoke about the history of humanity that
the life of humanity to which we belong is governed by forces proceeding
from two different sources: first, planetary influences which act entirely
mechanically and are received by the human masses as well as by individual
people quite involuntarily and unconsciously; and then, influences
proceeding from inner circles of humanity whose existence and significance
the vast majority of people do not suspect any more than they suspect
planetary influences.

"The humanity to which we belong, namely, the whole of historic and
prehistoric humanity known to science and civilization, in reality
constitutes only the outer circle of humanity, within which there are
several other circles.

"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-
odinated 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.

This last mentioned circle is still outside of 'normal humanity' and far above where this forum is, because, at the very least, differences of understanding are clearly evidenced here. You see - when one truly grasps esoteric concepts and integrates them into one's life - one cannot act outside of these understandings. And, that, blackangel, is what I mean. Even in those circles outside of the esoteric, if one truly grasps this Work, it changes them - fundamentally - everything they think, say, and do shows it - everything. That is when the understanding is no longer philosophical or theoretical.

Why would you want to create another website, in french, to discuss exactly the same things and basically copy/paste the whole idea of this forum and the SOTT over yours (news of tomorrow + opus) ?

The forum is online since january, that is to say largely BEFORE the french SOTT forum. And there isn't any " French SOTT " with alternate news. So where is the problem?

I don't think there is a problem, necessarily - I think the only question at this point is the motivation of Jsf in all of this - and, now, the motivation of you who has 'come to his aid' - in a rather interesting fashion, I must say.

The way I've understand it, the Work asks to work on those states triggered in us by apparently 'light and insignificant' things, which reveal not so light and insignificant issues inside us. I think most of the time it's the most trifle things who really reveal our issues and where we are exactly as far as esoteric development is concerned.

Yesterday, I pissed beside the toilets, does it mean that I haven't understood Gurdjieff's work at all?

Well, as has been said, it would depend on why. This question of yours is also a manipulative 'straw man' argument that says much more about you than it does the topic at hand.

I think we have to stay critical, even concerning the work of Gurdjieff or LKJ. In my opinion, searching, more and more, criticizing and analysing informations, to make a coherent system is the best way to understand and to evoluate. I don't think a person can justify himself by saying "gurdjieff said that, so this is that!"

It is absolutely necessary to stay 'critical' - however, at some point, the time comes to actually Work and not just dally in interesting ideas. No one here ever says 'gurdjieff said that so that is that' - is this what occurs on your 'opus network'? That is a rather dogmatic way to go about things if so. If it is your understanding that this is what occurs here, then, once again, you are greatly lacking in understanding about this forum and it's associated web pages.

That is ok - such things can be remedied if you so choose.

 

[Beau]

Hello, I'm a member of the Opus Network, and I have few questions for the SOTT community.

Every thought you have, every word you use, every action you take or refrain from taking is clear evidence of your depth of esoteric understanding.

I would like you to tell us why you say this. Can you prove it? I don't really understand your definition of the work, but I need different, contradictory descriptions to understant and to approach the truth.

I'm guessing by your question that you do not agree with what anart wrote. Do you think, then, that our actions are not evidence of anything? That their is no use in analyzing ourselves to understand those mechanical happenings? Are we not machines??

Why would you want to create another website, in french, to discuss exactly the same things and basically copy/paste the whole idea of this forum and the SOTT over yours (news of tomorrow + opus) ?

The forum is online since january, that is to say largely BEFORE the french SOTT forum. And there isn't any " French SOTT " with alternate news. So where is the problem?

This is an non-answer. You attempted to shift the discussion away from the original question posted by Tigersoap. That is manipulative, whether conscious or not.

Jsf and HeyMrYoshu - coming back to this video of yours - "Esoteric Work" - is this how you understand The Work?

This sentence made me laughing. Playing with books is OBVIOUSLY not a sign of disrespect. I really don't understand why you say this. I imagine you are mind-formatted and you make a relation (which is clearly wrong) between playing with books and don't respect the books' authors or the knowledge. In my opinion, even if I was not here, they played with books to "clear their mind" after hours of work

Ok. So why post it here? It's essentially an "inside joke". No one except those either present or in the know would understand what is going on. It's not useful for this forum. It's noise. Yet, you think this is all some sort of joke. Worse yet, the video was posted in The Work section of this forum. It's anything but Work.

The way I've understand it, the Work asks to work on those states triggered in us by apparently 'light and insignificant' things, which reveal not so light and insignificant issues inside us. I think most of the time it's the most trifle things who really reveal our issues and where we are exactly as far as esoteric development is concerned.

Yesterday, I pissed beside the toilets, does it mean that I haven't understood Gurdjieff's work at all?

This is takinig Feather's words completely out of context. You could be doing this unconsciously, or you could intentionally be trying to manipulate others. But it's quite ironic that you managed provide a very sound example of exactly the idea that Feather was attempting to communicate. I'm fairly sure THAT was by accident!

I think we have to stay critical, even concerning the work of Gurdjieff or LKJ. In my opinion, searching, more and more, criticizing and analysing informations, to make a coherent system is the best way to understand and to evoluate. I don't think a person can justify himself by saying "gurdjieff said that, so this is that!"

If you are replying to the G quote I posted, then you have missed the point of the quote from Gurdjieff completely. The reason I posted the quote was not to "justify myself". It was meant to offer reflection to jsf in the hopes he sees his own need to be more externally considerate. Gurdjieff manages to put things in a much better way than I ever could, so I use his words. Do you discard G's teachings because they do not line up with your own ideas, or are you critical and analytical about yourself and not just other people?

 

[domi]

Yesterday, I pissed beside the toilets, does it mean that I haven't understood Gurdjieff's work at all?

Well, as has been said, it would depend on why. This question of yours is also a manipulative 'straw man' argument that says much more about you than it does the topic at hand.

Good observations. To me it also came across as manipulation.

blackangel:

The sentence above leads me to conclude that you need to work on the understanding of external consideration (see http://glossary.cassiopaea.com/glossary.php?id=40) since you really could have attempted to answer that question yourself and also have provided us with more data at the same time.

This is a great opportunity to learn. Your toilet accident turned out to be not so insignificant afterall.


And now for a curiosity question: Why did you pick the username "blackangel"?

 

[blackangel]

Btw, your pissing analogy is not innocent, and says quite a bit about you, imo.

This question of yours is also a manipulative 'straw man' argument that says much more about you than it does the topic at hand.

I think I've made this analogy to intensify my impression, to make you understanding how I feel about the Feather message. I don't think it was a "manipulative argument". It might be to make me higher than you in a social scale. This is where my understanding of my own reactions stops.

I was most specially talking about our own reactions to apparently trifle and insignificant things, the way we respond to them. To answer your specific question, one would have to know why you pissed beside the toilet, as someone else suggested : was it intentional or not, what was the context, how you reacted to you pissing beside the toilet, and all the information that might help us determine the situation in the most objective possible way.

You are right...

It is clear that you do not understand, but you are asking, which is good. Let me quote Gurdjieff (you are familiar with Gurdjieff, are you not?).

Yes, I'm familiar. Thank you for your quote, it is interesting. I've always had problems to understand how I can work concretely. Studying my own reactions to external influences? Increasing the pressure by getting more and more "shocks"? Why? Do these shocks increase the automatic reactions, and then I could study them?

No one here ever says 'gurdjieff said that so that is that' - is this what occurs on your 'opus network'? That is a rather dogmatic way to go about things if so. If it is your understanding that this is what occurs here, then, once again, you are greatly lacking in understanding about this forum and it's associated web pages.

Okay. Obviously, it doesn't happens on opus network, but the message of feather gave me this impression.