The Usefulness of the Negative Half of the Emotional Center

[gdpetti]

Re: The Usefulness of the Negative Emotional Center

It is said that the entire process is unconscious until we make it conscious... that waking up thing... then the disciplining of the personality/magnetizing the self etc.. and the path of the adept has begun.. whether or not you have studied or heard of this process.. all the spiritual mumbo-jumbo that shows the nature of the blueprint... that thread through our lives.... ever leading to more self-awareness... which inevitably leads to what is called 'detachment'... as all the little bits of self that trigger those emotions are seen the moment they are brought up to the surface for attention/review/study etc... It does change the game completely as you interact with others or alone with your environment... and the getting to know yourself thing takes on the question of what that self really is as it was previously defined by all those little bits of dross newly disposed of.. This detachment can seem to take all the 'fun' out of things... as you see things developing as the pieces collect and form around you... mostly for others... and all those previous emotional anchors are no longer around to spice up the game... thereby changing that very self... like the mind starts floating around and the body has a hard time interacting with all those individual triggers around us.... cast adrift and looking for the next shore for new adventures in self-awareness.

You almost miss the emotional overload at times especially if you ever 'fed' off of it... imagine the dismay of all the STSers when their feast is no more.... that should create some anger from hunger pains... as their ray of creation/light seems to meet a deadend... until they too learn to 'let go'... that whole unconditional thing... nonexpectation etc... into that floating state of mind... some call meditation or walking prayer or just streaming consciousness.

As Neo in Matrix said.. Where we go from here is up to you... or perhaps it should be us.. as we learn to merge not just this self's emotional body but all the other dimensional versions as well... one step at a time...

I never so much 'redirected the energy' so much as became aware of it before I ever heard of any of this spiritual mumbo-jumbo.... and got bored with the endless routine of sameness... like any addict unable to get any 'satisfaction'.... needing to 'break on through to the other side'. Anger allows the feast whereas lower emotions like shame etc just make one part of the feast for others and not for the self... even sex feeds into this.. as the key is 'intent' as always... the physical emotions might trigger the game, but what we do with it once aware of our part in this play then gives us the power of controlling it... understanding how that anger can be used/misused etc.... same as basic love/peaceful emotions... more creatively used/applied or wasted in what I usually call 'do-gooder' reactions towards others. Learning to 'let go' again... as always... until there seems so very little left... as we once were... as we once would have been discribed by others and perhaps ourselves with we were honest enough to do so.

Born into STS, feeding off of anger seems part of the planned program for the feast... through careful application of 'schooling' of prejudices.. otherness... separation or as Hammerstein put it, "you have to be carefully taught." A nice play perhaps for awhile... until the sameness gets boring and we look for some satisfaction that we no longer get from the same old play/frequency/pattern of existence.... so time then for the questions/answers and the path onwards to something different... as different is good as long as it doesn't last too long.... so no further attachment is started... and karma allowed too much 'fun'.

 

[painter]

Re: The Usefulness of the Negative Emotional Center

Strictly speaking in the Gurdjieff literature I am aware of there is no indication that such a thing as "the Negative Emotional Center" exists. For example, the only mention of any such concept in Fragments is as follows (bold emphasis is mine):

During the first and subsequent talks on centers G. added something new at almost every talk. As I said in the beginning he spoke first of three centers, then of four, then of five, and afterwards of seven centers.

Parts of centers hardly came into these talks. G. said that centers were divided into positive and negative parts, but he did not point out that this division was not identical for all the different centers. Then he said that each center was divided into three parts or three stories which, in their turn, were also divided into three; but he gave no examples, nor did he point out that observation of attention made it possible to distinguish the work of parts of centers. All this and much else besides was established later. For instance, although he undoubtedly gave the fundamental basis for the study of the role and the significance of negative emotions, as well as methods of struggling against them, referring to non-identification, non-considering, and not expressing negative emotions, he did not complete these theories or did not explain that negative emotions were entirely unnecessary and that no normal center for them existed.

Fragments -- pp 56

It may be I've missed something somewhere but, if so, I would be highly surprised and would question its accuracy or authenticity given the instruction I've received. I bring this up because I think if we're going to employ Gurdjieff's ideas to end our own suggestibility (if not anyone else's) we need to be clear about what he said and did not say.

That said, Ouspensky does quote Gurdjieff once speaking of "the negative part of the emotional center":

“In the first place it must be noted that normally in the sex center as well as in the higher emotional and the higher thinking centers, there is no negative side. In all the other centers except the higher ones, in the thinking, in the emotional, in the moving, in the instinctive, in all of them there are, so to speak, two halves--the positive and the negative; affirmation and negation, or ‘yes’ and ‘no,’ in the thinking center, pleasant and unpleasant sensations in the moving and instinctive centers. There is no such division in the sex center. There are no positive and negative sides in it. There are no unpleasant sensations or unpleasant feelings in it; there is either a pleasant sensation, a pleasant feeling, or there is nothing, an absence of any sensation, complete indifference. But in consequence of the wrong work of centers it often happens that the sex center unites with the negative part of the emotional center or with the negative part of the instinctive center. And then, stimulation of a certain kind of the sex center, or even any stimulation at all of the sex center, calls forth unpleasant feelings and unpleasant sensations. People who experience unpleasant feelings and sensations which have been evoked in them through ideas and imagination connected with sex are inclined to regard them as a great virtue or something original; in actual fact it is simply disease. Everything connected with sex should be either pleasant or indifferent. Unpleasant feelings and sensations all come from the emotional center or the instinctive center.
Fragments -- pp 257--258

There is a lot of confusion and misunderstanding regarding the term "negative emotions." Strictly speaking, (again, so far as I understand it, and I acknowledge I may be wrong) "negative emotions" are a result of the wrong work of centers -- as, indeed, is "personality"*. The "wrong work of centers" is a center not working properly, not utilizing the energy appropriate to it and/or usurping the energy of another center. As always, it isn't enough just to read words like these and passively assume, having read them, that one "understands" them. One has to observe oneself and observe ones' self in the right way, which is to say more objectively, so that one can find out whether or not there is any truth or value in such concepts. In any case it is indicated that the expression of "negative emotions" is a waste of the energy necessary for work -- and it is for this reason (not any assumed ethics or morality) that it is suggested that they not be "expressed." I would like to be very clear about this: It isn't the existence of "negative emotions" that is the problem per-cet; it isn't that negative emotions should be "suppressed" or changed into some smiley-happy-face -- rather the correct observation of them is a food for transformation. When my "negative emotions" are expressed habitually, unconsciously, I am wasting this energy.

Making things even more complicated is the question of what constitutes a "negative emotion". Is "anger" a "negative emotion"? Given what has been said so far, how would one answer that question?

So far as I understand it from this thread, the question has to do with what motivates us, what activates us -- from what in ourselves do we engage with life? Gurdjieff insists that we can not "do" anything. Now of course all kinds of activity is taking place all the time both inside our heads, hearts and skins and outside our heads, hearts and skins. Our brains are chattering away, our emotions for and against are being activated mechanically all the time, our bodies are rushing about willy-nilly. All this, Gurdjieff says, is not "doing" but only reacting mechanically -- driven by forces external to ourselves. All the while we assume that we are "conscious" beings who are making "conscious" decisions based on our "intelligence" and "free will" or what have you. Gurdjieff is indicating that almost all of this is self deception -- dreaming -- what is becoming a collective nightmare.

For Gurdjieff (as I understand him) before we can Do we must Be -- and THAT requires something -- most notably the realization through direct observation that as we are we are nothing. Nothing more than what we (individually and collectively) have already is possible for us so long as we remain as we are. ANY activity motivated by ANY reaction -- whether it be positive or negative emotion or attraction or repulsion or any of the other mechanical manifestations of parts of centers -- will achieve precisely the same mechanical results as we have manifested thus far.

If the cosmos is a teaching -- as I agree, it is -- then this has to be one of the most maddeningly difficult lessons of all to learn. Here is a quote I like very much which might help us:

Being will be realized in myself to the extent that I stop assuming, by my inner attitudes, that I am already, that my temporal part is divine. When I observe myself, I see that I incessantly tend to modify, with all that I am, my temporal situation. It is perfectly legitimate that I tend to modify my temporal situation; that is the incessant and normal play of the natural reconciling principle which gives rise to all my natural impulses. But what is not normal is the tendency in me, being man and not animal, to modify my temporal situation with all that I am. In effect, I have in me, besides the tendency to be temporally, the tendency just “to be,” without limits, in an absolute way. The first tendency is limited, the second extends the first to infinity. When the tendency “to be absolutely” also manifests itself in the direction of modifying my temporal situation, it goes astray, it falls into the trap of the illusion of the senses, it commits original sin.

On the contrary, my need “to be” can be realized only in the full acceptance of my temporal situation, such as it is in each instant. Only by accepting the imprisonment of my temporal part can all of me, my virtual “being,” escape from my temporal prison.

Thus I see that the two tendencies which are in me must from the point of view of the temporal, have exactly opposite directions: the temporal tendency must naturally go toward a constant modifying of my temporal situation; the tendency toward “being” must go toward the total acceptance of this situation in each instant. It is this duality which I must thoroughly understand, lest I fall either into self-justification, the unbridled, unlimited instinctive reaction of temporal life, or into resignation, the instinctive reaction of temporal death.

Hubert Benoit, Metaphysique et Psychoanalyse

I'm certain that I can not unpack those few paragraphs and do them justice. Suffice it to say that Gurdjieff indicates that we are beings with a dual nature -- one nature is what we might call our "outer" nature and which Benoit is calling "temporal" -- that part of ourselves which, rightly, engages in temporal existence. Our other nature, however, is our "inner" nature, our "divine" nature. Perhaps given the language system used here, we might say a nature of a higher density or dimensionality -- a nature that is "vertical" to the "horizontal" progression of "time". The Symbol of the Cross represents the intersection of these two natures -- the "eternal" and the "temporal" in the "now" present.

The question is, what is the relationship between these two natures?

Again, though, it isn't enough to simply read such words. What is needed is an engagement -- a direct participation through observation in the possibility of knowing directly for one's self what is real, what is possible. THEN we can observe action which emanates from something in ourselves OTHER THAN mechanicality, self-justification, lying, self-importance, confusion, and all the pain and suffering that has been accumulated in us through millennia of STS degradation.

Does this help?

*

... Personality in our case is the result of the wrong work of centers. For this reason personality can dislike precisely what essence likes--and like what essence does not like. Here is where the struggle between essence and personality begins. Essence knows what it wants but cannot explain it. Personality does not want to hear of it and takes no account of it. It has its own desires. And it acts in its own way. But its power does not continue beyond that moment. ...
Fragments -- pp 254

 

[anart]

Re: The Usefulness of the Negative Emotional Center

Strictly speaking in the Gurdjieff literature I am aware of there is no indication that such a thing as "the Negative Emotional Center" exists.

 

Actually, to my understanding, this thread is dealing with the negative part of the emotional center as you surmise a little further in your post.  Since this fact was brought up in the initial post in the thread, I'm rather surprised at your confusion.

I bring this up because I think if we're going to employ Gurdjieff's ideas to end our own suggestibility (if not anyone else's) we need to be clear about what he said and did not say.

Indeed - and to be clear about what is and what is not said in a thread.  If you'll note in Laura's initial post:

One wonders if anger is
the natural response of the negative half of the emotional center that is
supposed to signal danger?

That said, Ouspensky does quote Gurdjieff once speaking of "the negative part of the emotional center":

It seems you either read the thread very quickly and missed that vital piece of information, or you are looking for errors in understanding that you can question?

There is a lot of confusion and misunderstanding regarding the term "negative emotions." Strictly speaking, (again, so far as I understand it, and I acknowledge I may be wrong) "negative emotions" are a result of the wrong work of centers -- as, indeed, is "personality"*.

This is not my current understanding.  The negative half of the emotional center is quite natural, in fact all the centers have a positive and negative 'half' or 'part' - the wrong work of centers is when one center usurps the energy of another center to do its work, as described here:

"At the same time as we watch the work of the centers we shall observe, side
by side with their right working, their wrong working, that is, the working
of one center for another; the attempts of the thinking center to feel or to
pretend that it feels, the attempts of the emotional center to think, the
attempts of the moving center to think and feel. As has been said already,
one center working for another is useful in certain cases, for it preserves
the continuity of mental activity. But in becoming habitual it becomes at
the same time harmful, since it begins to interfere with right working by
enabling each center to shirk its own direct duties and to do, not what it
ought to be doing, but what it likes best at the moment. In a normal healthy
man each center does its own work, that is, the work for which it was
specially destined and which it can best perform. There are situations in
life which the thinking center alone can deal with and can find a way out
of. If at this moment the emotional center begins to work instead, it will
make a muddle of everything and the result of its interference will be most
unsatisfactory. In an 'unbalanced kind of man the substitution of one center
for another goes on almost continually and this is precisely what 'being
unbalanced' or 'neurotic' means. Each center strives, as it were, to pass
its work on to another, and, at the same time, it strives to do the work of
another center for which it is not fitted. The emotional center working for
the thinking center brings unnecessary nervousness, feverishness, and hurry
into situations where, on the contrary, calm judgment and deliberation are
essential. The thinking center working for the emotional center brings
deliberation into situations which require quick decisions and makes a man
incapable of distinguishing the peculiarities and the fine points of the
position. Thought is too slow. It works out a certain plan of action and
continues to follow it even though the circumstances have changed and quite
a different course of action is necessary. Besides, in some cases the
interference of the thinking center gives rise to entirely wrong reactions,
because the thinking center is simply incapable of understanding the shades
and distinctions of many events. Events that are quite different for the
moving center and for the emotional center appear to be alike to it. Its
decisions are much too general and do not correspond to the decisions which
the emotional center would have made. This becomes perfectly clear if we
imagine the interference of thought, that is, of the theoretical mind, in
the domain of feeling, or of sensation, or of movement; in all three cases
the interference of the mind leads to wholly undesirable results. The mind
cannot understand shades of feeling. We shall see this clearly if we imagine
one man reasoning about the emotions of another. He is not feeling anything
himself so the feelings of another do not exist for him. A full man does not
understand a hungry one. But for the other they have a very definite
existence. And the decisions of the first, that is of the mind, can never
satisfy him. In exactly the same way the mind cannot appreciate sensations.
For it they are dead. Nor is it capable of controlling movement. Instances
of this kind are the easiest to find. Whatever work a man may be doing, it
is enough for him to try to do each action deliberately, with his mind,
following every movement, and he will see that the quality of his work will
change immediately. If he is typing, his fingers, controlled by his moving
center, find the necessary letters themselves, but if he tries to ask
himself before every letter: 'Where is "k"?' 'Where is the comma?' 'How is
this word spelled?' he at once begins to make mistakes or to write very
slowly. If one drives a car with the help of one's mind, one can go only in
the lowest gear. The mind cannot keep pace with all the movements necessary
for developing a greater speed. To drive at full speed, especially in the
streets of a large town, while steering with the help of one's mind is
absolutely impossible for an ordinary man.

"Moving center working for thinking center produces, for example, mechanical
reading or mechanical listening, as when a man reads or listens to nothing
but words and is utterly unconscious of what he is reading or hearing. This
generally happens when attention, that is, the direction of the thinking
center's activity, is occupied with something else and when the moving
center is trying to replace the absent thinking center; but this very easily
becomes a habit, because the thinking center is generally distracted not by
useful work, by thought, or by contemplation, but simply by daydreaming or
by imagination.

"'Imagination' is one of the principal sources of the wrong work of centers.
Each center has its own form of imagination and daydreaming, but as a rule
both the moving and the emotional centers make use of the thinking center
which very readily places itself at their disposal for this purpose, because
daydreaming corresponds to its own inclinations. Daydreaming is absolutely
the opposite of 'useful' mental activity. 'Useful' in this case means
activity directed towards a definite aim and undertaken for the sake of
obtaining a definite result. Daydreaming does not pursue any aim, does not
strive after any result. The motive for daydreaming always lies in the
emotional or in the moving center. The actual process is carried on by the
thinking center. The inclination to daydream is due partly to the laziness
of the thinking center, that is, its attempts to avoid the efforts connected
with work directed towards a definite aim and going in a definite direction,
and partly to the tendency of the emotional and the moving centers to repeat
to themselves, to keep alive or to recreate experiences, both pleasant and
unpleasant, that have been previously lived through or 'imagined.'
Daydreaming of disagreeable, morbid things is very characteristic of the
unbalanced state of the human machine, After all, one can understand
daydreaming of a pleasant kind and find logical justification for it.
Daydreaming of an unpleasant character is an utter absurdity. And yet many
people spend nine tenths of their lives in just such painful daydreams about
misfortunes which may overtake them or their family, about illnesses they
may contract or sufferings they will have to endure. Imagination and
daydreaming are instances of the wrong work of the thinking center.

"Observation of the activity of imagination and daydreaming forms a very
important part of self-study.

Making things even more complicated is the question of what constitutes a "negative emotion". Is "anger" a "negative emotion"? Given what has been said so far, how would one answer that question?

To my understanding, it would depend on the context and intent - in short, the Law of Three might apply, in a way - as the 'specific situation' would be the determination - as would the source of the emotion.

So far as I understand it from this thread, the question has to do with what motivates us, what activates us -- from what in ourselves do we engage with life? Gurdjieff insists that we can not "do" anything. Now of course all kinds of activity is taking place all the time both inside our heads, hearts and skins and outside our heads, hearts and skins. Our brains are chattering away, our emotions for and against are being activated mechanically all the time, our bodies are rushing about willy-nilly. All this, Gurdjieff says, is not "doing" but only reacting mechanically -- driven by forces external to ourselves. All the while we assume that we are "conscious" beings who are making "conscious" decisions based on our "intelligence" and "free will" or what have you. Gurdjieff is indicating that almost all of this is self deception -- dreaming what is becoming a collective nightmare.

Of course, but how does this apply to this thread?

For Gurdjieff (as I understand him) before we can Do we must Be -- and THAT requires something -- most notably the realization through direct observation that as we are we are nothing. Nothing more than what we (individually and collectively) have already is possible for us so long as we remain as we are. ANY activity motivated by ANY reaction -- whether it be positive or negative emotion or attraction or repulsion or any of the other mechanical manifestations of parts of centers -- will achieve precisely the same mechanical results as we have manifested thus far.

Of course, but, again, how does this apply to this thread - you appear to be wandering a bit with your words, when a more concise explanation would be externally considerate.

I'm certain that I can not unpack those few paragraphs and do them justice. Suffice it to say that Gurdjieff indicates that we are beings with a dual nature -- one nature is what we might call our "outer" nature and which Benoit is calling "temporal" -- that part of ourselves which engaged in temporal existence. Our other nature, however, is our "inner" nature, our "divine" nature. Perhaps given the language system used here, we might say a nature of a higher density or dimensionality -- a nature that is "vertical" to the "horizontal" progression of "time". The Symbol of the Cross represents the intersection of these two natures -- the "eternal" and the "temporal" in the "now" present.

Again, though, it isn't enough to simply read such words. What is needed is an engagement -- a direct participation through observation in the possibility of knowing directly for one's self what is real, what is possible. THEN we can observe action which emanates from something in ourselves OTHER THAN mechanicality, self-justification, lying, self-importance, confusion, and all the pain and suffering that has been accumulated in us through millennia of STS degradation.

Does this help?

To be frank, I am struggling a bit to get your point.  You seem to have wandered into vast fields of concepts and thought  - could you, perhaps, be more concise about your point as it directly relates to this particular thread?  What you've written is generally true, to my understanding, it is just unclear how it directly applies to this thread.  No offense is intended, of course.

[ added later ] It might also benefit you to understand that as a public forum, this is not a school, per se - everyone here is at a different level of understanding and exposure - and that is quite alright. Sincerity is the main required component, as well as a willingness to release 'sacred cows' and identifications - other than that, members of this forum may have not yet read Gurdjieff, but if they remain and are sincere in their search for the truth, they usually do.

 

[Cyre2067]

Re: The Usefulness of the Negative Emotional Center

It seems to me that there's a difference between the quality of the anger Kenlee described and that which Laura mentioned in the first post. From what I can tell based on my own experience, the prior is much more a consequence of self-importance while the latter is 'true anger' or 'righteous' as described.

I've felt both, I see it everyday on the web, out of people's mouths, they know not the lies they speak and most of the time they aren't asking for the truth. It especially difficult when I recently discussed the situation in Gaza for instance, with an MD/PHD student. In his words, he needed to believe that the government of Israel was attempting to do the right thing "in order to get through my day."

Quite literally he explained how he simply could not fathom that the government of Israel had mal-intent. It was bizarre and yet so understandable. Its instances like that I have a hard time separating the two types of anger.

 

[painter]

Re: The Usefulness of the Negative Emotional Center

Strictly speaking in the Gurdjieff literature I am aware of there is no indication that such a thing as "the Negative Emotional Center" exists.

Actually, to my understanding, this thread is dealing with the negative part of the emotional center as you surmise a little further in your post. Since this fact was brought up in the initial post in the thread, I'm rather surprised at your confusion.

The subject line of this thread is "The Usefulness of the Negative Emotional Center" -- not "The Usefulness of the Negative Part of the Emotional Center" nor "The Usefulness of Negative Emotions." Every time I come into this forum, I see this subject line, which I believe to be inaccurate. Worse, I see member Sky repeating this in reply #1 (my bold):

I think the usefulness of anger is important for us to be 'awake' and gives us the energy to DO. Like an instant fear to sent us a warning when encountering a possible enemy, anger would be a similar aspect of our negative emotional center and we would use it to become determined and be 'awake,' so to speak.

I bring this up because I think if we're going to employ Gurdjieff's ideas to end our own suggestibility (if not anyone else's) we need to be clear about what he said and did not say.

Indeed - and to be clear about what is and what is not said in a thread. If you'll note in Laura's initial post:

One wonders if anger is
the natural response of the negative half of the emotional center that is
supposed to signal danger?

True, but the subject of the thread remains.

That said, Ouspensky does quote Gurdjieff once speaking of "the negative part of the emotional center":

It seems you either read the thread very quickly and missed that vital piece of information, or you are looking for errors in understanding that you can question?

I'm attempting, perhaps badly, to stop the propagation of an error.

There is a lot of confusion and misunderstanding regarding the term "negative emotions." Strictly speaking, (again, so far as I understand it, and I acknowledge I may be wrong) "negative emotions" are a result of the wrong work of centers -- as, indeed, is "personality"*.

This is not my current understanding. The negative half of the emotional center is quite natural, in fact all the centers have a positive and negative 'half' or 'part' - the wrong work of centers is when one center usurps the energy of another center to do its work, as described here:

I'm going to disagree a bit. Lets see if we can understand one another.

First, unless I'm mistaken, not "all" centers have a negative/positive polarity. As I understand it, according to Gurdjieff via Ouspinsky, the Sex, Higher Emotional and Higher Intellectual centers do not have negative parts. I can look for the references if you would like [Edit: It is in my post above, in the Fragments quote that begins, “In the first place it must be noted that normally...". (I have very little data to determine the truth of these statements from my own observations, I'm simply representing what I believe to be what was said.)

Beyond that discussion gets a bit difficult, at least in terms of my ability to express my admittedly limited understanding. Part of the problem, I think, stems from certain common and mechanical associations we contemporary people have with the word "negative" in conjunction with the word "emotions." Let me employ an analogy that may help. We understand that magnets have a positive and negative pole. Now, there is no value judgement placed on this. Each pole has its natural purpose and function and manifests according to law relative to its opposite. As I understand it, the same can be said regarding the emotional center. You said, "The negative half of the emotional center is quite natural...," and I agree -- provided we understand that here, also, there is no judgement. It is simply a matter of the relative polarity of emotional energy (which, I believe, is reconciled with the awakening of the higher Emotional center). When in a state of more objective consciousness, when each center is working with the energy proper to it and in relationship to the whole of myself, most of what are commonly referred to as "negative emotions" -- what I regard as mechanically reactive emotions -- do not manifest. This is not to say that emotional energy in this state lacks polarity but my relationship to this polarity is now quite different. I haven't sufficient knowledge through direct observation to say much more than this at this time.

<snip>

Making things even more complicated is the question of what constitutes a "negative emotion". Is "anger" a "negative emotion"? Given what has been said so far, how would one answer that question?

To my understanding, it would depend on the context and intent - in short, the Law of Three might apply, in a way - as the 'specific situation' would be the determination - as would the source of the emotion.

But the point is, to answer this question I must observe myself; how is it that "anger" arises? Are there differing qualities of this energy? If my attention is taken totally by this reaction [Edit to add: IOW, if I am identified with this anger], am I awake at all, objective in relation to my emotion at all?

So far as I understand it from this thread, the question has to do with what motivates us, what activates us -- from what in ourselves do we engage with life? Gurdjieff insists that we can not "do" anything. Now of course all kinds of activity is taking place all the time both inside our heads, hearts and skins and outside our heads, hearts and skins. Our brains are chattering away, our emotions for and against are being activated mechanically all the time, our bodies are rushing about willy-nilly. All this, Gurdjieff says, is not "doing" but only reacting mechanically -- driven by forces external to ourselves. All the while we assume that we are "conscious" beings who are making "conscious" decisions based on our "intelligence" and "free will" or what have you. Gurdjieff is indicating that almost all of this is self deception -- dreaming what is becoming a collective nightmare.

Of course, but how does this apply to this thread?

Well perhaps I've not understood what this thread is about -- but the subject is "The Usefulness of the Negative Emotional Center," is it not? And is not what is presented in the OP a question of what motivates us? Laura seems to be asking a question about what "fuel(s) DOing." This is what I'm attempting to address.

For Gurdjieff (as I understand him) before we can Do we must Be -- and THAT requires something -- most notably the realization through direct observation that as we are we are nothing. Nothing more than what we (individually and collectively) have already is possible for us so long as we remain as we are. ANY activity motivated by ANY reaction -- whether it be positive or negative emotion or attraction or repulsion or any of the other mechanical manifestations of parts of centers -- will achieve precisely the same mechanical results as we have manifested thus far.

Of course, but, again, how does this apply to this thread - you appear to be wandering a bit with your words, when a more concise explanation would be externally considerate.

It is true, my words do sometimes wander. I am far from perfect. Have I been clear yet?

I'm certain that I can not unpack those few paragraphs and do them justice. Suffice it to say that Gurdjieff indicates that we are beings with a dual nature -- one nature is what we might call our "outer" nature and which Benoit is calling "temporal" -- that part of ourselves which engaged in temporal existence. Our other nature, however, is our "inner" nature, our "divine" nature. Perhaps given the language system used here, we might say a nature of a higher density or dimensionality -- a nature that is "vertical" to the "horizontal" progression of "time". The Symbol of the Cross represents the intersection of these two natures -- the "eternal" and the "temporal" in the "now" present.

Again, though, it isn't enough to simply read such words. What is needed is an engagement -- a direct participation through observation in the possibility of knowing directly for one's self what is real, what is possible. THEN we can observe action which emanates from something in ourselves OTHER THAN mechanicality, self-justification, lying, self-importance, confusion, and all the pain and suffering that has been accumulated in us through millennia of STS degradation.

Does this help?

To be frank, I am struggling a bit to get your point. You seem to have wandered into vast fields of concepts and thought - could you, perhaps, be more concise about your point as it directly relates to this particular thread? What you've written is generally true, to my understanding, it is just unclear how it directly applies to this thread. No offense is intended, of course.

None taken. Perhaps I have missed the point of this thread, in which case you have my apology. But as I observe myself and the world I see people motivated by all sorts of reactions most all of them utterly useless, leading nowhere.

[ added later ] It might also benefit you to understand that as a public forum, this is not a school, per se - everyone here is at a different level of understanding and exposure - and that is quite alright. Sincerity is the main required component, as well as a willingness to release 'sacred cows' and identifications - other than that, members of this forum may have not yet read Gurdjieff, but if they remain and are sincere in their search for the truth, they usually do.

Your addition is well taken.

 

[FireShadow]

Re: The Usefulness of the Negative Emotional Center

Perhaps, in the interest of accuracy, someone could change the title of this thread to "The Usefulness of the Negative Half of the Lower Emotional Center"?

It may seem a small distinction to many, but I think accuracy in the beginning (the title) may help to avoid larger inaccuracies further down the line.

 

[Laura]

Re: The Usefulness of the Negative Emotional Center

I would be highly surprised and would question its accuracy or authenticity given the instruction I've received. I bring this up because I think if we're going to employ Gurdjieff's ideas to end our own suggestibility (if not anyone else's) we need to be clear about what he said and did not say.

Let me quote my response to your comment in another thread:

I've bolded and underlined parts of the quote above because I wish to emphasize something which is commonly overlooked in the Gurdjieff ideas, especially by those who do not have access to a direct connection to the work. And that is, as stated, self-observation rightly conducted itself is the beginning of growth and change.

Painter, perhaps it would help if you read "The Wave" so that you could understand that our beginning point is NOT Gurdjieff, it is rather direct initiation via the Cassiopaean Experiment . We find Gurdjieff's work to be very full of rich and helpful concepts, but it is not the foundation here. You could say that it is more the layout of the rooms. We also utilize concepts from Mouravieff who, we clearly understand didn't have the whole cheese (neither did Gurdjieff, but he was a lot closer than Mouravieff), and Castaneda who, it is clear, borrowed a lot of his ideas from Gurdjieff and re-worked them. We also find many clues in modern psychological research.

In general, we have observed that a "direct connection to the work" can be a hindrance rather than a benefit. We do, in fact, have several members of QFS who have been long-time members of various Gurdjieff groups around the world and have discussed and analyzed how they operate. In The Wave, you will come across a discussion of my husband's meeting with Henri Tracol years ago and the result of their discussion. You might find it interesting.

The subject line of this thread is "The Usefulness of the Negative Emotional Center" -- not "The Usefulness of the Negative Part of the Emotional Center" nor "The Usefulness of Negative Emotions." Every time I come into this forum, I see this subject line, which I believe to be inaccurate. Worse, I see member Sky repeating this in reply #1

Point is quite valid. However, there is a very limited number of characters that the Subject line of posts will accept - that's the software - and economizing is necessary. I'll see what I can do to improve it.

Well perhaps I've not understood what this thread is about -- but the subject is "The Usefulness of the Negative Emotional Center," is it not? And is not what is presented in the OP a question of what motivates us? Laura seems to be asking a question about what "fuel(s) DOing." This is what I'm attempting to address.

Actually, the question is rhetorical - for the sake of the following discussion.

It will help a lot if you know where we have been. Gurdjieff's work is only a part - though a large part - of what we consider as useful to our aims.

 

[painter]

Re: The Usefulness of the Negative Emotional Center

It will help a lot if you know where we have been. Gurdjieff's work is only a part - though a large part - of what we consider as useful to our aims.

Thank you, Laura, for your reply. It is helping me to understand where you (collectively) are coming from. I do not wish to take this thread further off topic. I have read the first page of http://cassiopaea.org/ , followed some of the links out from it and have read several chapters of The Wave Series. I will PM you with a few questions that may help my understanding and give me more direction.

 

[Lamasu]

In her paper "Ascension: The Quest for the Holy Grail", Laura wrote:

"This means that, when a "shock" comes to the organism from either outside or inside, because of our programming that we are not supposed to have negative emotions, this energy flooding the system, is generally used to "patch up" our reality - to draw us into lies and false beliefs that lock us more firmly into the Matrix.

However, the person who fully understands the work of negative emotions knows that there is a USE for them, and that they are the "fuel" for ACTION, for discovering truth and exposing lies either to the self or to others.

The trick is to not allow the negative emotions to activate either the moving center which tends to respond with negative actions, or the intellectual center which tends to respond with negative thoughts toward the "shock." This results in a "feeding" of the source of the shock and a draining of the energy of the organism.

Instead, the pure energy of the negative emotions must be observed and controlled like an untamed horse so that its energy pulls the rest of the organism where it wants to go.

This means constant observation of the self during periods of "shocks." At the moment of the arising of the negative emotion, within the instant of its arousal, it is possible to disassociate the components of the emotion - to separate the "shock" from not only the initiator, but from the programmed reaction - and to liberate the pure energy and concentrate it and USE it positively. The result of this technique is a direct connection to the higher centers which results in an inflow of tremendous energy into the organism that light up the emotional center like a flashing neon sign, and the SENSATION is pure JOY.

This is only possible with knowledge.

A practical example of this is the writing of the Adventures Series, as I have already noted. Instead of being angry at the source of the shocks, the insults, the lies, the treachery, the hate, contempt and jealousy, the energy was transformed via gathering and sharing knowledge.

Another way of explaining this process we have learned from the C's is that when we are attacked, it shocks our emotional center. This produces a "contact potential difference" in us that inducts enormous amounts of cosmic energy into our organism. Because the nature of the shock activates the negative emotional center, we have a problem if our negative emotional center has not been "trained" by long exposure to training that concerns handling negative emotions. If we have spent our lives trying to suppress or repress or avoid negative experiences, if we have spent our lives trying to find "beliefs" that will keep the negative emotions asleep, we have no means of understanding how to control and utilize this enormous energy. The energy will flood our organism and will turn our thoughts to ideas of "revenge" or acts of hatefulness - telling lies to ourselves or others, using filthy language, acting against another in a violent or vicious way. This then "feeds" the Matrix.

Among the common lies we use to try to "patch up" or avoid negative emotions are such things as "let's all get along," which leads to "backing down" and turning away from the negative experience in order to just cover it up and "make nice." This lie completely deprives us of one of the greatest means of accomplishing our goal of ascension! And of course, this lie has been twisted to mean that we are somehow supposed to "give love to" our enemies even in the face of vile and vicious attacks from them! Nothing could be further from the truth!

What this means is, if the individual has the knowledge of how this energy can actually be utilized, he will not so quickly run from confrontation and proper interaction with, and response to, those things that stimulate the negative half of the emotional center. He will, effectively, turn the other cheek for another slap so as to induce even more energy into his organism for his utilization. He will, as Don Juan suggested, engage in systematic harassment of the Petty Tyrant for the very purpose of producing more and greater "shocks."

Because the fact is, the cosmic energy that is induced into the organism by activation of the negative emotions is POSITIVE energy from the Feminine Creative Center that is only "twisted" by the distorted state of the emotional center itself. This energy that floods the body at the "arising of anger" or "outrage" is PURE Cosmic ENERGY. It makes the emotional center vibrate with a very rapid rhythm. And, just as the energy of the wild horse, if it is tamed and harnessed, can pull a wagon a great distance, so can the tremendous energy of negative emotions TUNE the centers of the body, producing the bridge of contact between the lower centers and the higher centers.

In short, a certain technique taught to us by the C's, correctly practiced, with knowledge, enables the individual to liberate the Cosmic energy from the mixture of programmed negative emotional response. This enables the person to calmly and coolly respond to the negative activity in a creative way, all the while experiencing a prolonged induction of energy from the higher centers that produces a state of unmitigated joy."

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

My question is: what is the technique that enables the individual to liberate the Cosmic energy from the mixture of programmed negative emotional response?

 

[Jacques]

My question is: what is the technique that enables the individual to liberate the Cosmic energy from the mixture of programmed negative emotional response?

I would say that the best technique that someone can use right now is the Eíriú-Eolas - Breathing Program

See here for the guide.

 

[Laura]

Re-read the passage you quoted. Note that it says "Another way of explaining this process we have learned from the C's is that when we are attacked, it shocks our emotional center." In short, the passage is the description of the process. The final paragraph quoted is merely a recapitulation of what was being described.

Are you a native English speaker?

 

[Lamasu]

I would say that the best technique that someone can use right now is the Eíriú-Eolas - Breathing Program

See here for the guide.

Thanks Bohort. I have the Eíriú-Eolas dvd/cd set. I thought I needed another technique to make everything work together.



Edit - Quotation

 

[Lamasu]

Re-read the passage you quoted. Note that it says "Another way of explaining this process we have learned from the C's is that when we are attacked, it shocks our emotional center." In short, the passage is the description of the process. The final paragraph quoted is merely a recapitulation of what was being described.

Are you a native English speaker?

I'm native French (Quebec).

I understand what you're saying Laura. I'll be more watchful from now on as to prevent repetition. Thanks!

 

[Menna]

"This enables the person to calmly and coolly respond to the negative activity in a creative way, all the while experiencing a prolonged induction of energy from the higher centers that produces a state of unmitigated joy."

Boy o Boy this would be a great skill to acquire. The not letting the negative activity result in negative actions/reactions is one thing but a person being able to transfer it to the higher centers that produces a state of joy is probably rarer then seeing a unicorn.

I might be doing this now with positive emotions in books or tv shows or in real life if I read or see a meaningful story or situation (When I am in a certain state) an emotion runs through me I start to tear and get goose bumps. If it happens in public I have to control it so I don't look like I suddenly just started crying and then have to explain and the thing is I can't really explain it just happens. But with negative emotions I swallow them do not let them transfer to actions but they are still in my thoughts/replay them sometimes in my head until they die out. Don't know how and cannot transfer them to higher centers or a state of joy. Very interested in learning more about this is the only place I can read up on it in the book "Secret History" a I read laura's paper on Ascension is in there or are there other webpages/topics/posts to gather information about this?

 

[obyvatel]

Very interested in learning more about this is the only place I can read up on it in the book "Secret History" a I read laura's paper on Ascension is in there or are there other webpages/topics/posts to gather information about this?

Something similar is discussed here and here .