Show#94: Remembering Gurdjieff - Interview with William Patrick Patterson Part 2

I dunno what to think about WPP. On the one hand, it could be said that he made himself look rather foolish and going on senile. On the other, he could claim that he was withholding sincerity because, as you know, "sincerity with everyone is weakness". At the very least, he was not practicing External Considering. However, my vote goes for Dunning-Kruger Effect.
 
My first encounter with WPP was through Radio 3-14 with Lana (girlfriend of Henrick from Red Ice, her own show) and WPP came across as... quite jokey if not a touch flippant. I listened to the show twice and i thought perhaps it was due to her line of questioning; that he could tell she was oblivious to the concepts and therefore was unwilling to 'offer' much in his answers. All the same, external considering ignored, it made for an uncomfortable and kinda pointless interview, i think.

I hadn't read anything by WPP and then he appeared on the first show STR show and it came across as a nice chat and overview if a few missed points on WPPs behalf (a taste of things to come), by the second interview it seemed as if the conversation was parallel, but never really connecting. For me it sounded as though he either hadn't considered some of the points and if he had or when he did, he discounted them rather readily. And then - i thought - WPP had asked to come back on, because he had more to say on the matter. But i understand he had books to promote and had been invited. But i was looking forward to it, thinking that now he could trust STR he would be ready to divulge! And he began to discuss G's metaphysics map (which he clearly knows) and it sounded as though we were warming up.

It it always quite telling when guests don't research who they are speaking with. I understand time constraints and all, but then again, he has a team of acolytes who could do that for him. Perhaps this is just another example of how disregarding the need for a network can result in error. In some ways, i was thinking if he had just done a bit of research, the possibilities of topics could be enormous. But now, with his comments on history, networking etc..i would be cautious

Having only listened to the show once all the way through, and knowing oftentimes my first judgment on tone can be incorrect, i did come away feeling irked. For me, WPP seems to feel as though he has 'arrived' and has little left to do but 'wait', and maybe recruit a few lucky fellows along the way; and considering his example of 'cosmic consciousness' (or something like) wandering through a new age fare (something like) i'm not sure i want what he's having.

The jokes (?) regarding recruiting for me were just odd. I appreciate how the hosts do their best to let the guest express what they feel, what they want to get into, without any anticipation about where they will connect. But one can only be so permissive.

I initially warmed to WPP and how liked to laugh and keep things light hearted, but it came across as a defence mechanism and actually interfered with the flow of the conversation. I certainly gained more data about G and his life from previous STR podcasts. All in all, i think this could be quite a valuable interview; external considering, networking and self importance, and perhaps idealisation. Again, makes you appreciate the network all the more.


added: Clarity
 
I enyojed the show a lot and the hosts was superb! I have the same feelings like most people on the forum about WPP. The only thing that I will maybe add is, that to me at some point, he was scared. He doesn't give me an impression of calm person and "in peace with himself". He hide a lot with a fake laughing and I think that he is really very scared that somebody will see that he is not the "illuminated" teacher that he clams to be. He also seemed scared just to talk and think about the current events on the world and where all this is going - not pretty picture of course...Hence his so-cold "distance" from the world and reality that we live in. From my perspective is easier for him. He CAN'T do nothing about it, like he said, but it makes him feeling better on himself that he "work" on himself and that is all that HE can do. And of course here is also the role of the teacher witch again make him feel better of himself...Like a lot of people on this forum already pointed out - me, me ,me...Gospel of many guru's..

Anyway, my point was that maybe he is too scared to look the REAL picture, so he create for himself enviroment and beliefs that make his living on this Earth easier, pink glasses, new age way, nothing new...

Still, the good thing is, that a lot more peole will probably hear about Gurdjieff and the forth way. My only concern is, if this would be enough for a stepping stone or they will stay asleep, like their teacher is...
 
This was the show of the century! A true lesson in handling proselytizing with external consideration, the crew rocks! :clap: :rockon: :bacon:

I'm sorry for the total lack of it (ec) on my part at the moment, but I'm in awe.

Laura said:
I dunno what to think about WPP. On the one hand, it could be said that he made himself look rather foolish and going on senile. On the other, he could claim that he was withholding sincerity because, as you know, "sincerity with everyone is weakness". At the very least, he was not practicing External Considering. However, my vote goes for Dunning-Kruger Effect.

and that is an understatement IMO!
 
Gosh. I just listened to this episode.

You know what it reminded me of?

-One of those Chinese Kung-Fu movies where one school challenges another. (Minus the corny dramatics and Jackie Chan moments). But only just!

One of his students even kicked in the door to indignantly declare; (Forgive my cartoonish paraphrasing): "You cannot understand the power of my Master! Now we fight!"

It offered, among other things, a challenge in self-observation: There was, I felt anyway, an automatic impulse to want to defend one's chosen Way at the risk of self-rationalizing over aspects of the system which might represent genuine weaknesses.

-One of the difficult elements of the system as practiced here in the forums is the lack of a direct master/student relationship being available as required by the Gurdjieff Way.

Early on, I thought this to be a fatal flaw, and indeed, unspoken difficulties presented themselves. It seemed like there were always two layers in forum conversations. The one happening on top, and the one beneath it, which to speak of could assure destruction despite it's being a threat to the stated forum objectives. -I could see the tensions of jealousies and egos strung all over the place. I remember a period a couple of years back where there was a vague blood-in-the-water feeling of predatory behavior. If somebody made a wrong move, people would actively destroy the offender despite the sometimes valid arguments they offered. Touchy times to try to do the Work and eliminate one's own egoism, etc.

But...

I was also thinking, "I bet this is a necessary stage of growth. The crucible. I bet this is all part of the lesson." -I know I was a first rate ass many years ago, (to progress to a second-rate ass with somewhat more self-mastery), I got bruised and banged around and had to face a lot of ugliness within myself, but the practice has helped a lot, which was the point. It comes with trying out Life, participating, getting feedback and making the decision to self-observe and make the effort to try to purify one's self. Burn off some of that ass.

That's a little beside the point, but my thought today is this: The current state of this school is much more mature and refined than it once was, and despite the growing pains, I think the system of group reflection/mirroring is indeed working as advertised. It might even be stronger than one-on-one teaching in certain ways, in that it reduces the risk of hero worship which can prove so lethal.

It's possible that this system can only take people through development to a certain level, but I think the experiment has paid off rather well so far. I certainly feel like a much smaller self-aggrandizing ignorant jackass than I was only a few years ago, and I put much of that down to the Work.

I'm not even convinced now, upon reflection, that the forum system really is all that different from the Gurdjieffian ideal. That is, many people moving up as best they are able, leaving steps empty behind them and holding out hands to those who come after. Structurally, and taking this global communications internet phenomenon into account, it has many features which would have seemed alien in Gurdjieff's world, but really... Is it all that different in the ways that matter?

Maybe it is not as fast or potent as a one-on-one therapist/patient relationship, but certainly multiple points of perspective can offer strengths otherwise absent.

And a final observation:

It struck me that it would be polite and reasonable to excuse the behavior of the radio guest; Perhaps his apparent lapses in judgment were a deliberate attempt at teaching. (I certainly felt the strain in my chest when he began to grill the host, a useful thing to observe.) But it also seemed to me that it was coming from a place of poor assumption and included some patently weird statements, (Re history. -If we are all one, then observing the world is to observe/learn of the self. Self-Observation, right, but in context of the whole? Isn't focusing entirely on the self without respect to the whole a form of narcissism; the exact *opposite* of soul development?)

It must be remembered that if one is here, one is not 'done'. In the past six months, out in my day to day life, I've witnessed more than one 'master' recently have to face some really hard new lessons they thought they were beyond.

-Also, remember that video of the arrogant Chi master issuing a $5000 prize to anybody who could beat him in a match, who proceeded to get the stuffing knocked out of him?

That looked horribly painful in so many ways, but talk about a great learning opportunity! A true master would buck up and say, "I was mistaken! THANK YOU!" (Instead, in his case, his students rallied on the comment forums to say that it was a deliberate act! "You cannot understand the power of our master!")

Not that what happened on the radio show was the same. It was all much more subtle and gentle and respectful; but still a learning opportunity.
 
On a related note Laura and the crew done a pod cast back in 2006 titled In Search of the Miraculous it's in two parts at the below link

http://www.sott.net/podcasts/listall?page=2

It's near the bottom, Laura is reading experts from all and everything by Gurdjieff and adding some commentary.
TBH I got more from that podcast than the interview with WPP, Laura is so good at reading and conveying the message
it was like sitting down and being read to like a child :) I wish Laura could do this with all her books ha ha.

In anyway just posting in case anyone missed/hasn't heard it yet.

Sean
 
When the interview ended Joe mentioned "wiseacring" and that was what I had in mind. Truthfully speaking.. I could pick a few of members here more "learned" than WPP I think, not that I want to compare. Nevertheless thank you for the show!
 
Kniall said:
Not so. As Joe said, it's a process, and study of the external world must proceed in parallel with cleaning the machine. New information is always coming into the system, and so the system must constantly be scanned and our understanding of it updated.

On the ignoring history point; WPP said when asked that what G meant by the "terror of the situation" was that we "have all this power and don't realise it" or words to that effect. But follow that through. Why don't we realise it? What is stopping humanity from recognising its power? Could social conditions have anything to do with it? Childhood programming from dysfunctional/abusive parenting? Why are so many families dysfunctional? Where do social norms and 'culture' come from? Who sets the agenda? We look upwards to those in power for the answer to that and find the idea of psychopaths and the ponerization of society. We look back to history and we see a repeating pattern of psychopaths rising to power, ponerizing society, and finally causing the "fall" of civilizations. We see this repeating historical pattern of the usurping of human creative potential en masse, and we see the "terror of the situation".

But WPP suggests exploring the truth of history is irrelevant?

Doesn't make sense when viewed from that perspective.
 
Another point which has been bothering me...

WPP was very much focused on the idea of, "We cannot have another war!", repeating this declaration numerous times like a touchstone.

This seemed like an over-simple idea from the 60's, couched in naive understandings which bear little connection to the hard reality all around us.

-We've been in the thick of war for decades; not just of bullets and bombs, but through on-going economic war (through the creation and oppression of client states), and a health war (through toxic foods and medicine), which have arguably claimed more victims than any 'hot' war.

To say, "We cannot have another war!" is both childish and meaningless, an indicator of one's living in a bubble reality.

Also, it did sound very much to me as though he'd fallen for the media BS with his references to Putin. How enlightened and able to teach is a man who cannot see through garden variety propaganda?
 
Perceval said:
But WPP suggests exploring the truth of history is irrelevant?

After thinking about that for a while in days past I had a thought that it might be some sort of poke aimed at Laura. I might be wrong, it's just a thought that came to mind as I was finishing up reading the afterward parts of WPP's latest history book about Gurdjieff.
 
m said:
Perceval said:
But WPP suggests exploring the truth of history is irrelevant?

After thinking about that for a while in days past I had a thought that it might be some sort of poke aimed at Laura. I might be wrong, it's just a thought that came to mind as I was finishing up reading the afterward parts of WPP's latest history book about Gurdjieff.

Well, if it was, he can find a response in a couple of previous articles that are well worth re-reading:

http://www.sott.net/article/274265-Xenophobic-Self-Destruction-Or-How-the-Odyssey-and-the-Old-and-New-Testaments-Can-Predict-Our-Future

http://www.sott.net/article/285142-Global-Pathocracy-Authoritarian-Followers-and-the-Hope-of-the-World

Which includes the following (extracted from the first article):

"One of the dominant themes of the Odyssey, which also appears in the Old and New Testaments, is hospitality and knowing how to treat a stranger if you are the host, and knowing how, as a guest, you ought to respond to good or bad hospitality.

The principles of life governing the action portrayed in the Odyssey would have been well and widely understood at the time the story was being recited in social groupings of the ancient world, and no doubt, the listeners would nod in agreement as each episode unfolded and then concluded in justice being served.

So, basically, there was a time when the universal law of reciprocity was more widely and clearly understood. Unfortunately, the people of today have lost sight of this cause-and-effect relationship, but are still doomed to suffer the consequences. The law is inescapable and ignorance is no excuse. It doesn't matter how solitary or non-materialistic a person is, they will always be a part of some kind of exchange as long as they exist. From impressions and breathing to social interactions and material exchange, only the scale differs. At the moment we are both hosts and guests, to other individuals, groups, the earth and the universe. ...

The ancients were quite certain that human behavior could attract or repel the wrath of the gods. Most often, it was the behavior of the priest-king that was the crucial element. It was his job to figure out what the gods wanted in respect of human behavior and to ensure that this was how things were done so that the kingdom would be safe. There were a few good examples of this principle, where the king was "righteous" and took care of his people like a tender parent, conducted his own life so as to set a positive example for all, and things were fine ... until ... a pathological type would get into power in one way or another and begin to pervert the entire system. When that happened, scape-goating became the rule of the day and "sacrifice" was declared to be what the gods wanted: witch-hunts began. Such times always and ever preceded large-scale destruction of the society.

The entire cosmos seems to be made of information and mirrors. The living system and the cosmos interact constantly, receiving and transmitting. As above, so below. But there are also choices.

We all receive impressions from our environment and react to them in different ways: rebelling, ignoring or just copying what we perceive. Whatever the reaction, we react based on our personal understanding, our past experiences, our feelings and our sense of morality. We are influenced, but we also have the ability to influence. Our capacity to contemplate the past, present and future in a connected way, to feel deeply about others and to judge and choose either 'right' or 'wrong' is what makes us human.

It really is down to us collectively. We are the power source and the authors, whether we allow a leader to represent and direct us or not, we are ultimately responsible for our world. If that's really the case, seeing that we have a choice in how things turn out and learning how to direct our course seems rather important.

It appears that in earlier history, man understood that he had some control over his own destiny and the fate of society through his righteous behavior. Theoxeny was a moral standard. Every person was seen as having the potential to either help or hinder prosperity and health for all. Even if some could give more than others, everyone had the privilege and the duty to contribute their best. Every person's actions counted and their actions were responded to with justice through other people and the universe.

But a pathology took hold, and though it could not completely change the nature of man or take away his ability to choose, it influenced society and altered humanity's course because of our acceptance of it. As awareness declined, good intentions were subverted and our integrity as a species diminished. Humans have become a species tuned in to entropy, and what we choose and express will become our fate. We have given up our personal responsibility to each other as hosts and guests and therefore will end up being our own destruction.

When reading history, over and over again the same cycle can be seen. The point that I would like to emphasize is that human beings do have some control over their destiny as individuals and groups, nations and civilizations. But that "control" is rather more like putting oneself into alignment with universal principles and activating them in practice. But obviously, one has to be careful and find out what those principles actually are! Obviously, those ancient civilizations that believed the lies of the evil masters who declared that sacrifice of their enemies, or war against this group or that group, was what the gods wanted, didn't do that. ...

The ancient literature on these topics can be mined for knowledge and wisdom. Indeed, it appears to be the case that taking assertive action against violators of Cosmic Hospitality oneself can prevent the gods from having to do it. And one can notice that when the gods do it, the action falls not only on the corrupt elite, but also on those who would choose to do nothing, those who permit the evils and corruptions to continue and perpetuate. ...

Ignorance of these laws is no protection. In fact, ignorance of them might be seen as a deliberate flouting. The Cosmos exists to be loved and you cannot love what you do not know. Thus, it is the duty of every self-conscious creature to exert all their efforts, within their inherent capacities, to know and thus to be able to love the Cosmos. Those creatures that cannot or will not do this are considered by Nature to be failed experiments and they or their lines will be extinguished.

The point is made near the end of the Odyssey, that silence is assent. Eurymachus attempts to plead with Odysseus, saying, "He who was most to blame is already dead. It was Antinous who was behind all these doings ... Now he has received his just punishment, give up your anger against us! Spare your equals in rank! Every one of us shall bring you twenty bullocks in recompense for what we have eaten, and you shall have all the bronze and gold it will take to win back your favor."

"No, Eurymachus," said Odysseus, scowling at him. "Even if you offered me everything you have inherited from your fathers, I should not rest until all of you have atoned for your misdeeds with death. Do what you will, fight or flee - not one of you shall escape me!"

Nor did they."
 
Laura said:
I dunno what to think about WPP. On the one hand, it could be said that he made himself look rather foolish and going on senile. On the other, he could claim that he was withholding sincerity because, as you know, "sincerity with everyone is weakness". At the very least, he was not practicing External Considering. However, my vote goes for Dunning-Kruger Effect.


Wow what a show! I have to congratulate Joe and Knial for handling it so well. I agree with the comments above, and the fact that there seemed to be this disconnect between Knowledge and Being when I listen to his responses ( and also that laugh as well- did anyone else notice that?). I have not read his books, but it seemed like it was all just theory, and that that knowledge has not actually been applied intrinsically. If at some level everything is interconnected, then to be aware of myself, also entails being aware of the world and what's happening on the macro level. I cannot fathom how he could say that he doesn't care what goes on in the world.
 
I think this quote may be appropriate here :
''But it happens sometimes that when the school closes a number of people are left who were round about the work, who saw the outward aspect of it, and saw the whole of the work in this outward aspect.Having no doubts whatever of themselves or in the correctness of their conclusions and understanding they decide to continue the work. To continue this work they form new schools, teach people what they have themselves learned, and give them the same promises that they themselves received. All this naturally can only be outward imitation.''

WPP seems to think that the ''Torch'' has been passed down to him and him alone,not realizing that the Torch of The Fourth Way bounces all over the place and sometimes even fizzles out for centuries.Perhaps he would understand it if he paid closer attention to history,but alas it is of no interest to him. :rolleyes:
His constant laughter seemed to thinly veil his nervousness and that student at the end saying that we can't possibly understand an Awoken Master reminds me of the old argument ''God moves in mysterious ways,don't ask questions''.And one more thing,when he talked about the terror of the situation being ''we have all this power and can't use it'' (or something to that effect) that seemed to me a very infantile reading of the situation.It's kind of like going ''You don't realize how awesome you are,isn't it scary?'' when the real terror comes from seeing yourself and your loved ones and everyone you've ever known as food for a deliberately cruel and fundamentally heartless system which traps humans in a cycle of perpetual torment. :mad:
 
I've just finished the initial transcription of the show and noticed something strange. The student at the end, 'Mark from Baltimore' sounded almost exactly like William himself, (especially when the voice was slowed down a little) as if he was putting a slightly higher pitched voice on and calling in. He even said "right, right" and a few other things in the same way.

Maybe I've been transcribing for too long and this guy is a relative or just happens to sound a lot like William, but the similarity seemed uncanny.
 
Immersion said:
I've just finished the initial transcription of the show and noticed something strange. The student at the end, 'Mark from Baltimore' sounded almost exactly like William himself, (especially when the voice was slowed down a little) as if he was putting a slightly higher pitched voice on and calling in. He even said "right, right" and a few other things in the same way.

Maybe I've been transcribing for too long and this guy is a relative or just happens to sound a lot like William, but the similarity seemed uncanny.

Well, well. I haven't checked that for myself, but it would be interesting if true!
 
Back
Top Bottom