Self Remembering

Bud said:
Perhaps so. I have no reason to doubt it as I have followed Guardian's posts with delight since the time of boarding. :D

Awww, thanks Bud...I really enjoy your posts too! When I don't understand something (like this thread) Ann is usually the first person I ask...she has a real knack for putting things into terms I can understand. :)

edited to add: I meant "Ann" my roommate/best friend :lol:
 
Jerry said:
Welll "programs" I get, they kinda stick out...usually after the fact, but I'm still working on what yawl mean when you say "mechanical self" Is the "mechanical self" what happens when one or more of the other three (sensing, feeling, and thinking) doesn't listen to the soul/spirit?
It’s my understanding that what is generally referred to here as the “mechanical self” is the sum of all the emotional, cognitive, and physical responses that are automatic and were learned either when we had no ability for objective assessment or to buffer the cognitive/emotional dissonance that results from living with lies.[/quote]

Soooooo that would be a "yes?" "automatic" = ignoring soul/spirit?
 
Guardian said:
Jerry said:
Welll "programs" I get, they kinda stick out...usually after the fact, but I'm still working on what yawl mean when you say "mechanical self" Is the "mechanical self" what happens when one or more of the other three (sensing, feeling, and thinking) doesn't listen to the soul/spirit?
It’s my understanding that what is generally referred to here as the “mechanical self” is the sum of all the emotional, cognitive, and physical responses that are automatic and were learned either when we had no ability for objective assessment or to buffer the cognitive/emotional dissonance that results from living with lies.

Soooooo that would be a "yes?" "automatic" = ignoring soul/spirit?
[/quote]

I'm not sure I would call it ignoring because that implies some consciousness. It would be like saying a machine is ignoring something. Although you're right that sometimes the mechanical impulses are so strong they override what we know at the time is the right, conscious thing to do. Other times we just react without having any awareness of our higher self. Then we are just machines.
 
Guardian said:
Jerry said:
[quote author=Guardian]Welll "programs" I get, they kinda stick out...usually after the fact, but I'm still working on what yawl mean when you say "mechanical self" Is the "mechanical self" what happens when one or more of the other three (sensing, feeling, and thinking) doesn't listen to the soul/spirit?

It’s my understanding that what is generally referred to here as the “mechanical self” is the sum of all the emotional, cognitive, and physical responses that are automatic and were learned either when we had no ability for objective assessment or to buffer the cognitive/emotional dissonance that results from living with lies.

Soooooo that would be a "yes?" "automatic" = ignoring soul/spirit?[/quote]

I think yes is a good answer. As long as someone is functioning only as a mechanical self, you could say he is without his soul, for I can't imagine the concept of soul without it being truly conscious.

Ignoring kind of implies a choice, i.e., aware of something but willfully withdrawing attention to it. - fwiw.

Edit- Didn't see Mr. Premise's post.

Edit- changed "willfully not withdrawing" to "willfully withdrawing"
 
Guardian said:
Welll "programs" I get, they kinda stick out...usually after the fact, but I'm still working on what yawl mean when you say "mechanical self" Is the "mechanical self" what happens when one or more of the other three (sensing, feeling, and thinking) doesn't listen to the soul/spirit?

In short, those programs along with that in you which runs them, are the mechanical self.

For most people, a collection of these things are formed/installed during childhood, take over permanently, and then they live their whole lives like that. Empty, meaningless (while seeming the opposite at the time) thoughts, feelings, interests, desires, actions. You can sometimes feel it in the world; it is bizarre when you do, but it explains a lot.
 
I recently finished reading a book by David Ray Griffin on the philosophy of Alfred Whitehead. There's some really interesting stuff in there. Whitehead thought that the philosophy current in his day (as today: sensationalist-atheist-materialist naturalism) was wrong, for many reasons. For example, this type of naturalism says that sense-perception is fundamental to consciousness. All we can know is what we learn from our senses. On the surface, this may SEEM self-evident, but it isn't. What would sensory perceptions be without an awareness of what is being perceived? Whitehead thought this awareness, or experience, was fundamental, and that it was non-sensory in nature. It is the experience of successive "occasions of experience". I experience my being now, in relation to what it was a moment ago. Sensory perception is secondary to it.

One thing he says in relation to this is that while non-sensory perception is more fundamental, it is less obvious (we're more aware of secondary functions). Were more aware of the green plant we're looking at than the fact that we are perceiving a green plant, and even that is not yet at the level of non-sensory perception, which is basically sympathetic and telepathic in nature. Anyways, one thing he says on the subject of intuition is that it is a non-sensory perception, more instinctive/visceral/emotional than cerebral. As such, it's ordinarily more vague and abstract, as it remains largely unconscious. I think this ties in to the Dabrowski quotes above. Also, Gladwell's Blink book. When the mind is trained it seems to me to act as a lens. The 'light' is always there, but the lens needs to be focused and the screen prepared if it is to 'register'. Or to use another analogy, the seed is in the ground, but the earth needs to be tilled, watered, and cared for if anything is to grow. Clearing one's 'centers' of all the muck brings one closer to the true seed of consciousness. OSIT.
 
amd57432 said:
Self-remembering seems to be the choice for your authentic self, who you really are, to exist - instead of being identified and getting quite literally lost in something else.

I'm not sure my "authentic self" ever gave me a choice? I've never noticed an option to be anything other than what I am? If I had, I'd of probably picked it...but I think I understand what you're saying. Sorta...maybe? :huh:


Hi,
For those that don't know, Guardian and I are roommates and have been close friends for 20+ years. I say this so you will understand that the next statement comes from experience.

Guardian is an authentic self. She does not understand the idea of the mechanical self because she has had no personal experience as it.

Have either of you had a chance to read In Search of the Miraculous by G.I. Gurdjieff? It will explain what is meant by 'mechanical self'. I think you'd both enjoy the book, if you've not yet read it and it's a great introduction to the works of Gurdjieff, works that drive much of the esoteric conversation here.
 
Guardian] [quote author=Guardian said:
Jerry said:
Welll "programs" I get, they kinda stick out...usually after the fact, but I'm still working on what yawl mean when you say "mechanical self" Is the "mechanical self" what happens when one or more of the other three (sensing, feeling, and thinking) doesn't listen to the soul/spirit?
It’s my understanding that what is generally referred to here as the “mechanical self” is the sum of all the emotional, cognitive, and physical responses that are automatic and were learned either when we had no ability for objective assessment or to buffer the cognitive/emotional dissonance that results from living with lies.

Soooooo that would be a "yes?" "automatic" = ignoring soul/spirit?
[/quote]

Here's how I see it:

For those who act from their mechanical self, the issue is one of having 'forgotten' themselves. Most people are not hard-wired to remember themselves (their 'whole being' they felt themselves to be in early childhood and is now buried in the past) under the influence of drugs or the equivalent highly structured, boring daily/weekly/monthly routines they are forced to learn and to endure.

Neurochemically speaking, that is why battery-farmed pigs were outlawed in some countries. The issue there was with endorphins, but with humans, the issue is drugs and running our own two-part neurochemical loops - chasing a bit of a 'feel good' feeling while preventing withdrawal from the balance that has been conditioned in. People don't realize they are doing this because they don't have that overview awareness of themselves.


Psalehesost said:
For most people, a collection of these things are formed/installed during childhood, take over permanently, and then they live their whole lives like that. Empty, meaningless (while seeming the opposite at the time) thoughts, feelings, interests, desires, actions. You can sometimes feel it in the world; it is bizarre when you do, but it explains a lot.

Exactly as I see it. Once you understand this (and you may have to spend some time comparing Gurdjieff's talks with what you actually see going on around you), it will hit you plain as day. Then you'll go: "Oh my gods, how awful!"

It truly is.
 
Mr. Premise said:
Guardian said:
Jerry said:
Welll "programs" I get, they kinda stick out...usually after the fact, but I'm still working on what yawl mean when you say "mechanical self" Is the "mechanical self" what happens when one or more of the other three (sensing, feeling, and thinking) doesn't listen to the soul/spirit?
It’s my understanding that what is generally referred to here as the “mechanical self” is the sum of all the emotional, cognitive, and physical responses that are automatic and were learned either when we had no ability for objective assessment or to buffer the cognitive/emotional dissonance that results from living with lies.

Soooooo that would be a "yes?" "automatic" = ignoring soul/spirit?

I'm not sure I would call it ignoring because that implies some consciousness. It would be like saying a machine is ignoring something. Although you're right that sometimes the mechanical impulses are so strong they override what we know at the time is the right, conscious thing to do. Other times we just react without having any awareness of our higher self. Then we are just machines.
[/quote]

One way to look at what "mechanical" means, is to take the idea in terms of daily life, the stuff that just "happens" as Gurdjieff sometimes puts it. As a small example, right now I feel like going to the kitchen to snack on some walnuts. I'm not hungry though, there is no need, its probably more an emotional thing, comfort eating or whatever. But then I don't particularly feel down or in need of comfort! So I don't know, but there it is, the desire to go eat walnuts.

Sometimes when this happens, I'll find myself eating them, same thing, not hungry it just "happens" - That's mechanical.

But then sometimes I can catch it, see it for what it is and leave them for another day - then I have a choice, I can choose to not just a walnut eating machine.

Now I can take that small example and think about all the other things that can happen in the same way, everything just "happening". Look around, see people shopping, watching tv, absorbed by iPods, snacking, buying this and that, going here and there, doing this and that - all of it "happening". It is truly scary. Now can I see it in myself, try to choose what I do more often rather than letting everything in me "happen"?

On intuition, maybe there are two types of thing happening there.

The one type where as in the 'Blink' book or the example of the doctor earlier in the thread, you have people making very quick an accurate assessments based on knowledge and experience. A kind of intuitive supercomputing where you just 'know' but don't quite know how. But, maybe that can involve with the higher centres too, though we are not aware of it?

Then there's maybe something else, a 'higher intuition' or 'sixth sense'. Think of examples of people who don't get on the airplane at the last minute, because of some kind of sense of danger. It might be chance but there seem to many examples of people having lucky escapes or good fortune this way. Maybe that's a sudden glimpse of awareness on a much broader level, tapping into something or connecting to the higher self and viewing a situation from there somehow?
 
The reason I strongly suggest reading In Search of the Miraculous is because Ouspensky does a great job explaining how mechanical we all are. Here are some excerpts:

ISOTM said:
There is another kind of mechanization which is much more dangerous: being a machine oneself. Have you ever thought about the fact that all peoples themselves are machines?"
"Yes," I said, "from the strictly scientific point of view all people are machines governed by external influences. But the question is, can the scientific point of view be wholly accepted?"
"Scientific or not scientific is all the same to me," said G. "I want you to understand what I am saying. Look, all those people you see," he pointed along the street, "are simply machines—nothing more."
"I think I understand what you mean," I said. "And I have often thought how little there is in the world that can stand against this form of mechanization and choose its own path."
"This is just where you make your greatest mistake," said G. "You think there is something that chooses its own path, something that can stand against mechanization; you think that not everything is equally mechanical."
"Why, of course not!" I said. "Art, poetry, thought, are phenomena of quite a different order."

"Of exactly the same order," said G. "These activities are just as mechanical as everything else. Men are machines and nothing but mechanical actions can be expected of machines."
"Very well," I said. "But are there no people who are not machines?"
"It may be that there are," said G., "only not those people you see. And you do not know them. That is what I want you to understand."
I thought it rather strange that he should be so insistent on this point. What he said seemed to me obvious and incontestable. At the same time, I had never liked such short and all-embracing metaphors. They always omitted points of difference. I, on the other hand, had always maintained differences were the most important thing and that in order to understand things it was first necessary to see the points in which they differed. So I felt that it was odd that G. insisted on an idea which seemed to be obvious provided it were not made too absolute and exceptions were admitted.

"People are so unlike one another," I said. "I do not think it would be possible to bring them all under the same heading. There are savages, there are mechanized people, there are intellectual people, there are geniuses."
"Quite right," said G., "people are very unlike one another, but the real difference between people you do not know and cannot see. The difference of which you speak simply does not exist. This must be understood. All the people you see, all the people you know, all the people you may get to know, are machines, actual machines working solely under the power of external influences, as you yourself said. Machines they are born and machines they die. How do savages and intellectuals come into this? Even now, at this very moment, while we are talking, several millions of machines are trying to annihilate one another. What is the difference between them? Where are the savages and where are the intellectuals? They are all alike . . .
"But there is a possibility of ceasing to be a machine.


This is what is meant by mechanical. Every time we react to external influence, are shaped by external influence, we are mechanical. We are mechanical because there are hundreds of separate 'i's inside, each taking herself as the one real 'I':


ISOTM said:
Very often, almost at every talk, G. returned to the absence of unity in man.
"One of man's important mistakes," he said, "one which must be remembered, is his illusion in regard to his I.
"Man such as we know him, the 'man-machine,' the man who cannot 'do,' and with whom and through whom everything 'happens,' cannot have a permanent and single I. His I changes as quickly as his thoughts, feelings, and moods, and he makes a profound mistake in considering himself always one and the same person; in reality he is always a different person, not the one he was a moment ago.

"Man has no permanent and unchangeable I. Every thought, every mood, every desire, every sensation, says 'I.' And in each case it seems to be taken for granted that this I belongs to the Whole, to the whole man, and that a thought, a desire, or an aversion is expressed by this Whole. In actual fact there is no foundation whatever for this assumption. Man's every thought and desire appears and lives quite separately and independently of the Whole. And the Whole never expresses itself, for the simple reason that it exists, as such, only physically as a thing, and in the abstract as a concept. Man has no individual I. But there are, instead, hundreds and thousands of separate small I's, very often entirely unknown to one another, never coming into contact, or, on the contrary, hostile to each other, mutually exclusive and incompatible. Each minute, each moment, man is saying or thinking 'I.' And each time his I is different. Just now it was a thought, now it is a desire, now a sensation, now another thought, and so on, endlessly. Man is a plurality. Man's name is legion.

"The alternation of I's, their continual obvious struggle for supremacy, is controlled by accidental external influences. Warmth, sunshine, fine weather, immediately call up a whole group of I's. Cold, fog, rain, call up another group of I's, other associations, other feelings, other actions. There is nothing in man able to control this change of I's, chiefly because man does not notice, or know of it; he lives always in the last I. Some I's, of course, are stronger than others. But it is not their own conscious strength; they have been created by the strength of accidents or mechanical external stimuli. Education, imitation, reading, the hypnotism of religion, caste, and traditions, or the glamour of new slogans, create very strong I's in man's personality, which dominate whole series of other, weaker, I's. But their strength is the strength of the 'rolls' in the centers. And all I's making up a man's personality have the same origin as these 'rolls'; they are the results of external influences; and both are set in motion and controlled by fresh external influences.

"Man has no individuality. He has no single, big I. Man is divided into a multiplicity of small I's.
"And each separate small I is able to call itself by the name of the Whole, to act in the name of the Whole, to agree or disagree, to give promises, to make decisions, with which another I or the Whole will have to deal. This explains why people so often make decisions and so seldom carry them out. A man decides to get up early beginning from the following day. One I, or a group of I's, decide this. But getting up is the business of another I who entirely disagrees with the decision and may even know absolutely nothing about it. Of course the man will again go on sleeping in the morning and in the evening he will again decide to get up early.

In some cases this may assume very unpleasant consequences for a man. A small accidental I may promise something, not to itself, but to someone else at a certain moment simply out of vanity or for amusement. Then it disappears, but the man, that is, the whole combination of other I's who are quite innocent of this, may have to pay for it all his life. It is the tragedy of the human being that any small I has the right to sign checks and promissory notes and the man, that is, the Whole, has to meet them. People's whole lives often consist in paying off the promissory notes of small accidental I's.

There are a million ways, every day, we are mechanical. If we 'react' to anything - anything at all, as opposed to acting - that is mechanical, we are swept along by what is happening around us - death, illness, rudeness, the weather. Our mood changes depending on how others treat us, whether our animal is sick or not, whether the sun shines or not. We decide to lose some weight one day and eat even more the next. We decide we will read more, study, clean the yard, wash the dog and the next day we are swept away by something else. These are just very simple examples and the point of self-remembering is to notice the shifts of one 'i' to another in order to eventually fuse them into a Real I (again simplified). If you've ever lost your keys, you're mechanical. If you've ever forgotten something you were supposed to do, you're mechanical.

To become less mechanical is to Pay Attention - all the time - no matter what (which is to self-remember). This is a woefully inadequate explanation, but hopefully it at least gives you a place to start. In the time I have at the moment, I couldn't find the example in ISOTM I wanted to find that does a more concise job of explaining, but if I get time later tonight I'll look again.
 
anart said:
Have either of you had a chance to read In Search of the Miraculous by G.I. Gurdjieff?

Yes, but I bought (and read) the wrong book. The one I've got is a rewrite (allegedly) by one of his students, "P. D. Ouspensky".

It will explain what is meant by 'mechanical self'.
Actually, it's what confused me ...and that may be because I read the wrong version. It had a VERY distinct Rosicrucian flavor to it.

I think you'd both enjoy the book, if you've not yet read it and it's a great introduction to the works of Gurdjieff, works that drive much of the esoteric conversation here.

I'll look for the original. The one I got was a pretty good book, but it was kinda sad in a way. He thinks of Nature as an OUTSIDE force, and I don't think this poor guy ever realized that being connected to EVERYTHING is our natural state of being.

I am REALLY trying to peg down all these different phrases yawl use, have been since the gitgo, but I need to match something to an experience to truly understand it.
 
You have the right book, Guardian. In Search of the Miraculous was written by Ouspensky.

When Gurdjieff read it he said something like "Ouspensky has a good memory" So we can take the quotes by Gurdjieff as accurate.
 
Guardian said:
I'll look for the original. The one I got was a pretty good book, but it was kinda sad in a way. He thinks of Nature as an OUTSIDE force, and I don't think this poor guy ever realized that being connected to EVERYTHING is our natural state of being.

I am REALLY trying to peg down all these different phrases yawl use, have been since the gitgo, but I need to match something to an experience to truly understand it.

Yes, that's the right book, and I think you're misunderstanding him. Also, remember that Laura threw this book across the room a bunch of times before she finally realized he was onto something. ;)

Basically, the point is that humanity, as it is, lives in an unnatural state in which one is almost completely disconnected from his/her true self and reality. We are lost in a myriad of things from the day we are born and it gets worse as we are battered and pushed about by life, and forced to 'react' to survive.

An example that comes to mind for me about you is your reaction to the Gulf spill and just 'having' to go down there. That was a mechanical reaction - (all reactions are mechanical - they are not actions). In that case, your emotions were (temporarily) over-riding your intellect. When you really, really understand this point, and what it implies about modern man's existence, it is horrifying. Actions are different but the vast majority of people are incapable of action. From the moment their alarm clock awakens them in the morning, until they succumb to their fight against sleep in the evening, everything they do is a reaction, thus mechanical.

I think you understand the idea behind programs and it's not really very different from that.
 
Guardian said:
He thinks of Nature as an OUTSIDE force, and I don't think this poor guy ever realized that being connected to EVERYTHING is our natural state of being.

Ouspensky was certainly not perfect, just as Castaneda wasn't, to say the least... What really matters are the quotes of what their teachers said - Gurdjieff and "Don Juan".

I think that the quote anart brought up is very important: the mechanical (or asleep) man is fully under the power of external influences.

So even though on some levels everything is connected, it is still useful to distinguish between internal and external forces or influences.
 
anart said:
The reason I strongly suggest reading In Search of the Miraculous is because Ouspensky does a great job explaining how mechanical we all are. Here are some excerpts:

Ok, this is the book I got, and it's what confused me regarding terminology. :cry:

ISOTM said:
There is another kind of mechanization which is much more dangerous: being a machine oneself. Have you ever thought about the fact that all peoples themselves are machines?"

I understand this part...the body is a machine. Soul hops in a body 'cause it wants to go for a ride....learn something, accomplish something, whatever. Zoooommmmmm...a itty bitty portion of soul is now in an organic mechanical device for some purpose we can't remember while we're in the meat suit.

"It may be that there are," said G., "only not those people you see.

Well yeah, if you can see them, they're in meat suits too ...hopefully.

"People are so unlike one another," I said. "I do not think it would be possible to bring them all under the same heading. There are savages, there are mechanized people, there are intellectual people, there are geniuses."
"Quite right," said G., "people are very unlike one another, but the real difference between people you do not know and cannot see.

I'm guessing he's talking about the soul/spirit here? That's the only REAL difference isn't it?

The difference of which you speak simply does not exist. This must be understood. All the people you see, all the people you know, all the people you may get to know, are machines, actual machines working solely under the power of external influences,

That would be the point of hopping in a meat machine?

This is what is meant by mechanical. Every time we react to external influence, are shaped by external influence, we are mechanical. We are mechanical because there are hundreds of separate 'i's inside, each taking herself as the one real 'I':

This is where he starts to lose me. We're all "mechanical" because we're in organic machines with some serious limitations....this I can grok. It's were he starts to separate himself from the rest of creation that confuses me.

Very often, almost at every talk, G. returned to the absence of unity in man.
"One of man's important mistakes," he said, "one which must be remembered, is his illusion in regard to his I.
"Man such as we know him, the 'man-machine,' the man who cannot 'do,' and with whom and through whom everything 'happens,' cannot have a permanent and single I. His I changes as quickly as his thoughts, feelings, and moods, and he makes a profound mistake in considering himself always one and the same person; in reality he is always a different person, not the one he was a moment ago.

I totally understand (and agree) with this part, mainly because I change my "I's" more often than I change my underwear ...got one for every occasion. I always kinda thought that's what all the different chemicals, hormones, etc. in the meat suit are for?

"Man has no permanent and unchangeable I. Every thought, every mood, every desire, every sensation, says 'I.' And in each case it seems to be taken for granted that this I belongs to the Whole, to the whole man, and that a thought, a desire, or an aversion is expressed by this Whole. In actual fact there is no foundation whatever for this assumption. Man's every thought and desire appears and lives quite separately and independently of the Whole.

This, to me is the REALLY sad part.

"Man has no individuality. He has no single, big I. Man is divided into a multiplicity of small I's.

Getting sadder by the minute, at least to me, but again it might be because I don't understand the exact definitions of the words he's using...and I am REALLY trying to correct that..

There are a million ways, every day, we are mechanical. If we 'react' to anything - anything at all, as opposed to acting - that is mechanical, we are swept along by what is happening around us - death, illness, rudeness, the weather. Our mood changes depending on how others treat us, whether our animal is sick or not, whether the sun shines or not. We decide to lose some weight one day and eat even more the next. We decide we will read more, study, clean the yard, wash the dog and the next day we are swept away by something else. These are just very simple examples and the point of self-remembering is to notice the shifts of one 'i' to another in order to eventually fuse them into a Real I (again simplified). If you've ever lost your keys, you're mechanical. If you've ever forgotten something you were supposed to do, you're mechanical.

This is what I thought mechanical meant...before I read the book

To become less mechanical is to Pay Attention - all the time - no matter what (which is to self-remember).

...and this is where he totally lost me again. I can "pay attention" until the cows come home, and I'm still doing it with the same meat machine???? Brain thinks something, which produces chemicals that make the machine do something. How does this process become less mechanical if I pay closer attention to where I put my keys?
 
Back
Top Bottom