visibility of the 4th density

Psalehesost said:
As noted in ISOTM, the typical human works like this:

Body reacting to external influences -> desires -> thoughts -> several contradictory "wills"

What are "several contradictory wills?"

Body obeys <- emotional power <- thought <- single conscious Will

Well yeah, but I'd put them in a little different order ...<- Though <- emotional power <- body obeys (on good days) <- single conscious Will

Do you have more than one "conscious will?" If so, where do you put it and what do you do with it? Is it like a spare in case something bizarre (I can't imagine what) happens to the force of will you normally summon and use?

Hopefully there's a fairly clear idea of it (for what it's worth - being just my understanding) above.

Sorry, but totally you lost me on having "several contradictory wills?" :umm:
 
Nomad said:
and flowers don't necessarily have a mathematical understanding of the fibonnacci sequence / golden ratio, that appears in nature.

We can't really know for certain what they do or don't understand until we can communicate with them. Until then, we're just guessing based on what WE do and don't understand.
 
Brewer said:
I suppose it is largely instinctual but animals will observe and learn to use things not of their natural world. Crows in Japan use traffic to crack nuts...

I was once outsmarted by a pig. Longggg story... suffice to say it was not one of my most stellar moments.
 
Guardian said:
What are "several contradictory wills?"


Hi Guardian, that idea will make a lot more sense if you get a chance to read In Search of the Miraculous by P.D. Ouspensky. The basic premise is that a human being is not 'one' - our thoughts, impulses, desires, even likes and dislikes shift from moment to moment depending on external circumstances - we do not have one Will until we fuse all those little parts of ourselves that pull us hither and yon each day in so many different ways - until we fuse them into one singular 'I'.

Human beings get home from work and think, "I'm going to bed early" then we stay up too late. We go to bed thinking, "I'll get up early" then we sleep too late. We think one morning that we'll not eat any junk food that day, and at 3 pm we have some potato chips, or a donut. We wake up in a positive mood, get a speeding ticket and are angry at the world.

We are not in control of our own internal states - they are dependent on what happens to us throughout a day. We have no solid, individual Will until we fuse one through learning, suffering and internal fire. That is the point of the Work of which we speak so often here - to minimize that internal 'hither and yon' - that general state in which one moment we're up because things are going our way and the next we're down or angry because things have turned against us, from our perspective - or even just because all of a sudden 'our mood' has changed. Anyway it's a description that is GREATLY lacking, but it at least might give a glimpse. I think you'd find In Search of the Miraculous quite interesting, actually.
 
anart said:
We are not in control of our own internal states -

We're not? Then who is?

they are dependent on what happens to us throughout a day.

??????
Our external world certainly controls what happens to us externally, and our external world can/does affect how we choose to apply our will, but if our regular internal states were actually controlled by external stuff...that would be TERRIBLE!!

We have no solid, individual Will until we fuse one through learning, suffering and internal fire. That is the point of the Work of which we speak so often here - to minimize that internal 'hither and yon' - that general state in which one moment we're up because things are going our way and the next we're down or angry because things have turned against us, from our perspective - or even just because all of a sudden 'our mood' has changed.

Ok...I think I get the mood part, like how the pictures of the dolphins swimming in oil made me cry.....but I still don't get how (or why) I would generate and direct more than one force of will? Maybe we are just using different definitions of the word "will?"

Anyway it's a description that is GREATLY lacking, but it at least might give a glimpse. I think you'd find In Search of the Miraculous quite interesting, actually.

Thanks Anart..although if I can't understand what yawl are saying, I have serious doubts that I'll be able to grok the book any better :(
 
Guardian said:
Thanks Anart..although if I can't understand what yawl are saying, I have serious doubts that I'll be able to grok the book any better :(

You're a smart woman - I will be sincerely surprised if the book doesn't clear up your understanding on this one aspect of things. Seriously - I've not done the concept justice and I really think that it will shed a lot of light on a lot of things. I have no doubt about you being able to grok the book - you might throw it across the room a few times - but grok it - yeah, no issue there.
 
but if our regular internal states were actually controlled by external stuff...that would be TERRIBLE!!

Man is a machine. He/she cannot and will not act unless an external influence is applied.

Gurdjieff said this, although not in these exact words. That man knew more about human behavior a hundred years ago than even scientists

today are capable to figure out. There's not much difference between a person and a computer, sadly.

Our regular internal states are in fact controlled by external stuff, and yes, it is pretty terrible. :cool2:
 
anart said:
You're a smart woman - I will be sincerely surprised if the book doesn't clear up your understanding on this one aspect of things. Seriously - I've not done the concept justice and I really think that it will shed a lot of light on a lot of things. I have no doubt about you being able to grok the book - you might throw it across the room a few times - but grok it - yeah, no issue there.

Throw a book?? Why that's sacrilege!! ;)

Thanks for the suggestion Anart, I'll give it a look.
 
Throw a book?? Why that's sacrilege!!

If you've read the wave, you may or may not remember laura describing her experiences with ISOTM, being so enraged by what G. says that she

throws the book across the room, i remember specifically that happened when she read "you are in prison, etc."
 
abstract said:
Man is a machine. He/she cannot and will not act unless an external influence is applied.

Gurdjieff said this, although not in these exact words. That man knew more about human behavior a hundred years ago than even scientists today are capable to figure out.

I am enjoying Gurdjieff a lot, although I think he has a tendency to over-complicate certain things.

There's not much difference between a person and a computer, sadly.

Well, not until you put a soul in the meat machine....then it becomes VERY different from a computer

Our regular internal states are in fact controlled by external stuff, and yes, it is pretty terrible. :cool2:

Oh, I'm so sorry!!! Laura's breathing program really seems to help folks with that :)
 
abstract said:
Throw a book?? Why that's sacrilege!!

If you've read the wave, you may or may not remember laura describing her experiences with ISOTM, being so enraged by what G. says that she throws the book across the room, i remember specifically that happened when she read "you are in prison, etc."

I didn't recall that until you just mentioned it...but yeah, that was funny.

Seriously though, I think part of my difficulty in understanding simply comes from not assigning the same meanings to certain words as yawl do. I'm gett'in the hang of how you mean what though...sorta. ;D
 
There's not much difference between a person and a computer, sadly.

Well, not until you put a soul in the meat machine....then it becomes VERY different from a computer

Regardless of whether one has a soul, i must re-iderate, man is a machine.

a computer is a machine. it runs programs, a brain is a computer for the body, even emotions which are chemical based,

are dependant upon a program. Are you aware of OP's? They don't actually have a soul per se'.

Just because we have souls doesn't mean we make all our decisions consciously, we are mechanical until we decide to stop being mechanical.

If you just go wherever the wind blows you, you remain unchanged, only when struggle is induced can we begin to make conscious decisions.
 
abstract said:
There's not much difference between a person and a computer, sadly.

Well, not until you put a soul in the meat machine....then it becomes VERY different from a computer

Regardless of whether one has a soul, i must re-iderate, man is a machine.

a computer is a machine. it runs programs, a brain is a computer for the body, even emotions which are chemical based,

are dependant upon a program.

Exactly, and our souls are the programmers.

Are you aware of OP's? They don't actually have a soul per se'.

Yes, I read about those!! If I happen to see one laying around in decent shape, about 20 years old, with no felony record yet...I'm calling dibs! ;)

Just because we have souls doesn't mean we make all our decisions consciously, we are mechanical until we decide to stop being mechanical.

If you just go wherever the wind blows you, you remain unchanged, only when struggle is induced can we begin to make conscious decisions.

I would agree with you on that, but I still don't understand why your internal world would be controlled by the external world, unless you want it to be? They're our thoughts, we can change them at will ...pun intended :P
 
Guardian said:
Well, not until you put a soul in the meat machine....then it becomes VERY different from a computer
Depends on if ever that soul is awake, dreaming of being awake, or totally asleep :)
 
Guardian said:
Seriously though, I think part of my difficulty in understanding simply comes from not assigning the same meanings to certain words as yawl do. I'm gett'in the hang of how you mean what though...sorta. ;D

Hi Guardian,

Until you read that book, In Search of the Miraculous by P.D. Ouspensky, you are essentially using a different dictionary or language so to speak. :)
 

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom