The Little I's

Tarri

Jedi Master
I know it must be in the forum somewhere, yet can't pin it down. Is there a discussion on what to do, how to go about working on all the little "I's" that we have. When I was reading the thread on Procrastination, and the discussion spoke about the little "I's" I was for what ever reason finally able to feel and become truly aware of them within me. I could "see" them. There are many that I find I don't like but came to realize, I had no idea what to do.

I have read in the past, many books on Multi-Personallity, and it seems that perhaps that in those cases, these little "I's" actually become or seem to become an entity onto themselves. The reason I bring this up is because these "personalities", when being delt with, where taken each one at a time and looked at, trying to discover why they were created, what was their role in the survival of the real individual, and how to assimulate that personallity into the whole in a possitive manner.

I'm thinking that in the case of our little "I's" that such a drastic step is not necessary, but then I am left with 'exactly what am I suppose to do"?

I have considered that with some of the reading I have done that I should know the answer to this problem, but for the life of me, I can't bring it up.

I have thought that, in starting, I would take one of the "I's" that is the most prevalent, sitting down with it and trying to "feel" it, try to find out what it's goal and reason for being here is, reasoning why I don't want and need it anymore.....but is that putting to much into something that is mostly, to me anyway an annoying emotional reaction to things.

And two other things come up at once. One, that I am using techniques that I have read in the "Multi-Personality" books, which may not be appropriate for what I want to work on, since I don't have that specific problem, and second, that if this is actually how one deals with these "I's", than where to go beyond that point.

I feel like I may get a mental thump on the head for not knowing this already. I have been on this forum for awhile after all. But I really want to understand this.
Thanks guys. Tarri
 
Hi Tarri,

I myself just get started on this and hence am not qualified to give you advice. So I will just give a few pointers that I have been able to gather. As I understand it, you will require both theoretical knowledge about what the little i's are, how they are generally created, etc. and practical knowledge about your own little i's in order to deal with them.

The former can be obtained from books and education threads on this forum. For starter, I suggest this thread http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=6419 and the books: "Trapped in the Mirror" and "The Myth of Sanity".

Knowledge about your own little i's can only be obtained through self-observation. I suggest this online book as a practical guide on how to do it and what to expect: http://home.comcast.net/~riversrages/DeepTherapy/chapter1.htm. Remember this is a difficult and tricky process and best done within a group. This last point is extremely important.

The above are just starter. I'm sure others will have more to add to it.
 
As it is now, I just purchased and recieved the two books mentioned above. So I am on the right track as far as that goes.

But the link you gave for the online book is not right and goes no where. Can you check and see if it's correct?
Yes, I know I can't do it by myself. If it wasn't for this forum I would be in deep trouble.

Thanks for the info. Got to leave for work now. Tarri
 
Tarri said:
I have thought that, in starting, I would take one of the "I's" that is the most prevalent, sitting down with it and trying to "feel" it, try to find out what it's goal and reason for being here is, reasoning why I don't want and need it anymore.....but is that putting to much into something that is mostly, to me anyway an annoying emotional reaction to things.
I think this is a good place to start but I have found from personal experience that its best to have as little expectation (as I am able) regarding my self observations. It might be best for you to begin to "sense yourself" in different circumstances, and become more aware of your changing inner states and how they effect you, but my advice would be to not try to control them and work towards having as little expectations as possible on what you might see. Just get to know them and become more 'sensitive' to them. Know that they are there and try to sense them, feel them, in the different circumstances of you life without judgment. I would concern myself at first more about the "how of it" (that is, how your different inner states make you act and think) more-so then the why of it since we are basically observing a machine that is under mechanical laws and is a slave to external circumstances.

People are totally unaware of their changing inner states throughout the day. There may be a certain "continuity of memory" of what went on throughout the day, but there is no memory of depth, there is no memory of color: most people fail to see how their inner psychological states (the 'I's) change (almost seamlessly) from one state into another. But they have a certain hazy memory of what they did, what they said, etc., that at least connects the different present moments of their changing inner psychological states into a single thread .

But I think a person with MPD does not even have a continuity of memory but, rather they have a pathological condition whereby they have personality structures that have their own present moment divorced from the other personality structures within them, that also have their own present moment, all of which are disconnected from the overall totality. So there is not even a continuity of memory since each personality structure is closed unto itself with its own encompassing present moment.

Along with becoming aware of them (your inner psychological states), and sensing them, Gurdjieff speaks of separating the mind from these changing inner states since these states are based on our 'essence' (heredity, type, character, nature) which is often on the level of a small immature child that has never been properly educated on how to grow up. This child, this "reaction machine" within us, rules us while we believe ourselves to be mature adults.

I notice, for example that many men, especially "serious" men, who are very functional in life act very "mature" since this functionality gives them the impression that they are grown up men and have control of the world around them. But oftentimes the reality of the situation is just the opposite. They can function (build things, know about things, etc) but inside, emotionally and reactively, they are very immature just like little children that never grew up (in my estimation psychopaths are not even immature children, but rather their essence is a "thing.")

So, as Gurdjieff expresses it (below) it starts with separating our mind from our "inner child" while at the same time becoming aware of this child's nature and then "thinking like a hammer" on how this child makes us act in childish ways while we lie to ourselves about being adults. Then with this "active reasoning" we can learn how to become adults and grow the essence.

Hope this helps! But It's best to not believe anything I say. Better to verify things yourself and then this will help me to be more objective about myself when I read about your own observations and experiences (as I could be inaccurate with my own observations that I made above).

From Views From The Real World

'Separation of oneself from oneself '

As long as a man does not separate himself from himself he can achieve nothing, and no one can help him.

To govern oneself is a very difficult thing—it is a problem for the future; it requires much power and demands much work. But this first thing, to separate oneself from oneself, does not require much strength, it only needs desire, serious desire, the desire of a grown-up man. If a man cannot do it, it shows that he lacks the desire of a grown-up man. Consequently it proves that there is nothing for him here. What we do here can only be a doing suitable for grown-up men.

Our mind, our thinking, has nothing in common with us, with our essence—no connection, no dependence. Our mind lives by itself and our essence lives by itself. When we say "to separate oneself from oneself" it means that the mind should stand apart from the essence. Our weak essence can change at any moment, for it is dependent on many influences: on food, on our surroundings, on time, on the weather, and on a multitude of other causes. But the mind depends on very few influences and so, with a little effort, it can be kept in the desired direction. Every weak man can give the desired direction to his mind. But he has no power over his essence; great power is required to give direction to essence and keep essence to it. (Body and essence are the same devil.) Man's essence does not depend on him: it can be good-tempered or bad-tempered, irritable, cheerful or sad, excitable or placid. All these reactions may happen independently of him. A man may be cross be- cause he has eaten something which has produced this effect.

If a man has no special attainments, nothing can be demanded of him. Therefore one cannot expect of him more than he has. From a purely practical point of view, a man is certainly not responsible in this respect; it is not his fault that he is what he is. So I take this fact into consideration, for I know that you cannot expect from a weak man something that re- quires strength. One can make demands of a man only in accordance with the strength he has to fulfill them.

Naturally the majority of people present are here because they lack this strength and have come here to acquire it. This means that they wish to be strong, and so strength is not expected of them.

But I am speaking now of another part of us, the mind. Speaking of the mind I know that each of you has enough strength, each of you can have the power and capacity to act not as he now acts. ,

The mind is capable of functioning independently,, but it also has the capacity of becoming identified with the essence, of becoming a function of the essence. In the majority of those present, the mind does not try to be independent but is merely a function.

I repeat, every grown-up man can achieve this; everyone who has a serious desire can do it. But no one tries.

And so, in spite of the fact that they have been here so long, in spite even of the desire they had for so long before coming here—they still stand on a level below that of a householder, that is, the level of a man who never intended to do anything.

I repeat again: at present we are not capable of controlling our states, and so it cannot be demanded of us. But when we acquire this capacity, corresponding demands will be made.

In order to understand better what I mean, I shall give you an example: now, in a calm state, not reacting to anything or anyone, I decide to set myself the task of establishing a good relationship with Mr. B., because I need him for business purposes and can do what I wish only with his help. But I dislike Mr. B. for he is a very disagreeable man. He understands nothing. He is a blockhead. He is vile, anything you like. I am so made that these traits affect me. Even if he merely looks at me, I become irritated. If he talks nonsense, I am beside my- self. I am only a man, so I am weak and cannot persuade my- self that I need not be annoyed—I shall go on being annoyed.

Yet I can control myself, depending on how serious my de- sire is to gain the end I wish to gain through him. If I keep to this purpose, to this desire, I shall be able to do so. No matter how annoyed I may be, this state of wishing will be in my mind. No matter how furious, how beside myself I am, in a corner of my mind I shall still remember the task I set myself. My mind is unable to restrain me from anything, unable to make me feel this or that toward him, but it is able to remember. I say to myself: "You need him, so don't be cross or rude to him." It could even happen that I would curse him, or hit him, but my mind would continue to pluck at me, reminding me that I should not do so. But the mind is powerless to do anything.

This is precisely what anyone who has a serious desire not to identify himself with his essence can do. This is what is meant by "separating the mind from the essence."

And what happens when the mind becomes merely a function? If I am annoyed, if I lose my temper, I shall think, or rather "it" will think, in accordance with this annoyance, and I shall see everything in the light of the annoyance. To hell with it!

And so I say that with a serious man—a simple, ordinary man without any extraordinary powers, but a grown-up man —whatever he decides, whatever problem he has set himself, that problem will always remain in his head. Even if he cannot achieve it in practice, he will always keep it in his mind. Even if he is influenced by other considerations, his mind will not forget the problem he has set himself. He has a duty to perform and, if he is honest, he will strive to perform it, because he is a grown-up man.

No one can help him in this remembering, in this separation of oneself from oneself. A man must do it for himself. Only then, from the moment a man has this separation, can another man help him. Consequently, only from that moment can the Institute be of any use to him, if he came to the Institute seeking this help.

You have probably heard things said at lectures on the subject of what a man wishes. I can say about the majority of those who are here now that they do not know what they wish, they do not know why they are here. They have no basic desire. At every moment each one wishes something, but in him "it" wishes.

I have just given as an example that I wish to borrow money from Mr. B. I can get what I wish only by making this desire primary, the chief thing I want. And so, if each of you wishes something and the Institute knows what he wishes, the Institute will be able to help. But if a man has a million' desires, and no predominant one, then not a single desire can be satisfied, for years are needed to give one thing, and to give a million things. ... It is true that it is not easy to wish; but the mind must always remember what it wishes.

The only difference between a child and a grown-up man is in the mind. All the weaknesses are there, beginning with hunger, with sensitivity, with naivete; there is no difference. The same things are in a child and in a grown-up man: love, hate, everything. Functions are the same, receptivity is the same, equally they react, equally they are given to imaginary fears. In short there is no difference. The only difference is in the mind: we have more material, more logic than a child.

Now again as an example: A. looked at me and called me a fool. I lost my temper and went for him. A child does the same. But a grown-up man, who will be just as angry, will not hit him; he will restrain himself. For if he does hit him, the police will come and he is afraid of what other people will think; they will say: "What an uncontrolled man!" Or I refrain for fear he will run away from me tomorrow, and I need him for my work. In short, there are thousands of thoughts that may stop me or fail to stop me. But still these thoughts will be there.

A child has no logic, no material, and because of that his mind is only function. His mind will not stop to think—with him it will be "it thinks," but this "it thinks" will be colored with hate, which means identification.

There are no definite degrees between children and adults. Length of life does not mean maturity. A man may live to a hundred and yet remain a child; he may grow tall and be a child all the same, if we mean by a "child" one who has no in- dependent logic in his mind. A man can be called "grown-up" only from the moment his mind has acquired this quality. So, from this point of view, it can be said that the Institute is only for grown-up people. Only a grown-up person can derive any profit from it. A boy or a girl of eight can be grown-up, and a man of sixty can be a child. The Institute cannot make people grown-up; they have to be grown-up before they come to the Institute. Those who are in the Institute must be grown-up, and by this I mean grown-up not in their essence but in their mind.
Before going any further it is necessary to make clear what each person wishes, and what he or she can give to the Institute.

The Institute can give very little. The program of the Institute, the power of the Institute, the aim of the Institute, the possibilities of the Institute can be expressed in few words: the Institute can help one to be able to be a Christian. Simple! That is all! It can do so only if a man has this desire, and a man will have this desire only if he has a place where constant desire is present. Before being able, one must wish.

Thus there are three periods: to wish, to be able, and to be.

The Institute is the means. Outside the Institute it is possible to wish and to be; but here, to be able.

The majority of those present here call themselves Christians. Practically all are Christians in quotation marks. Let us examine this question like grown-up men.

—Dr. X., are you a Christian? What do you think, should one love one's neighbor or hate him? Who can love like a Christian? It follows that to be a Christian is impossible. Chris- tianity includes many things; we have taken only one of them, to serve as an example. Can you love or hate someone to order?

Yet Christianity says precisely this, to love all men. But this is impossible. At the same time it is quite true that it is necessary to love. First one must be able, only then can one love. Unfortunately, with time, modern Christians have adopted the second half, to love, and lost view of the first, the religion which should have preceded it.

It would be very silly for God to demand from man what he cannot give. ,

Half of the world is Christian, the other half has other religions. For me, a sensible man, this makes no difference; they are the same as the Christian. Therefore it is possible to say that the whole world is Christian, the difference is only in name. And it has been Christian not only for one year but for thousands of years. There were Christians long before the ad- vent of Christianity. So common sense says to me: "For so many years men have been Christians—how can they be so foolish as to demand the impossible?"

But it is not like that. Things have not always been as they are now. Only recently have people forgotten the first half, and because of that have lost the capacity for being able. And so it became indeed impossible.
Let every one ask himself, simply and openly, whether he can love all men. If he has had a cup of coffee, he loves; if not, he does not love. How can that be called Christianity?

In the past not all men were called Christians. Some members of the same family were called Christians, others pre- Christians, still others were called non-Christians. So in one and the same family there could be the first, the second and the third. But now all call themselves Christians. It is naive, dishonest, unwise and despicable to wear this name without justification.

A Christian is a man who is able to fulfill the Commandments*

A man who is able to do all that is demanded of a Christian, both with his mind and his essence, is called a Christian with- out quotation marks. A man who, in his mind, wishes to do all that is demanded of a Christian, but can do so only with his mind and not with his essence, is called pre-Christian. And a man who can do nothing, even with his mind, is called a non- Christian.

Try to understand what I wish to convey by all this. Let your understanding be deeper and broader.
 
The best way to understand the "little Is" is to read "The Myth of Sanity" by Martha Stout first. Keep in mind that she writes about some severe trauma and severe dissociation, but the principle is the same for milder dissociations.
 
Kenlee, what you have written and added from "View from the Real World", did help alot. Gave me something to work with. Thank you so much.

And I recieved the book The Myth of Sanity just yesterday. So now it's time to delve in and go on the grand adventure.

By the way, I have been reading Political Ponerology. GOOD BOOK!!!



Again, everyone, thank you for your help. Tarri
 
Tarri said:
By the way, I have been reading Political Ponerology. GOOD BOOK!!!
Tarri
We hope you will write a review on amazon when finished - amazon.com and amazon.co.uk. I usually just copy and paste my reviews from one to the other.
 
Tarri said:
I have thought that, in starting, I would take one of the "I's" that is the most prevalent, sitting down with it and trying to "feel" it, try to find out what it's goal and reason for being here is, reasoning why I don't want and need it anymore.....but is that putting to much into something that is mostly, to me anyway an annoying emotional reaction to things.
I think the first step is trying to observe your reactions, in real time, that represent your little i's and see how much of a reaction machine you or anybody else is. Trying to observe it as it happens and then making a conscious effort of reviewing what happened during the day and picking out when you weren't observing yourself, when you were doing so and thinking about what made you react the way you did and trying to think back to experiences or situations that might be the source of the reaction. After some time doing this you may be able to see in yourself how certain situations in everyday life (certain people - family, friends, strangers; certain places and circumstances) bring out specific little i's and what affect the reaction of little i has on others and on youself in terms of what you think, feel, how your body reacts in terms of posture, etc. (Intellectual, Emotional, Physical), because I think each has a part in each little i. I think it was G that spoke about taking photographs of yourself and remembering and collecting them. And then after that you might be able to stop the mechanical reacting, but not to try this initially or beat yourself up when you realize that you have little self-control and act mechanically.

I read 'In Search of the Miraculous' before reading "Trapped in the Mirror" and "The Myth of Sanity", but I think reading the psych books first and then reading ISOTM (if you haven't already read it) will give you a better idea of what the little i's are and how they tie into childhood experiences and reactions that are carried into adult life eventhough the source or memories of the reactions has been forgotten.

Not that I'm able do all of the above, but how I understand it currently. Hope this helps.
 
Back
Top Bottom