Study and Discussion of the Moving Center

[obyvatel]

I am beginning to see some people differently. I don't know how to explain it but I am seeing beauty, an unexplainable thing. Seeing that, it made me think that I never really knew all these people, being behind the veil. I never knew you could actually have such intimate contact with another human being. Just wow I guess. Could this be some kind of awakening of empathy?

It could be empathy. It could also be projection. You may be discovering things within yourself due to your own inner Work creating a change within yourself which you may be projecting on the world and people out there. Only careful and impartial observation about others, trying to see them as they are with all their "good" and "bad" characteristics, and the way you act with them (external consideration) would reveal whether it is true empathy or not. OSIT

I agree with you and tend to answer yes to your question.

Personally I feel that there are a lot of beautiful souls, on here and IRL, who go unrecognized because they unintentionally and unconsciously misrepresent themselves when they speak. I also wonder a lot about people who may be very aware and yet refuse to speak, or refuse to speak much, because they see no adequate way to express themselves?

I believe this to be one effect of English (and all other languages like it), since it's so innately pugilistic, antagonistic, oppositional, contradictory, and so on, yet what choices do we have?

From my understanding, expressing oneself through actions instead of words is more indicative of meaningful development. And that is the way that one can usually recognize the beautiful soul in another. And in such cases, limitations of language may not pose a significant barrier.

 

[stellar]

Been a little busy reading a couple of other books, when I decided to give this topic a quick read ( it's grown so fast!). I realised that this very topic is what I am reading about in 'SELF OBSERVATTION' by RED HAWK (HOHM Press).

It actually has some very easily explained exercises for this very purpose of the Work on self. A bit of synchronisity...who knows. For me it has been immeasurably helpful in grasping some of G's teachings a little more clearly. Highly recommend it.

 

[Buddy]

From my understanding, expressing oneself through actions instead of words is more indicative of meaningful development. And that is the way that one can usually recognize the beautiful soul in another. And in such cases, limitations of language may not pose a significant barrier.

Hmm, ok kewl. I'll take that the way I think you must mean it and the way that I agree with it, though I'd have to replace "the way" with "a way". I know of cases that suggests that relationships between language development and action can make the issue complex. At any rate, I agree with your comments as a general statement that can be made on the question, but I was referring to my own perception.

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

Confusing... but I think I get what you are getting at. My thinking doesn't do well on paradoxes. Don't take me seriously here but I think that turning point is where you end up thinking "Oh God! Nothing Matters! Everything just IS!" :D

I don't like confusing anyone, so apologies for that. If you see the 'turning point', then I'd just add that maybe a reaction could also be like: "Oh God! All (just) happens! All matters! (don't forget the "included middle"). :)

 

[Psalehesost]

This thread has had me questioning what number of man I am.

These were my old thoughts in The Swamp:

I don't know whether I am actually a "man 2" or a "man 3" - in going over memories, this has long been unclear, given the very strong emotionality experienced in the earlier parts of my life - at the same time, intellect was ahead of age in early childhood and also quite active and involved, and as the emotional center later went - not altogether to sleep, but more into a toxic, numbed yet active stupor - it became the center of gravity of what was "conscious".

[...] Looking at my life, it seems that I have lived at once as a sick "man 2" (who knows mainly what he "does not like" rather than what he "does like") and a somewhat healthier, yet confused, "man 3". Confused in large part because of the befuddling influence of a sickened emotional center.

The solution is elegant and simple - I am neither!

Like some in this thread, I used to think of "man 1" in terms of a "physically focused" and in that sense active person; going by Gurdjieff's description, I also do not seem to be "man 1" 'in the fullest sense', as in someone who 'learns everything like a parrot or a monkey'. Nevertheless, "lopsidedness" varies in strength and character - and there is something that can define "man 1" that is very clear in me:

A moving center type may tend to rely on senses, as in "if I do not see it, it is not so" or "if I see it, I see it as it truly is." This is not limited to physical senses but can extend to intuitions, ESP and the like, which are in part functions of the intelligent part of the moving/instinctive center. With man 1, experience takes precedence.

Sensing, including "mental sensations" (here I mean sensations connected with or arising from, in general, all manner of psychological processes concerning thoughts, feelings and experiences) - it has been at the center of my focus for as long as I can remember - the forms vary, as well as the things connected to it, but there it is - the elephant in the room regarding all my prior thoughts on my "type".

My motivations (and the actual root of my interests) have very often been "sensate" - only not physical sensation but the above-mentioned. Everything from daydreaming, fantasies, gaming, reading and watching fiction - to music and especially sound in itself - and generally doing things - much, perhaps most, was all along all about this.

Boredom or lack of interest in a subject was typically all about not experiencing such "sensation" connected to it. (I suspect higher maths became hopeless in large part for pretty much this reason)

For a moving center dominated man, the response though quick is less likely to have much of an emotional flavor. It is more likely to be a response which is sort of dry and may seem to be superficially intellectual. He is more likely to search his memory banks to pick out what he thinks is an appropriate response, working chiefly through his formatory apparatus. In many cases the lack of depth would become discernible as compared to a more studied and deliberate response of Man 3. An intellectual man may wait longer to process the information and may even ask more questions to gather more data before giving a response.

That describes me very well in life, as opposed to when I sit down and work on some intellectual problem. "Pondering" for me is often about "sensing" what "seems" right rather than analyzing things, kind of simply stalling, "digging around" repetitively in the mind, until there is a coherent impression. Not always, but still all too often - this became a deeply ingrained habit in my teens, when I became less spontaneous, more inhibited, more stuck in my head and less in touch with my body (along with my emotions).


All the above realizations have made me think of myself differently - I also feel different - and memories from throughout life have gathered that cement a new impression of myself. Now to examine further what this all means in practical terms - it may give some new (or clearer) ideas of strengths, weaknesses and possible approaches in many contexts...

 

[stainlesssteve]

There are some very beautiful aspects in the excerpts from ISOTM, but the bit most pertinent to helping the person biased toward the moving centre (or the intellectual centre, as most people posting on this thread seem to be, for that matter) is the bit where he says anything new must come through the emotional centre.
G is quoted as saying we are all born either #1, #2 or #3. He also says all is material, even volition. A lot of work has been done in 4th way groups and schools, since these conversations were held. A lot of change has occurred in the general zeitgeist in the last century. People had different illusions, to those we hold dear today. I believe Gurdjieff, and many people have been born well-balanced. Will is other than material.
The great truth that the emotional centre is the key, does not stop being true when balance is reached; the nurture and feeding of the emotional centre continues to be central to development; what becomes more crucial is purity of intention, unselfishness.
Enough theory, already!
The best, most wonderful food of the kind favored by types #3, (who I'd guess would be most people reading this), which I found lately, is the writings of Martin Prechtel. His first book, Secrets Of The Talking Jaguar, contains the most wonderful description of a mystical state, as refered to in Laura's extract above. He writes with mastery and sublimity. He describes the language and culture of a Guatamalan village of 25,000 people, and his own journey as a shaman and a village elder.
Truly food fit for the gods' emotional centers

 

[Buddy]

All the above realizations have made me think of myself differently - I also feel different - and memories from throughout life have gathered that cement a new impression of myself. Now to examine further what this all means in practical terms...

Why stop to measure at this point? :)

...there is something that can define "man 1" that is very clear in me:

A moving center type may tend to rely on senses, as in "if I do not see it, it is not so" or "if I see it, I see it as it truly is." This is not limited to physical senses but can extend to intuitions, ESP and the like, which are in part functions of the intelligent part of the moving/instinctive center. With man 1, experience takes precedence.

Sensing, including "mental sensations" (here I mean sensations connected with or arising from, in general, all manner of psychological processes concerning thoughts, feelings and experiences) - it has been at the center of my focus for as long as I can remember - the forms vary, as well as the things connected to it, but there it is - the elephant in the room regarding all my prior thoughts on my "type".

My motivations (and the actual root of my interests) have very often been "sensate" - only not physical sensation but the above-mentioned. Everything from daydreaming, fantasies, gaming, reading and watching fiction - to music and especially sound in itself - and generally doing things - much, perhaps most, was all along all about this.

Sensate is important for anyone who wants to feel, OSIT. Levels of semantic abstractions removed from the more physical realms seem to also have properties that are real and sensible enough to me at least. A key understanding for me is that "subjective" is not equal to "non-objective" in every context. If sensate is subjective, yet one is dealing in non-imaginary quantum possibilities somewhere on a continuum of increasing or decreasing probabilities, then one is still in reality, OSIT.

I understand "the moving center type" to also include a rigid anthropocentric perspective as well, so I certainly see no "either/or situation" here as far as sensate is concerned and as far as I can tell. I'm curious if this make sense?

Boredom or lack of interest in a subject was typically all about not experiencing such "sensation" connected to it. (I suspect higher maths became hopeless in large part for pretty much this reason)

Same here. To me, there's a point where some math(s) become entirely subjective in an imaginary way and my brain sees no point in pursuing what seems so irrelevant and useless in a corresponding context. In fact, it gets a bit rebellious. :)

 

[beetlemaniac]

It could be empathy. It could also be projection. You may be discovering things within yourself due to your own inner Work creating a change within yourself which you may be projecting on the world and people out there. Only careful and impartial observation about others, trying to see them as they are with all their "good" and "bad" characteristics, and the way you act with them (external consideration) would reveal whether it is true empathy or not. OSIT

I never thought that it could be a projection. It shows how easily I take experiences literally. That matches with the man #1 orientation: "if I do not see it, it is not so" or "if I see it, I see it as it truly is." I will double my efforts at external considering and watch out for feelings that seem too "surreal."

A moving center type may tend to rely on senses, as in "if I do not see it, it is not so" or "if I see it, I see it as it truly is." This is not limited to physical senses but can extend to intuitions, ESP and the like, which are in part functions of the intelligent part of the moving/instinctive center. With man 1, experience takes precedence.

Sensing, including "mental sensations" (here I mean sensations connected with or arising from, in general, all manner of psychological processes concerning thoughts, feelings and experiences) - it has been at the center of my focus for as long as I can remember - the forms vary, as well as the things connected to it, but there it is - the elephant in the room regarding all my prior thoughts on my "type".

My motivations (and the actual root of my interests) have very often been "sensate" - only not physical sensation but the above-mentioned. Everything from daydreaming, fantasies, gaming, reading and watching fiction - to music and especially sound in itself - and generally doing things - much, perhaps most, was all along all about this.

Boredom or lack of interest in a subject was typically all about not experiencing such "sensation" connected to it. (I suspect higher maths became hopeless in large part for pretty much this reason)

I can really identify with this as well. I loved graphic/web design, playing guitar and of course, video games. Computers and tech in general was a life long obsession. Not to mention food. I hated the harder maths subjects, and in my engineering course I found topics related to practical situations and concrete things much easier to grasp, and they were fun. The abstract stuff like maths and Maxwell's equations were anathema.

That describes me very well in life, as opposed to when I sit down and work on some intellectual problem. "Pondering" for me is often about "sensing" what "seems" right rather than analyzing things, kind of simply stalling, "digging around" repetitively in the mind, until there is a coherent impression. Not always, but still all too often - this became a deeply ingrained habit in my teens, when I became less spontaneous, more inhibited, more stuck in my head and less in touch with my body (along with my emotions).

That's the type of thinking that I do a lot as well. For me, I see progress when things begin to "make sense," without really knowing how the "sense" actually came about, although I remember that this could be attributed to an increase in Understanding and a change in Being. Only once in a while do I really use reason, it's usually when another person makes me do it. But I have noticed that in situations of heavy emotional content, like some kind of depression, the only way to get out is to use proper "conscious" reasoning.

 

[anart]

There are some very beautiful aspects in the excerpts from ISOTM, but the bit most pertinent to helping the person biased toward the moving centre (or the intellectual centre, as most people posting on this thread seem to be, for that matter)

Hi steve, there really isn't any way you could know that from reading this thread.

is the bit where he says anything new must come through the emotional centre.

Yep, the emotional center is key.

G is quoted as saying we are all born either #1, #2 or #3. He also says all is material, even volition. A lot of work has been done in 4th way groups and schools, since these conversations were held. A lot of change has occurred in the general zeitgeist in the last century.

Actually, very little has changed - man is still mechanical, the world is still in chaos.

People had different illusions, to those we hold dear today. I believe Gurdjieff, and many people have been born well-balanced. Will is other than material.

The illusions may have changed, though most are the same - man still lives wholly in illusion.

The great truth that the emotional centre is the key, does not stop being true when balance is reached; the nurture and feeding of the emotional centre continues to be central to development; what becomes more crucial is purity of intention, unselfishness.

Sounds true enough.

Enough theory, already!

Yes, you're engaging in what Gurdjieff would call 'philosophizing' (or wise-acring) which he considered a complete waste of energy, for the most part. It's understandable, but it can be a great exercise to hold oneself back from the impulse to do so. Once I realized that I truly know nothing, it became a lot easier to hold my horses on the 'explaining the obvious' front. :)

 

[anart]

Sensate is important for anyone who wants to feel, OSIT.

You might have misunderstood psalehesost - his post had some very interesting insight into his condition and state of being. There is a significant difference, to my understanding, between 'sensate' as you put it and emotion, though one does 'feel' emotion - it is qualitatively different.

Levels of semantic abstractions removed from the more physical realms seem to also have properties that are real and sensible enough to me at least. A key understanding for me is that "subjective" is not equal to "non-objective" in every context. If sensate is subjective, yet one is dealing in non-imaginary quantum possibilities somewhere on a continuum of increasing or decreasing probabilities, then one is still in reality, OSIT.

Bud, the above is more of your word salad - please keep it simple and clear. Emotion can also be subjective, everything can - and sensate and emotion can be objective.

I understand "the moving center type" to also include a rigid anthropocentric perspective as well, so I certainly see no "either/or situation" here as far as sensate is concerned and as far as I can tell. I'm curious if this make sense?

All types, to my understanding can include a rigid anthropocentric perspective - it's part of the human illusion. fwiw.

 

[Buddy]

@anart: I understand what you're saying and will try harder to remember simplicity. Thanks for the valuable input!

 

[stainlesssteve]

Hi Anart,
The changes I'm referring to are around responsibility.
Gurdjieff brought the concept of "cannot do" to a world in which people thought they were responsible for their actions. The sad fact is that they were not nearly as responsible as they thought they were. The shock of the doctrine of "cannot do", is one of the most easily discernible influences of Gurdjieff on modern thought...it has been amply reflected in law.
Your assertions that illusion is universal, that everybody always lies, that I am wiseacring, that I cannot know, for the most part, what kind of person posts here, these are rather sweeping statements. I may wiseacre, but I don't lie. And I don't care what Gurdjieff would have thought of me. I'm quite satisfied to have you for my teacher.

 

[anart]

Hi Anart,
The changes I'm referring to are around responsibility.
Gurdjieff brought the concept of "cannot do" to a world in which people thought they were responsible for their actions. The sad fact is that they were not nearly as responsible as they thought they were.

Which is exactly the same now.

The shock of the doctrine of "cannot do", is one of the most easily discernible influences of Gurdjieff on modern thought...it has been amply reflected in law.

Could you clarify? I see no objective nor universal change in the state of man from the time that Gurdjieff was actively teaching, but perhaps I am misunderstanding you.

Your assertions that illusion is universal, that everybody always lies, that I am wiseacring, that I cannot know, for the most part, what kind of person posts here, these are rather sweeping statements.

I think that you might be reading them as more sweeping than they are, and engaging in some black and white thinking. I did not speak in absolutes. I am merely pointing out very simple facts which you seemed to be unaware of due to your statements.

I may wiseacre, but I don't lie.

Sure you do - you lie to yourself every day, we all do - it is part of the human condition and buffering.

And I don't care what Gurdjieff would have thought of me.

That's certainly your prerogative.

I'm quite satisfied to have you for my teacher.

Well, the network is the teacher here - I am a student. :)

 

[Buddy]

[quote author=stainlesssteve]
Your assertions that illusion is universal, that everybody always lies, that I am wiseacring, that I cannot know, for the most part, what kind of person posts here, these are rather sweeping statements. I may wiseacre, but I don't lie.[/quote]

Part of my understanding of the Cassiopaean Experiment, as seen my own peculiar way, is of trying to find a way to flip our "classical" mindset, with its subject-object metaphysics into a more quantum middle-included mindset so that we may become a Quantum Future Group being, so-to-speak. So, your awareness of whether you lie or lie not, depends on what mindset your activity is viewed from, OSIT. Cue The First Initiation.

I know I still lie in many ways and contexts and it embarrasses me, but I'm working on it. Sorry anart, I don't think this came out so simply this time.

 

[stainlesssteve]

Anart, you have asked me to enlarge on an aspect of the conversation relating to the history of ideas, over the last century or so. I'd love to explore this. Would it be correct to say we should start another thread? Again, there seems to be another topic opening up on the subject of illusions. I think this is a fabulous topic to open up, but I can't see much relevance, directly, to the particular needs of body-centered people. I see that need as being met in exposure to natural and cultural beauty.
With respect to the discussion about lying, please note that the deSalzmann quote you've been wearing around your neck for seven years, says "try, for a moment, to imagine, that you tell lies, complete lies and nothing but lies" or words to that effect. Perhaps, Anart, the moment has passed?
The concept is magnificent, and iconoclastic, but never intended to be permanent?
The illusions which have not changed ( we are in agreement here ) are the really big ones, the illusion of immortality, when young, and, ( my wife who is a Buddhist suggested this: ) the illusion of separation. She means people thinking they are separate from other people. The illusions which I've seen change in sixty-odd years would include: thinking you can have something for nothing, entitlement issues ; thinking money really will bring happiness; thinking people with more money are better than people with less money. These falsehoods, at least, have had a marked development in profile, and a serious corrosive effect. These are illusions in which the bulk of people choose to be complicit. Then there are the carefully crafted illusions spawned by Disney, Hollywood, Reuters, Fox, Tavistock etc. These have elements which I think are "new, under the sun".

 

[anart]

Anart, you have asked me to enlarge on an aspect of the conversation relating to the history of ideas, over the last century or so.

I wasn't actually asking you to 'enlarge' on it - just some brief and clear evidence in a sentence or two. Brevity and clarity is valued very highly here. The truth can be said in few words - long winded philosophizing usually hides the truth.

I'd love to explore this. Would it be correct to say we should start another thread?

No, just a quick reason why you think anything at all has changed - two or three sentences, that's it.

With respect to the discussion about lying, please note that the deSalzmann quote you've been wearing around your neck for seven years, says "try, for a moment, to imagine, that you tell lies, complete lies and nothing but lies" or words to that effect. Perhaps, Anart, the moment has passed?

Nope, and people like you prove that. ;) You greatly over-estimate yourself, steve. (also, your data is incorrect, I have not had that signature for 7 years).

The concept is magnificent, and iconoclastic, but never intended to be permanent?

As long as it teaches, it is valuable, and, as I said, people like you prove its necessity.

The illusions which have not changed ( we are in agreement here ) are the really big ones, the illusion of immortality, when young, and, ( my wife who is a Buddhist suggested this: ) the illusion of separation. She means people thinking they are separate from other people.

Have you read the Wave Series in its entirety? You seem to be holding some classic newage cointelpro thinking. 'Secret History of the World' is also helpful in divesting oneself of the newage illusions that 'we are all one' - we aren't - not at this level where our lessons are to be learned, else we'd not be at this level.

The illusions which I've seen change in sixty-odd years would include: thinking you can have something for nothing, entitlement issues ; thinking money really will bring happiness; thinking people with more money are better than people with less money. These falsehoods, at least, have had a marked development in profile, and a serious corrosive effect. These are illusions in which the bulk of people choose to be complicit. Then there are the carefully crafted illusions spawned by Disney, Hollywood, Reuters, Fox, Tavistock etc. These have elements which I think are "new, under the sun".

These are all small fry. The illusions I'm speaking of are more basic - the illusion that you don't lie, for instance. The illusion that a person is one person, that a person can Do anything at all, that what we see before us is reality, that what we think are our own thoughts. Man is a food source and trapped in a time loop - any vision of human life that excludes those facts is an illusion. This is really just skimming the surface. I think checking out the newage cointelpro section here on the forum as well as reading all of Laura Knight-Jadczyk's available work will go a long way toward clarifying for you the true nature of reality and the human condition. Of course, in order for it to do that, you are going to have to let go of what you so firmly think you know - not sure if you can do that, since you appear to be quite identified with it.