The Usefulness of the Negative Half of the Emotional Center

[arpaxad]

I think that there may be a difference in "what seems like anger" and a "mechanical manifestation of anger" in the example of Fritz Peters provided above. Let's assume that Gurdjieff was just doing something that he knew would produce a certain result in his student Orage (or in any other person, for that matter, if that was the need of the moment), he was pushing Orage's "buttons." Expression of anger may be assumed from a certain tone of voice, certain mimics, gestures, verbal expressions. It could have as well been a sort of "theatrical" act on Gurdjieff's part.

So, to extrapolate this example, one could act in any way needed for a particular situation - except, perhaps, in the Cassiopaean code of ethics, when that interferes with another's free will, which is an interesting angle to approach Gurdjieff's actions from - and not "be angry."

I could as well assume that Gurdjieff would feel an intense Love for his pupil while his outward actions spoke for the opposite. It's hard if not impossible to judge in this case, and another matter is that "one should call no man master" and Gurdjieff may have well been yet another human being that makes mistakes.

 

[arpaxad]

Re: The Usefulness of the Negative Emotional Center

The author of the post #16 above said it well:

[...]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 [se - corrected. - arpaxad]; 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.

There is other cool stuff in the post linked above, and I could, perhaps, recommend it for attentive (re)-reading (if I finished reading it myself ;)).

 

[arpaxad]

And as for the general musings of Buddy and Menna, let me suggest that what is the really significant thing is Love of the ALL - the Being-Knowledge-Bliss of the Hindu theology, that is the essence of All that is. When we move on to the higher level, we may perhaps fulfill functions of those Beings that we now ascribe to Divine levels. One may think of the information given in some Hindu texts that only about 10% of the Universe is material, the rest being spiritual, i.e. above all the material troubles we now have. To ascend to that level would really require giving up all that we think we know Existence is and accepting the very core of our being as the above-mentioned Being-Knowledge-Bliss. That would be a completely different view of reality, and perhaps a different approach to Wisdom or what we now think it is. That, however, may be, at least in part, my "imagination."

 

[Alada]

Re: The Usefulness of the Negative Emotional Center

The author of the post #16 above said it well:

[...]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 [se - corrected. - arpaxad]; 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.

There is other cool stuff in the post linked above, and I could, perhaps, recommend it for attentive (re)-reading (if I finished reading it myself ;)).

Along that line, you might be interested in this thread, and the post here: Self-Observation, Inner Talking & Work Instrument

 

[David]

I think that there may be a difference in "what seems like anger" and a "mechanical manifestation of anger" in the example of Fritz Peters provided above. Let's assume that Gurdjieff was just doing something that he knew would produce a certain result in his student Orage (or in any other person, for that matter, if that was the need of the moment), he was pushing Orage's "buttons." Expression of anger may be assumed from a certain tone of voice, certain mimics, gestures, verbal expressions. It could have as well been a sort of "theatrical" act on Gurdjieff's part.

So, to extrapolate this example, one could act in any way needed for a particular situation - except, perhaps, in the Cassiopaean code of ethics, when that interferes with another's free will, which is an interesting angle to approach Gurdjieff's actions from - and not "be angry."

I could as well assume that Gurdjieff would feel an intense Love for his pupil while his outward actions spoke for the opposite. It's hard if not impossible to judge in this case, and another matter is that "one should call no man master" and Gurdjieff may have well been yet another human being that makes mistakes.

Just for the record here’s the relevant excerpt from ‘MY JOURNEY WITH A MYSTIC’ by Fritz Peters

I have never forgotten the first time that I was involved in an incident in his room that was something more than
the usual performance of my housekeeping chores. He had a distinguished visitor that day—A. R. Orage—a man who was well-known to all of us, and accepted as an accredited teacher of Gurdjieffian theory. After luncheon that day, the two of them retired to Gurdjieff's room, and I was summoned to deliver the usual coffee. Orage's stature was such that we all treated him with great respect. There was no doubt of his intelligence, his dedication, his integrity. In addition, he was a warm, compassionate man for whom I had a great personal affection.

When I reached the doorway of Gurdjieff's room with my tray of coffee and brandy, I hesitated, appalled at the violent sounds of furious screaming — Gurdjieff's voice — from within. I knocked and, receiving no reply, entered. Gurdjieff was standing by his bed in a state of what seemed to me to be completely uncontrolled fury. He was raging at Orage, who stood impassively, and very pale, framed in one of the windows. I had to walk between them to sat the tray on the table. I did so, feeling flayed by the fury of Gurdjieff's voice, and then retreated, attempting to make myself invisible. When I reached the door, I could not resist looking at both of
them: Orage, a tall man, seemed withered and crumpled as he sagged in the window, and Gurdjieff, actually not very tall, looked immense - a complete embodiment of rage. Although the raging was in English I was unable to listen to the words—the flow of anger was too enormous. Suddenly, in the space of an instant, Gurdjieff's voice stopped, his whole personality changed, he gave me a broad smile— looking incredibly peaceful and inwardly quiet—motioned me to leave, and then resumed his tirade with undiminished force. This happened so quickly that I do not believe that Mr. Orage even noticed the break in the rhythm.

When I had first heard the sound of Mr. Gurdjieff's voice from outside the room I had been horrified. That this man, whom I respected above all other human brings, could lose his control so completely was a terrible blow to my feelings of respect and admiration for him. As I had walked between them to place the tray on the table, I had felt nothing but pity and compassion for Mr. Orage. Now, leaving the room, my feelings were completely
reversed. I was still appalled by the fury I had seen in Gurdjieff; terrified by it. In a sense, I was even more terrified when I left the room because I realized that it was not only not "uncontrollable" but actually under great control and completely conscious on his part.

 

[Buddy]

And as for the general musings of Buddy and Menna, let me suggest that what is the really significant thing is Love of the ALL -

Of course, but I generally try to avoid mixing an esoteric context with specific answers offered in a practical context in the same post, but I'll do that now if you prefer. With respect to the above, I'd say your task is to eventually realize that currently your consciousness is not your own...that you think it's your own because you can attach a concept-based "I-me-mine" to what is really a part of the All that is using your sophisticated nervous system to spin around in your spherical celluar resonators to detect itself. In this scenario you can function as just a channel for love and consciousness that was already a characteristic of the universe before you arrived and that should you be able to step out of the way long enough, could allow universe to express itself, to love itself through you. But such a thought would probably challenge everything you think you know and even challenge the idea of the existence of 'you'.

Not saying that any of the above is true, but suppose it is close and that it came to you as a profound realization and you followed out the implications. Would you be angry that everything you'd heard from the mainstream about automatic life-after-death was just a lie designed to keep you tolerant of abuse and subservient to those who need you this way to keep their power? Would you be angry to realize your life had been wasted theorizing and hypothesizing on the basis of popular illusions? If so, would you be able to channel this anger constructively and accomplish anything objectively beneficial for humanity?

In the final analysis, according to the way I think, the most imporant issue does not revolve around any validity of the negative part of the emotional center per se, it revolves around how anger might be used constructively when it is there.

Just my thoughts.

 

[arpaxad]

Thank you, Davida, for providing the excerpt from Fritz Peters's book, it was great to re-read it (actually, it was probably the first time I read it in the original language).

And thank you, Buddy, for your excellent thoughts.

In regard to the existence or non-existence of individual consciousness, I think that, on one hand, all this may be our imagination (hence, not useful); and on the other hand, I do enjoy the view of Swami Prabhupada (who is a kind of a Hindu "literalist", but, perhaps for that reason, his books can provide some profound insights of Hindu theology): that individual souls are qualitatively, although not quantitatively, the same with God, i.e. being-consciousness-bliss, and that individual souls never cease to exist. Regarding the concept of individuality, can you really separate consciousness from individuality? I think the latter is the answer to the whole personalist vs. impersonalist debate, if you know what I am referring to here.

Getting back to anger, I think anger and profound understanding of anything don't mix. Anger is a sign of lack of understanding. Interestingly, almost all religions speak about remorse as a step to transformation, but not anger. Remorse is the "Terror of the Situation", is it not? Can it be used constructively? Here is a good quote:

The very idea of Objective Conscience defies analysis. It is as dangerous as it is powerful. Institutional religion rejects inner self-judgement in favor of moral principles and rules of conduct not merely to secure thereby a better hold upon their followers; there is a genuine danger that the idea of Conscience may degenerate into self-sufficiency and license. Gurdjieff meets the challenge with the formula of Ashiata Shiemash:

Only-he-will-be-called-and-will-become-the-Son-of-God-who-acquires-in-himself-Conscience. [...]

Conscience and compassion are inseparable. The legomonism of Ashiata Shiemash, called “The Terror of the Situation,” contains the quintessence of Gurdjieff’s teaching about human life on earth. If man is to achieve his highest destiny, he must purge himself of the taint of Original Sin expressed as the consequences of the organ Kundabuffer. For this he must work and struggle and suffer, but whence is the urge for this work to arise?

Source

 

[arpaxad]

Or can anger to be an expression of Objective Conscience?

 

[arpaxad]

^^to=too^^

 

[Buddy]

In regard to the existence or non-existence of individual consciousness, I think that, on one hand, all this may be our imagination (hence, not useful); and on the other hand, I do enjoy the view of Swami Prabhupada (who is a kind of a Hindu "literalist", but, perhaps for that reason, his books can provide some profound insights of Hindu theology): that individual souls are qualitatively, although not quantitatively, the same with God, i.e. being-consciousness-bliss, and that individual souls never cease to exist. Regarding the concept of individuality, can you really separate consciousness from individuality? I think the latter is the answer to the whole personalist vs. impersonalist debate, if you know what I am referring to here.

Yes, but I'm not seeing a mathematical equivalence between 'individual soul' and 'soul of God' so much as I see an imaginary element (individuality) added to the equation. Basically, the symmetry is undemonstrated and all this seems irrelevant to the topic anyway.

Getting back to anger, I think anger and profound understanding of anything don't mix. Anger is a sign of lack of understanding.

In general, I have always thought that most non-righteous anger is a sign of a confused understanding mirroring the physiological 'confusion' of the endocrine system under inappropriate limbic activation, but that was not what was said. In my scenario, the insight (profound realization) preceeded the anger and anger was constructively used to express the person's insight along with its implications. Insight normally comes from inductive mental work. Insight is 'induced'. Anger is evaluative. It comes from recognizing significance to human life and values (even where values can be corrupt) and deducing consequences. So, IMO, anger and profound understanding can be mixed, but that isn't to say they are the same or interchangable or occur simultaneously. That's what I'm saying about how I perceive all this.

Interestingly, almost all religions speak about remorse as a step to transformation, but not anger. Remorse is the "Terror of the Situation", is it not? Can it be used constructively? Here is a good quote:

The very idea of Objective Conscience defies analysis. It is as dangerous as it is powerful. Institutional religion rejects inner self-judgement in favor of moral principles and rules of conduct not merely to secure thereby a better hold upon their followers; there is a genuine danger that the idea of Conscience may degenerate into self-sufficiency and license. Gurdjieff meets the challenge with the formula of Ashiata Shiemash:

Only-he-will-be-called-and-will-become-the-Son-of-God-who-acquires-in-himself-Conscience. [...]

Conscience and compassion are inseparable. The legomonism of Ashiata Shiemash, called “The Terror of the Situation,” contains the quintessence of Gurdjieff’s teaching about human life on earth. If man is to achieve his highest destiny, he must purge himself of the taint of Original Sin expressed as the consequences of the organ Kundabuffer. For this he must work and struggle and suffer, but whence is the urge for this work to arise?

Source

I have no issue with the above.

 

[arpaxad]

Wow, I may have just realized that anger can be an expression of Objective Conscience, something that leads to the realization of the "Terror of the Situation," "remorse" and what not. Still, imho, expression of anger is futile, it really needs to be channeled almost immediately into a feeling of the "Terror of the Situation," etc. For that it is necessary to have prepared certain hydrogens in oneself that will raise the energy of anger into something higher, i.e., one needs to Work before anything can be done to anger.

 

[Buddy]

Wow, I may have just realized that anger can be an expression of Objective Conscience, something that leads to the realization of the "Terror of the Situation," "remorse" and what not.

See what I mean? Although you've reversed your linguistic expression, that's the process as I described it: first the insight, then the evaluative expression of implication, consequence, or whatnot.

 

[Menna]

might the question now be tied to the reference to love in one of the latest C's sessions?

Buddy when you write latest do you mean latest in terms of months or years I read back through the last 3 sessions and couldnt find where the C's talked or referenced to love.

expression of anger is futile

Futile when relating to what? The universe and our goal of development and so on or futile in terms of living everyday life in 3D? Sometimes in the dealings of everyday situation with different people at work or in family people that you cant avoid and what have you anger can be used as a useful communication tool to another who oversteps a boundary and cant take no for an answer. Lets say this person has come from a family of yellers and is more forceful in nature then you are and doesn't respond to words without a tone behind them. Sometimes a raise in voice or slight power is suitable for another person on a lower level (might make you feel uncomfortable) so you can protect yourself and continue on your path without disruption from them. Sometimes the expression of anger is a regular act for others-viewed as normal. THen you can get into the different levels of expression of anger such as body language, facial expression, words, tone, volume, physical anger projected to another. The first four might be useful in a situation to navigate through ones life. Going down to someones level for a split second so you can remain at yours.

 

[Alada]

expression of anger is futile

Futile when relating to what? The universe and our goal of development and so on or futile in terms of living everyday life in 3D? Sometimes in the dealings of everyday situation with different people at work or in family people that you cant avoid and what have you anger can be used as a useful communication tool to another who oversteps a boundary and cant take no for an answer.

I agree, there are plenty of contexts you can think of where expressing anger would be totally appropriate. So I think to have a blanket statement that expression of anger is futile is kind of black and white thinking.

There's a problem too I think, where the idea gets hooked up to religious ideas, in that none of them would seem account for psychopathy. So when faced with having to deal with that, is it still always the case that expression (of properly channeled) anger is futile, I think not. See sott.net as a case in point. So I think it's back to whether you channel it consciously, and then what you choose to do with it then that is key.

 

[Buddy]

might the question now be tied to the reference to love in one of the latest C's sessions?

Buddy when you write latest do you mean latest in terms of months or years I read back through the last 3 sessions and couldnt find where the C's talked or referenced to love.

Sorry Menna, I was actually thinking of this latest November session and I mention it along with the question as a way of linking it to an actual event that happened (the session) rather than leaving it floating in an air of abstraction. Furthermore, I'm seeing the sharing of wisdom as a specific case of expressing abundant love. Maybe someone else might share this view or maybe they won't, I don't know.