Shocking the system - Conscious Pain and Suffering

[zak]

It is really worth to read this again:

Shocks are the strongest source of internal friction. They are needed to shake man out of his normal state of complacency and submersion in waking sleep, to destroy buffers and awaken conscience. If the little 'I's inside one are never shaken, never made to have friction or move against one another, they will never be noticed. Shocks are necessary firstly for one to become conscious of the internal multiplicity, and secondly to later on forge inner unity out of the inner multitude.

In this sense, a shock is anything that evokes an emotional reaction. Often this reaction is subjectively seen as disagreeable but this is not always so.

https://thecasswiki.net/index.php?title=Shock_(Fourth_Way)

Self-calming is the process of pushing aside thoughts or emotions that are uncomfortable. This is a pervasive characteristic of the human condition and is found at many levels.

https://thecasswiki.net/index.php?title=Self-calming
And

In FOTCM parlance, "heating the crucible" means receiving shocks and using these as catalyst for internal change, generally for building cohesion between little 'I's.

In order to do, one must be. But one cannot be, nor wish, nor do, without having internal consistency. Without internal consistency, action just happens as a result of activating one or another program which happens to have been installed by circumstance into the person.

Heating the crucible involves internal friction, a struggle between yes and no, as George Gurdjieff puts it. Little 'I's and programs cannot be discovered unless they are activated and one attempts to work against their pull. Heating the crucible, i.e. receiving shocks and working against one's default responses while remembering oneself is a way of first knowing oneself and then creating cohesion.

The word annealing, which means repeatedly heating and cooling a piece of metal while shaping it, relates to this process. Several repetitions of the same or similar shocks are needed for achieving permanent results.

Cooling too fast makes brittle metal and in the allegory would correspond to self-calming, i.e. denying or rejecting the shock or dissociating it. Not cooling at all is not good either since one cannot function in a state of permanent shock, besides this too leads to dissensitization which is not the objective.

The word crucible is used in alchemical language probably to denote the human as a whole. It is a vessel in which a substance is being prepared. Gurdjieff uses the analogy of a chemical factory for the same or similar concept. The terms just come from different ages and cultures.

 

[BHelmet]

[quote author= BHelmet]Me: " There were monks who consciously chose bodily mortification to combat certain natural bodily functions they viewed as "sinful" but this didn't necessarily bring consciousness or holiness."
You: "And you can't assume that they didn't acquire something of significance from their practices"

I think T.C. meant with that:

The way of the monk isn't complete. The Monk doesn't try to figure out or understand why he has 'sinful' thought. The monk just suppresses and ignores 'sinful' thoughts

That's why it isn't complete. The 4 way seeks to understand and figure out why they have 'sinful' thoughts. And only through that can we release/overcome it. By understanding the mechanics at play inside of us and realize how empty and soulless those 'sinful' thoughts are.[/quote]
Hi Bjorn - I was not referring to the way of the monk. I was meaning that some monks of the early Catholic/Christian faith took the parable "if your eye offends you, pluck it out" to a ridiculous literal extreme and missed the point entirely. They mutilated their genitals in an attempt to become more 'pure', I suppose. In this they were enduring intentional suffering but it was perverted and ineffective. The main point being that an action is not intrinsically STS or STO in and of itself. In fact their self-induced suffering was STS since they did it to gain something for themselves even though they must have been convinced their action was a denial of the self or somehow served some greater good.

 

[Corvus]

Quote from BHelmet:

Hi Bjorn - I was not referring to the way of the monk. I was meaning that some monks of the early Catholic/Christian faith took the parable "if your eye offends you, pluck it out" to a ridiculous literal extreme and missed the point entirely. They mutilated their genitals in an attempt to become more 'pure', I suppose. In this they were enduring intentional suffering but it was perverted and ineffective. The main point being that an action is not intrinsically STS or STO in and of itself.

Think their actions were cheating in a way because they do not develop the will by going trough temptations, etc... in that way because there is no more stimulus so there is no internal fight and fire. And that is if the way of abstinence is the right way for them depending on the person:

Quote from ISOTM:

Is complete sexual abstinence necessary for transmutation and is sexual abstinence, in general, useful for work on oneself? we asked him.
Here there is not one but a number of questions, said G. In the first place sexual abstinence is necessary for transmutation only in certain cases, that is, for certain types of people. For others it is not at all necessary. And with yet others it comes by itself when transmutation begins. I will explain this more clearly. For certain types a long and complete sexual abstinence is necessary for transmutation to begin; this means in other words that without a long and complete sexual abstinence transmutation will not begin. But once it has begun abstinence is no longer necessary. In other cases, that is, with other types, transmutation can begin in a normal sexual life — and on the contrary, can begin sooner and proceed better with a very great outward expenditure of sex energy. In the third case the beginning of transmutation does not require abstinence, but, having begun, transmutation takes the whole of sexual energy and puts an end to normal sexual life or the outward expenditure of sex energy.
Then the other question — 'Is sexual abstinence useful for the work or not?'
It is useful if there is abstinence in all centers. If there is abstinence in one center and full liberty of imagination in the others, then there could be nothing worse. And still more, abstinence can be useful if a man knows what to do with the energy which he saves in this way. If he does not know what to do with it, nothing whatever can be gained by abstinence.

Quote from BHelmet:

In fact their self-induced suffering was STS since they did it to gain something for themselves even though they must have been convinced their action was a denial of the self or somehow served some greater good.

And the work on self is looking like that also selfish because you are also gaining something, and everything else depending on how you define yourself. If there was no selfish impulse there would be no results. Is it not through serving others that you help yourself?

 

[BHelmet]

T.C:

But earlier, you spoke of how much you value the process of analysing the subject, which has to include analysing your thoughts on the subject. To couch your observations in "could be's" etc., might be a way of you trying not to get pinned down and remain 'in the clouds' (for lack of a better way of saying it; don't take that the wrong way). Kind of like a way of avoiding having to learn to think with a hammer and be confident in everything you say or write.

You are right - I kind of side-stepped the back and forth since I sensed that the air needed to be cleared first. I have also learned to try to be more diplomatic than I used to be. As well as realizing we all do have different lessons and that some things that are a 'slam dunk' for me may not apply to somebody else. Heck, there are so many times I have 'learned' a lesson and then, years later, I am able to 'see' the other side of the equation (and/or the harmonizing trinity of active/passive/neutral). Sometimes, it is only years later that I can see the purpose/lesson of my own perceived suffering.

TC: I'd now say, then, that people define pain as anything they'd rather not experience.

Bhelmet: I like this thought of avoidance. And as some others here have said - why avoid? It is the ego or lower i's wanting to avoid seeing or feeling something especially if it requires change/metanoia or if it triggers a mechanism that says "you are a bad person': The self-esteem card. (sorry - I am suffering - struggling with making the new comments come out in the blue part of the box...sigh)

I'm glad you are bringing up the ideas so that I too can give out my ideas in the same spirit: This is what I think about it, and I might be wrong, and interacting with the network is how to find out where I'm wrong.

I kind of like Mouravieff saying "in error" rather than just plain "wrong" since wrong has a moralistic, judgmental overtone to me and error is more like "oops" without the value judgement attached. Makes the medicine easier to swallow.

 

[Phill4]

Think their actions were cheating in a way because they do not develop the will by going trough temptations, etc... in that way because there is no more stimulus so there is no internal fight and fire. And that is if the way of abstinence is the right way for them depending on the person

That is what i was thinking about falling confortable in a position or form of suffering. There is no friction between the "I's". And other buffers act to rationalize it in a way. Buffers are always ready to bring back the status quo of confort in the being and are most of the time outside of our awareness.
It must be constant.

I think is once there is a realization of the buffers and how they act on our system, and how some buffers are noticible and other are rotted in the subconcious a person must identify and target them, in every reaction. Since every reaction is different in expression and say configuration in one's being.

When one evaluates reactions they reveal the buffers and the mechanisms of the same.

And every center has its set of reactions and buffers.

 

[Corvus]

Quote from Felipe4

Buffers are always ready to bring back the status quo of confort in the being and are most of the time outside of our awareness.
It must be constant.

It is easier said then done, especially when it comes to subconscious ones and if one has weak will it is almost impossible. Not mentioning Law of Octaves, additional stresses that are needed at the right intervals because initial enthusiasm and interest fades away after some time, and it is impossible without a school, that is teacher that has gone through that stages and individual attention, special exercises and methods, constant observation from his side and his will, and today it is all mostly pseudo schools and pseudo spirituality.

 

[Phill4]

Yes easier said than done, i am finding that buffers become visible when we record our reactions. And then our TRUE reactions(true motives for the mechanical reaction).

Reactions, in their spontaneous expression.

So there must be a period of attentivenes/alertness when we express/react to something, whatever it is the person is looking to examine, take the mental recording expand on it, and try to find as much as possible about this reaction. Then explore the thoughs and emotions associated to this reaction.
The thing with exploring our reactions is that we react ALL the time so there are too many, but one by one is how one gets to more and more awareness of the self.


Then comes the work on it, if there is an emotional inbalance there is a specific work for it, or the body or the mind.

The only problem with dicerning which is which is that everything in the machine is 1) intertwined , 2) unbalanced , 3) unexplored

So the key in this type of work is as far as i can tell, gather as much knowledge as possible of the machine and people, to start onto something like that and network with others being an important component in one's polarization towards STO and being an important point of reference for evaluation and re-evaluation of the self and others.

 

[T.C.]

I kind of like Mouravieff saying "in error" rather than just plain "wrong" since wrong has a moralistic, judgmental overtone to me and error is more like "oops" without the value judgement attached.

I think both words have their value and apply in different situations. I think it depends on how much knowledge we have of the reason for the action.

I would say it is wrong for me to eat wheat. The reason for that is all I've learned about its harmful affects on the body.

But if I've had a meal and then later realised that something in it contained wheat, then I would say I was in error for not checking the ingredients of my meal more thoroughly.

That then branches into a new area. If, a week later, I had another meal and found out afterwards that it contained wheat, then I'm leaning more towards it being wrong than being an error, because I should have learned - acted on the fact that I had more information - that I should always check the ingredients of my meals thoroughly.

Error implies a lack of responsibility, wrong implies responsibility.

Error is something I couldn't have prevented, I'm in the wrong if I do something I could have prevented.

Makes the medicine easier to swallow.

Reminds me of something I once heard a Chinese doctor say about his concoctions: "The more bitter, the better." :)

 

[Corvus]

Quote from Felipe4:

So the key in this type of work is as far as i can tell, gather as much knowledge as possible of the machine and people, to start onto something like that and network with others being an important component in one's polarization towards STO and being an important point of reference for evaluation and re-evaluation of the self and others.

I agree, only pseudo work of imitation of this type is possible trough self observation and self remembrance, other physical and mental exercises of similar nature, and luckily there is EE, but no amount of knowledge can change one s being if it is not practical and put to practice, it can only act for expansion of mind and therefore as a fuel, but even then with time it fades away.

 

[Phill4]

Knowledge and beeing.
It reminds me of algebra problems in high school, we spend such amount of time doing excercises and learning the concepts to the forget it.

If we don't have a contexts uppon which we have practical observation or practical aplication the knowledge will just fade, it means we don't have the "recieving" mechanisms (balanced centers and an aim) attuned for the information.

Too much knowledge gathering in a person who has the instrument attuned to absob information will get much more into his/her being than another getting the same information whose intrument is arranged accidentaly to keep personality running, all outside of his awareness, in which case knowledge further fuels programs.

An intellectual in the work must find the bridge to his emotions, and the bridge to one's emotions is found in actively pursuing and paying attention to one's spontaneus reactions and where these come from.

A person in an esoteric kind of work must actively push towards the discovery of programs through self observation. Observation of one's reactions.