The Adaptive Unconscious

Approaching Infinity said:
Biomiast said:
January 10 said:
Q: (L) Is there anything you can say to make the statement more accurate?

A: The unconscious mind is also a conduit for connecting with the higher self, other selves, and the universal mind.

That, of course, ties into what G says in Beelzebub's Tales, that humanity's true consciousness is the unconscious, and that access to higher centers comes through the emotional center...

This has been on my mind too and was trying to form a coherent picture.

The unconscious "contains" everything, it is the lower centers that have a limited acces besides their usual cahotic functioning, but as we work to balance them (which is why this book and Thinking Fast and Slow may be usefull too) new possibilities arise through the higher emotional and intellectual centers.

ISOTM said:
The existence of these higher centers in us is a greater riddle than the hidden treasure which men who believe in the existence of the mysterious and the miraculous have sought since the remotest times.

All mystical and occult systems recognize the existence of higher forces and capacities in man although, in many cases, they admit the existence of these forces and capacities only in the form of possibilities, and speak of the necessity for developing the hidden forces in man. This present teaching differs from many others by the fact that it affirms that the higher centers exist in man and are fully developed.

It is the lower centers that are undeveloped. And it is precisely this lack of development, or the incomplete functioning, of the lower centers that prevents us from making use of the work of the higher centers.
 
Bobo08 said:
mkrnhr said:
I'm still reading the book, but i don't think we cannot do nothing. The conscious and the unconscious are uncorrelated and the unconscious is not reachable form the conscious. However, what the author seems to suggest is that we can know better about the unconscious through the others, through networking.

I agree. In addition, although the unconscious is much faster and more powerful than the conscious one, we can still manipulate it in certain ways, from what I understand. First, we can try to control the inputs to the unconsious or consciously compensate for it. For example, TV influences the unconscious and we cannot do anything about it. However, we can avoid watching TV altogether, thus eliminating that harmful input. Or if I know that I have prejudice against a certain type of people, I still can't control my gut feelings, but I can try to compensate for my unconscious aversion.

Another way to influence the unconscious is by nudging it in the right direction the best we can, sort of like fake it till we make it. We won't succeed the first time, or even the n-th time. But every time we try to push in a certain direction, it re-wires the unconscious a little bit and makes it easier the next round. For example, I'm a very shy person and I've always unconsciously avoided social gatherings, small talks. Recently, I try to force myself to go to more gatherings and participate in conversations with everyone I meet. I still cringe at the thought of going to another meeting, but the more I do it, the easier it gets.

Of course, all that is predicated on knowing your unconscious, or your machine in Gurdjieff speak. And that takes a network like this one.

It's incredible to read this comments because you know, after zoning out or sleeping while doing the EE (lol) you change and you notice it after a while. For example I used to watch a lot of TV, like south park, discovery channel etc. But then I suddenly lost my interest, I rarely watch TV, when I do is to watch some movie. So I'm just adapting myself unconsciously hehe.

Buddy said:
Prometeo said:
I just had an idea, but could the adaptive unconscious could be the emotional center? I mean it works faster and you can't think by it. Just asking.

I agree with others that the "adaptive unconscious" subsumes most everything else but our in-the-moment conscious awareness, but I have a question. Do you think non-verbally (without words)? That is, can you do thought without using the language center as organ of perception or expression? I ask because I'm a bit confused by what you mean by the bolded part.

Well I thought about emotions (that communicate in a non verbal way) and the process of thinking or what impulses our thinking, that is not thinking but the different steps of thinking and not just thinking but all related to our body too. Also I had the idea based on how fast our centers work, but well all the lower centers are connected so one can't function without the other unless you cut the connection to certain center as I've read about the deteriorated of the emotional center on our culture. It is a vague idea I had, first I need to read the book.

:O Lot to think about indeed, so much things we can relate to it. Could it be that the adaptive unconscious is the mechanical part of the lower centers? or maybe it is a higher center? I don't really know. Damn I want to read that book.
 
Harold said:
I just received 'Adaptive Unconscious' and 'Redirect'. I am reading 'Adaptive Unconscious' first as it was written first I believe.

In another thread I started, it was basically suggested by Shane, Endymion, Anart, Laura and Pashalis, that I stop what I was doing. Read those books and report on my findings.

I believe you were instructed to read the books, do the exercises, and then report back. You have just had virtual psychological diarrhea again. Please try to control yourself or we will limit your posting privileges.
 
Laura said:
Harold said:
I just received 'Adaptive Unconscious' and 'Redirect'. I am reading 'Adaptive Unconscious' first as it was written first I believe.

In another thread I started, it was basically suggested by Shane, Endymion, Anart, Laura and Pashalis, that I stop what I was doing. Read those books and report on my findings.

I believe you were instructed to read the books, do the exercises, and then report back. You have just had virtual psychological diarrhea again. Please try to control yourself or we will limit your posting privileges.

Understood... I came home today with the intent of erasing much of that posting.
 
The most dramatic case of repressed feelings is reaction formation, whereby unconscious desire are disguised as their opposite. Erotic attraction toward a member of the same sex, for example, might be so threatening to people that they unconsciously transform their desire into homophobia.

The psychoanalytic view of repressed feelings has proved difficult to test in a rigourous way. Not only would researchers have to demonstrate that people have a feeling of which they are unaware-which, as we have seen, is no easy matter-they would also have to show that the reason people are unaware of the feeling is that they have repressed it. A number of writers have reviewed the evidence for repression and found it wanting.

The above kind of reminds me of a phrase that I learned from some wise people a couple of years ago 'That which you hate in others is in you but you try to hide it'. I don't know if I'm seeing this material with any great deal of depth or clarity, but I still feel that the adaptive unconscious is in some ways just us lying to ourselves. Or more precisely, just not working to see the truth in ourselves?

I dunno. Back to the book.
 
Prometeo said:
It's incredible to read this comments because you know, after zoning out or sleeping while doing the EE (lol) you change and you notice it after a while. For example I used to watch a lot of TV, like south park, discovery channel etc. But then I suddenly lost my interest, I rarely watch TV, when I do is to watch some movie. So I'm just adapting myself unconsciously hehe.

From my experience, I think one has to have a certain level of psychological "health" before being able to do the more conscious exercises like self-observation or the writing exercise. It's like one won't be able to take on physical exercises if one is still bed-ridden. And the EE program and the paleo diet seem to be the best tools to unconsciously achieve that prerequisite level of "health".
 
[quote author=Bobo08]
From my experience, I think one has to have a certain level of psychological "health" before being able to do the more conscious exercises like self-observation or the writing exercise. It's like one won't be able to take on physical exercises if one is still bed-ridden. And the EE program and the paleo diet seem to be the best tools to unconsciously achieve that prerequisite level of "health".
[/quote]

Agree about EE/paleo tools, but perhaps for some not knowing exactly (self observation measure) what a certain psychological health level looks like from ones perspective, doing these practices is still like exercising muscle atrophy in little increments like when being bed-ridden - a little is gained, it still helps one to move ahead even if you don't know exactly how it is going to work out. On the other hand, having a network to talk about it is likely very necessary too, osit.
 
Gurdjieff's concept of the formatory apparatus may be useful in understanding some of the aspects of the adaptive unconscious - specially the parts which pretend to think.

[quote author=Views From The Real World]
I have understood from conversations that people have a wrong idea about one of the centers, and this wrong idea creates many difficulties.

It is about the thinking center, that is, our formatory apparatus. All the stimuli coming from the centers are transmitted to the formatory apparatus, and all the perceptions of centers also are manifested through the formatory apparatus. It is not a center but an apparatus. It is connected with all the centers. In their turn, centers are connected with one another, but these connections are of a special kind. There is a certain degree of subjectivity, a measure of the strength of associations, which determines the possibility of intercommunication between centers. If we take vibrations between 10 and 10,000, then within this range there are many gradations divided into the definite degrees of strength of associations required for each center. Only associations of a certain strength in one center evoke corresponding associations in another; only then can a stimulus be given to corresponding connections in another center.


In the formatory apparatus connections with centers are more sensitive, because all associations reach it. Every local stimulus in the centers, every association, provokes associations in the formatory apparatus.
................

The formatory apparatus is simply a machine, just like a typewriter which transmits every impact.

The best way for me to illustrate the formatory apparatus is by an analogy. It is an office with a typist. Every incoming paper comes to her, every client who comes in addresses him- self to her. She replies to everything. The answers she gives are qualified by the fact that, in herself, she is only an employee, she does not know anything. But she has instructions, books, files and dictionaries on the shelves. If she has the where- withal to look up some particular information she does so and replies accordingly; if she hasn't, she does not answer.

This factory also has four partners who sit in four different rooms. These partners communicate with the outside world. through her. They are connected with her office by telephone. If one of them phones to her and says something, she has to pass it on further. Now each of the four directors has a different code. Suppose one of them sends her something to be transmitted exactly. Since the message is in code, she cannot pass it on as it is, for a code is something arbitrarily agreed upon. She has in her office a quantity of stereotypes, forms, and signs, which have accumulated over the years. According to whom she is in contact with, she consults a book, decodes and transmits.

If the partners want to talk to each other there is no means of communication between them. They are connected by telephone but this telephone can work only in good weather and in such, conditions of calm and quiet as seldom occur. Since such conditions are rare, they send messages through the central exchange, that is, the office. Since each one has his own code, it is the typist's job to decode and recode these messages. Consequently the decoding depends on this employee who has no interest or concern in the business. As soon as the daily grind is over she goes home. Her decoding depends on how well she is educated; typists can be of different education. One may be a fool, another may be a good business woman. There is an established routine in the office and the typist acts ac- cording to it. If she needs a certain code, she has to bring out one or another stereotype, so she uses whichever of the more frequently used stereotypes happens to be handy.

This office is a modern one and has a number of mechanical appliances, so the typist's work is very easy. She is very rarely obliged to use a typewriter. There are all sorts of inventions, both mechanical and semi-mechanical; for every kind of inquiry there are ready-made labels which are immediately affixed.
Then of course there is the almost chronic character of all typists. Usually they are young girls of a romantic disposition who spend their time reading novels and dealing with their personal correspondence. A typist is usually coquettish. She constantly looks at herself in the mirror, powders her face and busies herself with her own affairs, for her bosses are seldom there. Often she does not catch exactly what is said, but absentmindedly presses the wrong button which brings out one stereotype instead of another. What does she care—the directors come so seldom!

Just as the directors communicate with each other through her, so they do with people outside. Everything that comes in or goes out has to be decoded and recoded. It is her job to decode and recode all communications between the directors, and then forward them to their destination. It is the same with all incoming correspondence: if it is addressed to one of the directors, it is forwarded by her in the appropriate code. However, she often makes mistakes and sends something in the wrong code to one of them. He gets it and understands nothing. This is an approximate picture of the state of affairs.
This office is our formatory apparatus, and the typist represents our education, our automatically mechanical views, local cliches, theories and opinions that have been formed in us. The typist has nothing in common with the centers, and indeed not even with the formatory apparatus. But she works there, and I have explained to you what this girl means. Education has nothing to do with centers. A child is brought up thus: "If someone is shaking hands with you, you must always stand like this." All this is purely mechanical—in this case, you must do that. And once established so it remains. An adult is the same. If someone treads on his corn he reacts always in the same manner. Adults are like children, and children are like adults: all of them react. The machine works and will go on working in the same way a thousand years hence.

With time a great quantity of labels accumulates on the office shelves. The longer a man lives, the more labels there are in the office. It is so arranged that all labels of a similar kind are kept in one cupboard. So when an inquiry comes in, the typist begins to search for a suitable label. To do this she must take them out, look through and sort them until she finds the right one. A great deal depends on the tidiness of the typist and in what state she keeps her files of labels. Some typists are methodical; others not so methodical. Some keep them sorted out, others don't. One may put an incoming inquiry in a wrong drawer, others not. One finds a label at once, another looks for a long time and mixes them all up while searching.
Our so-called thoughts are nothing more than these labels taken out of the cupboard. What we call thoughts are not thoughts, we have no thoughts: we have different labels, short, abbreviated, long—but nothing except labels . These labels are shifted from one place to another. Inquiries coming from outside are what we receive as impressions. These manifestations, inquiries, come not only from without but also from different places within. All this has to be recoded..

All this chaos is what we call our thoughts and associations. At the same time a man does have thoughts. Every center thinks. These thoughts, if there are any and if they reach the formatory apparatus, reach it only in the form of stimuli and are then reconstructed, but the reconstruction is mechanical. And this is so in the best cases, for as a rule some centers have hardly any means of communicating with the formatory apparatus. Owing to faulty connections, messages are either not transmitted at all or are transmitted in distorted form. But this does not prove the absence of thought. In all centers work goes on, there are thoughts and associations, but they do not reach the formatory apparatus and so are not manifested. Nei- ther are they sent on in another direction—that is, from the formatory apparatus to the centers—and for the same reason they cannot get there from outside.

Everyone has centers; the difference lies only in the amount of material they contain. Some have more, others less. Everyone has some, the difference is only in the quantity. But the centers are the same in everyone.

A man is born like an empty cupboard or storehouse. Then material begins to accumulate. The machine works alike in everyone; the properties of the centers are the same, but, owing to their nature and the conditions of life, the links, the connections between centers, differ in degrees of sensitivity, coarseness or fineness.

The most primitive and most accessible is the connection between the moving center and the formatory apparatus. This connection is the coarsest, the most "audible," the speediest, thickest and best. It is like a large pipe (I mean here not the center itself but the connection). It is the quickest to form, and the quickest to be filled. The second is considered to be the connection with the sex center. The third—the connection with the emotional center. The fourth—the connection with the thinking center.

So the amount of material and the degree of functioning of these connections stand in this gradation. The first connection exists and functions in all men; associations are received and manifested. The second connection, the one with the sex center, exists in the majority of men. Consequently most people live with the first and second centers—their whole life, all their perceptions and manifestations come from these centers and originate in them. People whose emotional center is connected with the formatory apparatus are in the minority, and in their case all their life and manifestations proceed through it. But there is hardly anyone in whom the connection with the thinking center works.
..........................................

I began with one thing and ended by speaking of another. Let us return to what I meant to say about the formatory apparatus.

For some reason those who come to lectures call it also a center. But in order to understand what follows it is necessary to make clear that it is not a center. It is simply a certain organ, although it too is in the brain. Both in its matter and its structure it is completely different from what we call an animate center. These animate centers, if we take them singly, are in themselves animals and they live like corresponding ani- mals. This one is the brain of a worm; that one the first brain of a sheep. There are animals which have something similar. Here brains of different degrees of fineness are collected together in one. There exist one-brained organizations and two- brained organizations. So that each one of these brains in an individual organization acts as a moving factor—as a soul. They are independent. Even if they live in one and the same place, they can and do exist independently. Each has its own properties. Some people live animated now by one, now by another. Each brain has a definite, independent, specific existence. In short, according to the quality of its matter, each can be called an individual entity, a soul.

Cohesion, existence, has its own laws. From the point of view of its materiality, in accordance with the law of cohesion, the formatory apparatus is an organism. In the centers, life, associations, influence and existence are psychical, whereas in the formatory apparatus all its properties, qualities, its existence, are organic.
(Injury, sickness, treatment of sickness, disharmony are physical. Effect, cause, quality, state, change are psychical.)

To those who have heard about densities of intelligence I can say that the sex center and the moving center have a corresponding density of intelligence, whereas the formatory apparatus does not have this property. The action of these centers and their reaction are both psychical, whereas in the formatory apparatus they are both material. Consequently our thinking, our so-called thoughts—if the cause and effect of this thinking lie in the formatory apparatus—are material. No matter how highly varied our thinking may be, no matter what label it bears, what guise it assumes, what high-sounding name it has, the value of this thinking is simply material. And material things are, for instance, bread, coffee, the fact that some- one has trodden on my corn, looking sideways or straight, scratching my back, and so on. If this material, such as pain in the corn, etc., were absent, there would be no thinking.
[/quote]
 
obyvatel said:
Gurdjieff's concept of the formatory apparatus may be useful in understanding some of the aspects of the adaptive unconscious - specially the parts which pretend to think.

Thanks for posting this, obyvatel. It was good to re-read. What struck me is that the action of the centers is psychical (i.e. non-material), and that these 'thoughts' get translated or 'de-coded' via the organism. We only have access to these 'thoughts' if the formatory apparatus provides us with a good translation (or any at all). So the action of the centers is truly sub-conscious. And our education (learning, formation of habits, ready-made concepts, etc.) determines how much signal we get, viewed through the lens of the F.A. It brings to mind the stuff in Beelzebub's Tales about the kundabuffer and how it makes us see the world "topsy-turvy". By understanding our 'machine' and getting a handle on our own education, 'buffers', and 'programs', we can establish a clearer connection with the centers and thus our true consciousness (which is the subconscious). I'm going to keep all this in mind as I continue reading the suggested books and see if there are any more connections to make!
 
Approaching Infinity said:
obyvatel said:
Gurdjieff's concept of the formatory apparatus may be useful in understanding some of the aspects of the adaptive unconscious - specially the parts which pretend to think.

Thanks for posting this, obyvatel. It was good to re-read. What struck me is that the action of the centers is psychical (i.e. non-material), and that these 'thoughts' get translated or 'de-coded' via the organism. We only have access to these 'thoughts' if the formatory apparatus provides us with a good translation (or any at all). So the action of the centers is truly sub-conscious.

Yeah, thanks for this obyvatel. I remember reading this years ago but it now has more meaning for me in light of the recent information in the adaptive unconscious thread. It's always good to read what Gurdjieff wrote from as many perspectives as possible, especially from the scientific. Gurdjieff's depth of understanding is truly astounding. I think he referred to the centers in Beelzebub's Tales as "spiritualized parts" and this says that they are more then physical. Indeed, as Approaching Infinity mentioned, they are truly subconscious and in my view connect us to all levels of reality.
 
Approaching Infinity said:
...our true consciousness (which is the subconscious).

AI, where do you get this idea? I have looked for confirmation for this idea but have found no other explicit statement on the matter. If this is the consensus view, then I've been on the right track with that quantum stuff, though also full of doubt for some reason.
 
obyvatel said:
Buddy said:
Approaching Infinity said:
...our true consciousness (which is the subconscious).

AI, where do you get this idea? I have looked for confirmation for this idea but have found no other explicit statement on the matter.

There is a forum thread Our 'Subconscious' is our 'real consciousness'

So it's had some earlier discussion as well. Relating to this subject, having just read from and thought upon some passages in Views from the Real World, I'd like to expand on a thing I wrote before in this thread - and on what I do not yet know, what is unclear:

Psalehesost said:
In the introductory chapter to Beelzebub's tales, Gurdjieff remarks that the "conscious mind" we know is "fictitious" and that he thinks the "subconscious" is the real mind and ought to be predominant in man [...] The "subconscious" seems to correspond (he implies this in part of the text) to the essence, and the emotional center is "the soul" of the essence (he states this in a lecture in Views from the Real World).

So, continuing with the line of thought of the essence being (part of) the adaptive unconscious, I think that the personality - which is made from external influences - is the "conscious self" with its invented narratives and self-theories, shaped by parenting and life in society and culture.

Though the essence is sometimes described as "purely emotional", G. also says that it is comprised of many centers - while the (false) personality is said to have only one, G. variably mentioning either the thinking center or the formatory apparatus in his talks in Views from the Real World.

Real change, real development, is said to be change of essence, or "the horse":
Views from the Real World said:
We educate nothing but our mind. [...] Sitting on his box he has read about it. But the horse has no education whatever. It has not even been taught the alphabet, it knows no languages, it never went to school. The horse was also capable of being taught, but we forgot all about it. . . . And so it grew up a neglected orphan. It only knows two words: right and left.

What I said about inner change refers only to the need of change in the horse. If the horse changes, we can change even externally. If the horse does not change, everything will remain the same, no manner how long we study.

It is easy to decide to change sitting quietly in your room. But as soon as you meet someone, the horse kicks. Inside us we have a horse.

The horse must change.

If anyone thinks that self-study will help and he will be able to change, he is greatly mistaken. Even if he reads all the books, studies for a hundred years, masters all knowledge, all mysteries--nothing will come of it.

Because all this knowledge will belong to the driver. [...]

As we are now, essence is not only "uneducated", but its state, mood, attitude is easily influenced by all manner of things, and "body and the essence are the same devil". (Views from the Real World, p.148-149) We even internally consider through essence, according to Gurdjieff, (p.144) as the essence rules our reactions with no conscious control - indeed, again essence seems to correspond to the adaptive unconscious. And the mind, or personality, provided it is "grown up" (which is needed to begin with for any efforts to be fruitful), can be separated in attitude - kept unidentified - with the essence; in doing this, it becomes a "conscious" spectator that, although it cannot determine our behavior, at least can keep in mind its goal.

Then comes an interesting part, in relation to change and really accessing the horse/essence, ie. - or so I think - the adaptive unconscious:
Views from the Real World said:
First of all you must realize that you are not you. Be sure of that, believe me. You are the horse, and if you wish to start working, the horse must be taught a language in which you can talk to it, tell it what you know and prove to it the necessity of, say, changing its disposition. If you succeed in this, then, with your help, the horse too will begin to learn.

This is a theme that repeats in other talks as well - in one place it is said that there ought to be a natural language allowing the parts of our beings to communicate, but it has been lost in almost every case, due to the abnormal way in which we've been formed and have lived.

In place of this natural inner communication, a "subjective" (G. means something particular to each of us) inner language must be established - and this is connected with tasks and efforts that are individual, not described in his talks; only noted to be something he talked about and had those students practice who had proven to be serious.

In another talk, G. instead says that the natural inner communication can eventually be restored.



G.'s main point (here I'm also drawing upon what he wrote in Beelzebub's Tales), seen in relation to the adaptive unconscious, is that our current state is an abnormality caused by abnormal conditions of living and arising: We would function differently had the world been different, and our lives accordingly different. So when scientists study the workings of the mind, the way the adaptive unconscious and "conscious mind functions", in part I think they are studying something that has become universal in our abnormal state, but which is not the only way things can work.

An example of the possibility of real change is described in the theory of positive disintegration. I think the implications of a successful disintegration followed by a reintegration on a higher level includes the adaptive unconscious no longer functioning in the same way relative to the conscious mind, and vice versa.

And as a speculation - nothing more - perhaps disintegration is related to the possibility of establishing this "inner language" that has gone missing in us? And when in turn this is successful, perhaps it is what leads to a change in functioning leading to a higher integration?
 
Psalehesost said:
Real change, real development, is said to be change of essence, or "the horse":

I could be mistaken, but I think G is referring to the emotional center when he refers to the horse.
 
anart said:
Psalehesost said:
Real change, real development, is said to be change of essence, or "the horse":

I could be mistaken, but I think G is referring to the emotional center when he refers to the horse.

I think Ps. is basing this on the part in Views where G says the essence is emotional in nature:

and the emotional center is "the soul" of the essence (he states this in a lecture in Views from the Real World)
 
Back
Top Bottom