Sorrow, Comon Father and Paying For Our Arising

[Buddy]

As for why my books might be easier to read, consider what price I have paid for writing them. Gurdjieff certainly paid and learned, eventually, that in order to do what he had to do, he had to protect the ideas. Maybe I'm learning the same lesson the hard way? Though I may be more stubborn? Or stupid, sometimes it's hard to tell which.

My feeling is that Gurdjieff simply believed deeply in his style, or particular method of delivery, and that interested, dedicated people would eventually come around to appreciate his razor sharp mind and wit and thereby, remember him and keep striving. Besides, I wonder if the political and Metaphysical environment was ripe for a direct approach.

That said, there seems to be ample historical evidence to suggest that it would be beneficial for ALL methods of approach to be employed because "the great unwashed" (according to my English professor), really consists of multiple 'target' audiences from what I see.

As for me, when I'm planting seeds in daily life I'm trying to take into consideration the cognitive frameworks people are using or are more familiar with and try to use their metaphors. I once had someone jokingly tell me something to the effect that "I resent you for making me have to think about that. On the other hand, I like a good mental challenge!" :)

Remember this? I see it as an equivalent example of what people generally do upon exposure to the Wave:

[quote author=http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=14671.msg115961#msg115961]
Each of the parties involved in this case approached it from its own frame of reference. To psychiatrists, Rob Doe suffered from mental illness. To priests this was a case of demonic possession. To writers and film/video producers this was a great story to exploit for profit. Those involved saw what they were trained to see. Each purported to look at the facts but just the opposite was true—in actuality they manipulated the facts and emphasized information that fit their own agendas.[/quote]

Might as well beat 'em to the punch! How 'bout a Wave for dummies, Wave for politicians, Wave for Fundies, Wave for truck drivers, Wave for narcissistic bullies, etc.? :D

 

[Stevie Argyl]

I am writing this off the cuff as it were due to time constraints, so it has not been deeply considered and is just my opinion but i think it might have some relevancy. I apologise in advance for the rather scrappy format.

Personally I think the mythical story telling style is a very flexible medium offering both straight forward and symbollic communication giving endless entertainment, much frustration and the occasional enlightement to us 'seekers of pearls in manure'.

I think there are a number of things to think about concerning G's writing style.

His father was a professional story teller, G was steeped in stories.

His belief in the power of myth to traverse the ages. In both ISOTM and in the Tales we are told that literal teachings perish and meanings change over time - even in some cases he states in the tales, to become almost the opposite of the originators intended meaning.

Is the fourth way an oral tradition? ISOTM is a book of theory with much of the practice missing. Many times Ouspensky will mention exercises, yet only ever records self observation and self remembering. In BT Gurdjieff give an exercise to Hassein almost straight away as part of his education, did we miss it, do we do it daily as instructed, are there others hidden in the tales?

If you read the Chapter of Religion in BT you see again and again how the oral teachings were distorted after being written down and copied and rewritten, each scribe/disciple re-intepreting/mis interpreting/ distorting.
Eg:
Christian Love , a higher emotional compassion becomes a degenerate image , a whimsical 'like', I love my 4x4. I love you today I hate you tomorrow. Negative emotional centre 'love' which easily dies or turn to its opposite.

Faith - becomes stupid adherence to dogma.

Hope becomes emotional slavery and replaces real effort etc.

So to my mind in the Tales G does not only provide us a set of concepts as such, he illustrates them in action in myth.

Interestingly in the tales he introduces a mythical prophet amongst the historical prophets in the form of Ashieta Sheimash and his way of personal conscience (4th way the way of conscience?) and illustrates behaviours and strivings by way of example. It's possible that the 5 strivings mentioned on this thread if copied and taken as a teaching on their own would gradually become distorted but preserved as part of the story of the tales with illustration of behaviours then they stand a better chance of preservation down the ages.

Another consideration may be hypnotic communication?
G was a professional hypnotist, he treated patients almost till his last days, Even in the early days of the Priere he was earning money by travelling to Paris treating drug addicts and alcoholics to help the Priere get on its legs and this practice was only interrupted by his accident.
Conversational hypnotherapy is thought to have begun with Milton Erikson but James Brade, whose method G was familiar with ,wrote in the 1860's that his experiments showed that hypnotic methods can take many forms including the spoken and the written word. G tells us in the Herald of Coming Good that he often practised throwing out suggestion to observe effect. (Was the Priere a school or his laboratory - or both ?)
Were the learnings from these experiments incorporated in his writings to help ideas bypass out formatory minds - to penetrate our 'education'?



As Bud says here:

My feeling is that Gurdjieff simply believed deeply in his style, or particular method of delivery, and that interested, dedicated people would eventually come around to appreciate his razor sharp mind and wit and thereby, remember him and keep striving.

When you read G you cannot fail to notice certain idiosyncrasies : his use of repetition, his use of out of place words (or out of place prophets). Two examples of the top of my head: How many times in pondering used in the tales? Is he telling us pondering is important? What about the word 'education' always derided then it appears in quotation marks. Should we examine our beliefs , our education and find whats really our own?

Is word repetiton as a dolmen, a pointer to emphasise important points that gradaully make you sit up and take notice like a soft rapping on the door getting louder and louder.

Intestingly later you read his other books, the supposed biographies, and again we find repetition Eg The prologue to life is real, 'And so, at the time of this third bullet, near me there was only one man, and at that a very weak one.' How many times is this companion referered to as a weak friend/man when in normal literally style he would be introduced as weak to tell us a little about him and thereafter be called companion/friend. Is he rapping the door again, is the weak man a 'man' at all, or is one on a wild goose chase, is the danger of mythological story telling that one looks for hidden meaning when there is none ?


I would be curious what other think of the reason for mythological form of exposition and pro's and cons.

 

[go2]

For me, childhood was a time of Grimm’s Fairy Tales and daily Bible stories. I wonder if the allegorical tales of my childhood nurtured a spark of the feeling center life of relationship which smoldered behind the scenes throughout my adult life. I was prepared to read Beelzebub’s Tales by the early experience of myth and allegory as a teaching tool. I read the recommended work on the forum, but it was when I finally made the commitment to read Beelzebub’s Tales at the pace of 20 to 30 pages a day, that I began to experience the old sense of mystery and vividness of childhood that was lost in the adult world of America in the late Twentieth Century. It was as if a part of me, parched in the desert had found an oasis of clear cool water.

Mr. Gurdjieff wrote Beelzebub’s Tales as an allegorical journey into our inner world. He asserted that our feeling center with its gateway to the Higher Emotional Center and the Higher Intellectual Center had atrophied and as Atlantis, had sunk into the sea. It amuses me to find seekers reading the Tales for its historical and technological crumbs. The literal minded are separated from the teaching, as the chaff from the wheat. So, I experienced the feeling center thrill as I read Beelzebub’s Tales. I had not experienced the awakening of the feeling center in the recommended psychology books and intellectual work of Ouspensky and Mouravieff. My feeling center had thrilled to Laura’s personal and heroic journey toward awakening. It is a journey of mythic proportions, which she shares with us. It is my Work to make these mythic journeys Real for me. The door will open for those who keep on knocking.

Facts, theory, and science feed the thinking center of man. Mr. Gurdjieff’s teaching in Russia and Fontainebleau made clear that the thinking center of his pupils was a formidable obstacle to being born again. Man’s thinking center ‘I’ focused on the external world was in control and would subsume all efforts of Work for its own. It would imagine and pretend to be awake if that would preserve the ego’s command. The thinking center self, focused on the external world of the instinctive-motor center is the dominate type of modern man, then at Fontainebleau and now this type of man and the society which is his reflection threatens the very existence of man on this planet. I begin to consider the inner subjective world of the feeling center to be the reconciliation of the thinking center and the instinctive-motor center. I ponder whether objective reason requires the inclusion of the subjective inner world of the feeling center of relationship to enter the ‘Kingdom of Heaven’.

Mr. Gurdjieff realized the first Work requirement of complete bankruptcy of the old man had not happened in enough individuals to ‘save humanity’ from the horror of slavery in his lifetime. He closed Fountainbleau and began writing an enduring allegory designed to awaken the feeling center of relationship and the Higher Being Bodies, which is the Hope of mankind. The zeitgeist of his age was not ready to accept his teaching of the meaning and significance of our lives. He went back to create a Work which would endure man’s thinking brain urge to simplify and intellectualize the teachings designed to awaken the sleeping and deformed inner man. The possibility and method of awakening to become a Real Man in the image of God is the intent of Beelzebub’s Tales. When I read Beelzebub’s Tales as an allegorical journey into my inner world, help arrived from another realm. The assistance is designed to bypass the thinking brain and speak to and awaken the feeling center and the Higher Centers of those who have experienced the bankruptcy of our lives and wish for a Real Life.

 

[Stevie Argyl]

What a fanstastic post Go2, you put it so much better than I could have.

 

[ana]

I begin to consider the inner subjective world of the feeling center to be the reconciliation of the thinking center and the instinctive-motor center. I ponder whether objective reason requires the inclusion of the subjective inner world of the feeling center of relationship to enter the ‘Kingdom of Heaven’.

How is that subjectivity has become an inherent quality of the inner world?

 

[go2]

I begin to consider the inner subjective world of the feeling center to be the reconciliation of the thinking center and the instinctive-motor center. I ponder whether objective reason requires the inclusion of the subjective inner world of the feeling center of relationship to enter the ‘Kingdom of Heaven’.

How is that subjectivity has become an inherent quality of the inner world?

Ana, I will try to convey my emerging thoughts on this subject. Our inner state is mapped by the brain. I cannot know your inner state of being, nor you mine, except in so far as I express it by word, posture, gesture etc. Our internal states are the subject of the feeling center. Hence, the feeling center function is by its nature, subjective. However, we can be objective about our subjectivity.

Edit: I may be on thin ice talking about subject, subjective, and subjectivity. The words may have meaning which are context specific. Subjectivity is often described in Work language as internal considering. I attempt to make clear that the feeling center maps the self-other relationship and is one of man's three brained possibilities for experiencing any event. I want to emphasize the role of the feeling center in a normal life. There may be a better word or way to describe the internal nature of our feeling center function.

 

[LIMIT]

Without quoting or addressing anyone in particular here, i wish to express my gratitude for the deeply considered responses to my efforts to expose true objectivity in this matter of sorrow, our common father and paying for our arising.

Let me say that i am not 'pecking' Mr Gurdjieff to pieces, even if it were possible. I have a deep regard for his wisdom. I merely have issues with some of his terminology and an unwavering love and respect for women in general, particularly mothers.

None of you have really addressed the issue of his use of a male deity, nor have you fully addressed the idea that this male deity has infinite sorrow that our ancestors caused that we must pay for. The Universe as i understand it embodies free will, so why does our common ancestor sorrow. Why cannot it just allow? To me this is but another guilt trip, a narcissitic emotional response and i reject it as psychopathological.

I can see deeply entrenched identification with Gurdjieff in most of these responses - why is that - am i really misreading?

"Even a single passion still lurking in the heart has the power to obscure reason.
Passion and reason cannot exist side by side - therefore fight without quarter is necessary for good to prevail."
From #43; Breakthrough, I Ching, Wilhelm translation

Yes i am a machine, but no, the machine is not totally in control. If anything, it is responding to the subtle controls of its higher reality inasmuch as i Work to allow it. Peace and fruitful discussion in this network of growing awareness. :)

 

[ana]

I begin to consider the inner subjective world of the feeling center to be the reconciliation of the thinking center and the instinctive-motor center. I ponder whether objective reason requires the inclusion of the subjective inner world of the feeling center of relationship to enter the ‘Kingdom of Heaven’.

How is that subjectivity has become an inherent quality of the inner world?

Our internal states are the subject of the feeling center.

How about the thinking center? Doesn't your thinking processes define your inner world too?

Hence, the feeling center function is by its nature, subjective. However, we can be objective about our subjectivity.

In popular parlance, subjectivity is often linked to emotional reaction. Subjectivity is however not the same thing as emotion. Subjectivity is the preference to rather consider one's favorite beliefs than the external world. Such a tendency is generally backed by a strong emotional attachment to these beliefs. Emotion in itself may serve seeing the world as it is, thus subjectivity is rather a misuse of emotion than its intrinsic attribute.

As I see it, the observer (consciousness unit/soul) uses different organs of perception and knowledge which vary depending on the level of growth / evolution of this; the feeling center as the thinking center are organs of perception and knowledge, they are not subjective nor objective and their use in haras of objectivity or subjectivity completely depend of the observer.

I cannot know your inner state of being, nor you mine, except in so far as I express it by word, posture, gesture etc.

We are not our feelings nor our thoughts however how we use them (management of the inner world) tells about us/the observer, osit. :)

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Let me say that i am not 'pecking' Mr Gurdjieff to pieces, even if it were possible. I have a deep regard for his wisdom. I merely have issues with some of his terminology and an unwavering love and respect for women in general, particularly mothers.

Well, I think that's a good thing. This is a shot in the dark, but do you have an unwavering love for fathers as well? Is there something, perhaps in your past, that could have tainted the view you have of men and fathers in general? If that's the case, it would be ordinary as men (psychopaths or just ponerized) are responsible for a whole lot of evil in this world. But that doesn't mean it's the only way.

None of you have really addressed the issue of his use of a male deity, nor have you fully addressed the idea that this male deity has infinite sorrow that our ancestors caused that we must pay for. The Universe as i understand it embodies free will, so why does our common ancestor sorrow. Why cannot it just allow? To me this is but another guilt trip, a narcissitic emotional response and i reject it as psychopathological.

Perhaps it might be good to think of sorrow in an evolutionary context, as in Dabrowski's theory of positive disintegration. Can you think of how sorrow might facilitate the process of personal growth?

I can see deeply entrenched identification with Gurdjieff in most of these responses - why is that - am i really misreading?

Well, as the rules of the forum point out, this forum is in large based on the work of Gurdjieff. That doesn't mean he was perfect, just that he knew a lot, verified by our own experience.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Our internal states are the subject of the feeling center.

How about the thinking center? Doesn't your thinking processes define your inner world too?

I think go2 is literally writing about our 'internal' states, as in, the states we feel within our bodies: the flow of adrenaline, our "heart jumping into our throats", the diffuse feeling of sorrow or joy or awe, the heat and pulse in our extremities and trunk when we're angry, the blush when we're embarrassed, etc. It's a perspective developed by Keith Buzzell in his fourth way books. Buzzell is a medical doctor who tries to use the latest research in brain science in application to Gurdjieff's work, especially his concept of "three-brained beings". Basically, he takes Paul MacLean's triune brain theory and shows its correspondence with G's work.

So, first we have the core or reptilian brain, which is concerned almost solely with the external world and survival. It is 'sensorimotor/instinctive'. However, there is a very small aspect of second brain and third brain, but not much (e.g. if the thin layer of cells surrounding a frog's brain is removed, it ceases to initiate movement - you've effectively removed it's third brain). Then, with mammals comes the emotional center or brain. Mammals have a much more developed internal environment (sympathetic/parasympathetic nervous systems which facilitate the very much heightened experience of internal sensations and emotions, a diaphragm, warm-bloodedness, etc.). The second brain is not so much concerned with survival in the external world, but more with survival in a social context: nurturing young, taking social roles, developing relationships with the group, etc.). Then, with the development of the third brain comes the ability to abstract, plan, be creative, develop a sense of 'I' (albeit a mechanical one), etc. This is very oversimplified, but I think it covers the gist of it.

So emotional center provides the foundation for our internal world (one that is present only in a very rudimentary degree in reptiles, for example), which is then accessible to the third brain. We can think about, identify, name, sort our internal states. But without a second brain, we wouldn't have those states (I'm thinking a psychopath probably has the 'internal' landscape of a reptile, very little inner body sensation besides possibly pain, adrenaline, orgasm, satiety, fatigue - purely body states but without the emotions which our heightened internal awareness should naturally facilitate).

Hence, the feeling center function is by its nature, subjective. However, we can be objective about our subjectivity.

In popular parlance, subjectivity is often linked to emotional reaction. Subjectivity is however not the same thing as emotion. Subjectivity is the preference to rather consider one's favorite beliefs than the external world. Such a tendency is generally backed by a strong emotional attachment to these beliefs. Emotion in itself may serve seeing the world as it is, thus subjectivity is rather a misuse of emotion than its intrinsic attribute.

As I see it, the observer (consciousness unit/soul) uses different organs of perception and knowledge which vary depending on the level of growth / evolution of this; the feeling center as the thinking center are organs of perception and knowledge, they are not subjective nor objective and their use in haras of objectivity or subjectivity completely depend of the observer.

That's true using the words they way we tend to use them on the forum. However, in the philosophical sense, a subject is simply "a thinking or feeling entity; the conscious mind; the ego, esp. as opposed to anything external to the mind." So anything relating to a certain entity in contrast to anything external to it is considered "subjective". Emotions, because I feel them within my body, and with my own awareness, are 'subjective'. They're part of me as a subject, not the outside world of objects. Again, not exactly how we tend to use the words, but pretty common in philosophy and psychology (e.g. Dabrowski talks about learning to see ourselves as objects and others as subjects - ordinarily people are identified with their own subjectivity and see and treat other people as objects).

From such a view, subjectivity can be a good thing, e.g. in what Dabrowski calls "subject-object in oneself". That is, self-observation, where the true 'subject' (true I) observes and directs the lower self, ("it" - the object that is our body and false personality).

 

[ana]

I understand :), I am simply no longer satisfied with the philosophical and psychological explanations that’s why I make use of the words and material we tend to use in the forum when explaining my view and experience, although I very much understand how useful the philosophical and psychological material can be in many instances.

 

[Buddy]

What a fanstastic post Go2, you put it so much better than I could have.

Hear Hear, and same here!

In both ISOTM and in the Tales we are told that literal teachings perish and meanings change over time - even in some cases he states in the tales, to become almost the opposite of the originators intended meaning.
...
So to my mind in the Tales G does not only provide us a set of concepts as such, he illustrates them in action in myth.
...
I would be curious what other think of the reason for mythological form of exposition and pro's and cons.

Pros? The ability to accomplish what Go2 describes by using whatever linguistic structure is capable of communicating "process and action" to the inner being.

Cons? To the literal minded, the same problem, as always. Translating noun for noun without realizing the inadequacy and the changing meanings of a language not suited for the purpose of accomplishing what was mentioned in the "Pros" above.

For example, if we can assume for the sake of argument, that there was a period of history which involved serious earth changes while man was also around, we might make a different assessment of "dragon" stories, for example.

First, I believe 'early man' had a 'cyclic' sense of time and full-being (more or less) connection to the world/universe around him. As such, he experienced the world around him as events, or patterns of activity in cyclic format - daily, weekly, seasonally, etc. and his language (what he had of it) naturally reflected this particular state of awareness.

So, during earth changes, when the ground would crack into fissures and there would be shaking of the ground, roaring noises and fire bellowing up, it seems quite natural to encapsulate all these happenings as "dragons living underground or in caves. With the "dragon" concept created, fireballs with tails streaming to earth could be described as "dragons" flying and breathing fire or whatnot.

All this could be part of an Oral tradition to keep 'remembering' alive. When "linear time" man came, with his linear storytelling, internal narrative mindset and translated the Oral tradition, you then have the kinds of stories we can read today, looking for hidden meaning where there is none. That is to say, there is meaning 'hidden', but it's in plain sight to those of the original or similar mindset. OSIT.

--------------------

None of you have really addressed the issue of his use of a male deity, nor have you fully addressed the idea that this male deity has infinite sorrow that our ancestors caused that we must pay for.

Personally, I don't know that G's statement was meant to be taken literally.

The Universe as i understand it embodies free will, so why does our common ancestor sorrow. Why cannot it just allow?

Are the two ideas mutually exclusive? Do you not have to first 'allow' something before you can address it? To me, the question reads as if you are thinking that freewill in this context demands non-interference and maybe it does, but may I ask you something possibly related? Let's say you were to go to one of my enemies and explain what you understand of me well enough that my 'problem' finally dawns on him and he understands. Further, let's say that the natural compassion and understanding of this gentleman allows him to "release me from a karmic debt" by his own choice.

Do you think I will hold you responsible for violating my freewill in this context? Heck no! I would appreciate you more than you could handle, as you would have speeded up my progress!

At least I was thinking this might be a good example.

To me this is but another guilt trip, a narcissitic emotional response and i reject it as psychopathological.

Why? To my understanding of narcissism, your statement suggests one of two ways to look at this in narcissistic terms. One, someone is making narcissistic expectations or demands of another from their false personality. Two, the 'victim' is being made to feel guilty by not acting on the motivations of his own false personality in order to please another. But this only applies to people who act on the motivations and desires of the false personality which has been trained to make other people happy and to demand said happiness from others served on a silver platter.

It does Not apply to people who are Not still in that state where they suffer disconnect between their own behavior and the motivations and desires of their Real self (in 3D terms). It was to those people that G's statement was being addressed with any expectations of being acted upon, OSIT.

So, which one do you mean?

I can see deeply entrenched identification with Gurdjieff in most of these responses - why is that - am i really misreading?

Could be. I am aware of the history of the posters in this thread who have quoted or mentioned Gurdjieff. I don't see identification, I see a respect for the work of a smart man who left mankind a legacy, yet didn't quite have the 'whole banana', so-to-speak.

"Even a single passion still lurking in the heart has the power to obscure reason.
Passion and reason cannot exist side by side - therefore fight without quarter is necessary for good to prevail."
From #43; Breakthrough, I Ching, Wilhelm translation

This may be true. And I believe it is. The Sufis and Chinese TAOists have said as much, though in different words. The problem is, we're not there yet. And it seems to me that to be concerned about that, at this point, when there is more basic Work to do, is to simply continue on, disconnected/disassociated from reality and pretending an enlightenment.

But these are just my thoughts and I could be off. :)

 

[go2]

In popular parlance, subjectivity is often linked to emotional reaction. Subjectivity is however not the same thing as emotion. Subjectivity is the preference to rather consider one's favorite beliefs than the external world. Such a tendency is generally backed by a strong emotional attachment to these beliefs. Emotion in itself may serve seeing the world as it is, thus subjectivity is rather a misuse of emotion than its intrinsic attribute.

Our internal states are the subject of the feeling center.

How about the thinking center? Doesn't your thinking processes define your inner world too?

I guess it depends on what you mean by ‘define’. What is the subject of the thinking center associative functions? The thinking center does not directly monitor or analyze the electro-chemical signals which indicate the state of being of our body. The thinking center receives data on the internal electro-chemical state of the body from the feeling center and data from the instinctive-motor center. These data streams are the subjects of the thinking center associations. Then, after associative processing the thinking center sends data back to the feeling center and the motor-instinctive center in a feedback loop. The feedback loops between centers creates harmony between the functions of the three centers. The harmonic experience by the three centers of every present event is a condition to become a Real Man or a Real Woman dwelling in a Higher Being Body as I understand our center dynamics and our higher possibilities. It is complex and I could be wrong on some details.

So, yes the thinking center ‘assigns meaning to’ and ‘names’ the data from the feeling center and the instinctive-motor center but it does not directly feel or sense the electro-chemical physical state of the body. The thinking center can imagine it feels or senses, but that would be the wrong use of the thinking center unless it is ‘acting as if’. The right use of the thinking center is to use its abstracting associative cortex to apply logic, reason, pattern recognition, naming etc. to the data stream from the feeling and thinking center.

Ana, thank you for noticing my use of ‘subjectivity’ and thank you for the Cassiopedia definition of ‘subjectivity’ which is the source of my mentioning ‘subjectivity’ for our perusal. I want to thank Approaching Infinity for his clear moderation of our consideration of ‘subjectivity’ and for explaining the dynamics of our three brain functioning. I found the forum usage of 'subjectivity' ambiguous and confusing, but now I see.

Sources:
All and Everything “An Objectively Impartial Criticism of the Life of Man” or Beelzebub’s Tales to His Grandson…G. Gurdjieff
Perspectives On Beelzebub’s Tales….Keith A. Buzzell
Explorations In Active Mentation….Keith A. Buzzell
Self Out of Mind…Antonio Damasio

I can see deeply entrenched identification with Gurdjieff in most of these responses - why is that - am i really misreading?

LIMIT, there is enough material on the Cassiopaea Forum to awaken the dead and you are swatting flies, but then so am I. ;)

 

[ana]

Our internal states are the subject of the feeling center.

How about the thinking center? Doesn't your thinking processes define your inner world too?

I guess it depends on what you mean by ‘define’.

I may be wrong but when I think of "internal states" I do not associate it just to the feeling center but to the management of all the organs of perception and knowledge in this case the feeling, motor and thinking center.

So when you say:

I begin to consider the inner subjective world of the feeling center to be the reconciliation of the thinking center and the instinctive-motor center. I ponder whether objective reason requires the inclusion of the subjective inner world of the feeling center of relationship to enter the ‘Kingdom of Heaven’.

I think you kind of identify the feeling center with subjectivity and subjectivity with the inner world and then its integration with the thinking and motor center as the means for achieve objectivity, when as I see it:

The observer (consciousness unit/soul) uses different organs of perception and knowledge which vary depending on the level of growth / evolution of this; the feeling center as the thinking center are organs of perception and knowledge, they are not subjective nor objective and their use in haras of objectivity or subjectivity completely depend of the observer.

So it is the observer whom is subjective and has the capacity to choose otherwise.

A parable found in the most ancient sources permits us to get a clear picture of this, and so keep this condition in mind. It is the parable ofthe Coach.
This image represents the characteristics of man by a coach. The physical body is represented by the coach itself; the horses represent sensations, feelings and passions; the coachman is the ensemble of the intellectual faculties including reason; the person sitting in the coach is the master.
In its normal state, the whole system is in a perfect state of operation: the coachman holds the reins firmly in his hands and drives the horses in the direction indicated by the master. This, however, is not how things happen in the immense majority of cases. First of all, the master is absent.

What I see is that our inner state is formed by all of the above, the horses are no more subjective than the coach nor the coach is more subjective than the coachman because they are all tools. Subjectivity is the absence of the master/the observer and objectivity its presence and use of the tools, osit.

 

[go2]

snip......

A parable found in the most ancient sources permits us to get a clear picture of this, and so keep this condition in mind. It is the parable ofthe Coach.
This image represents the characteristics of man by a coach. The physical body is represented by the coach itself; the horses represent sensations, feelings and passions; the coachman is the ensemble of the intellectual faculties including reason; the person sitting in the coach is the master.
In its normal state, the whole system is in a perfect state of operation: the coachman holds the reins firmly in his hands and drives the horses in the direction indicated by the master. This, however, is not how things happen in the immense majority of cases. First of all, the master is absent.

What I see is that our inner state is formed by all of the above, the horses are no more subjective than the coach nor the coach is more subjective than the coachman because they are all tools. Subjectivity is the absence of the master/the observer and objectivity its presence and use of the tools, osit.

Ana, thanks for the attention and opportunity to explore the concepts of awakening as conveyed by different models of the inner man. I have found the detailed exploration of the awakening traditions useful in furthering my understanding and possibility of awakening to the presence of the master.

Our inner state depends on the neural network established between the individual centers of the instinctive-motor, feeling, and thinking functions. Each centers output data is potentially the subject of the other centers input function. Each center's function is subjective in and of itself. The subjective inner state is the result of the use of only one or two functions in attending each present event. This is the nature of the automatic man. He cannot hear the voice of the master.

The parable of the coach and the missing master is useful, but I have a problem translating it to Gurdjieff's enneagramatic three-brained model of the inner man, which comes to us from another realm. The horses are said to represent sensations, feelings and passions. Where is the sensing of the external world? The horses cannot both represent the feeling center and the instinctive-motor center. This condition is the fusing of the sensing and feeling functions, which is the source of negative emotion and the failure of automatic man to separate the inner world from the outer world leading to a host of pathologies.

The appearance and presence of the master with 'objective reason' depends on establishing a two way communication network between the inherent subjectivity of each center functioning independently, without feedback or two way communication between each center and the master. Objectivity is the result of the gradual decrease of subjectivity when we harmonize the internal communication between centers. Mr. Gurdjieff gives us a method which can also be an aim established by the master to direct and measure our progress in tuning our instrument. 'Itoklanoz' is all our past. Brain is a center or function. 'Iransamkeep' is an aim or purpose.

"In the common presence of every being existing merely on the basis of 'Itoklanoz', 'something' similar to the regulator in a mechanical watch is present and is called 'Iransamkeep'; this 'something' means: 'not-to-give-oneself-up-to-those-of-one's-associations-resulting-from-the-functioning-of-only-one-or-another-of-one's-brains.'