We vs. I

[mamadrama]

Those of us studying ourselves in light of Gurdjieff, Ouspensky, and Mouravieff's work are familiar with the concept of the real "I" and the many "i's."

If we begin to study ourselves we first of all come up against one word which we use more than any other and that is the word 'I.' We say 'I am doing,' 'I am sitting,' 'I feel,' 'I like,' 'I dislike' and so on. This is our chief illusion, for the principle mistake we make about ourselves is that we consider ourselves one; we always speak about ourselves as 'I' and we suppose that we refer to the same thing all the time when in reality we are divided into hundreds and hundreds of different 'I's.' At one moment when I say 'I,' one part of me is speaking, and at another moment when I say 'I,' it is quite another 'I' that is speaking. We do not know that we have not one 'I,' but many different 'I's' connected with our feelings and desires, and have no controlling 'I.' These 'I's' change all the time, one suppresses another, one replaces another, and all this struggle makes up our inner life.

Recently, 'I' have read a couple of books where the authors have used "we" instead of "I" to acknowledge this difference and to keep it in the forefront of their minds. My question is, do you think this could be a helpful strategy for the Work or is it more likely an annoying artifice with little value, or something else entirely?

'We' are interested in your thoughts on this ;)

 

[anart]

Those of us studying ourselves in light of Gurdjieff, Ouspensky, and Mouravieff's work are familiar with the concept of the real "I" and the many "i's."


Recently, 'I' have read a couple of books where the authors have used "we" instead of "I" to aknowledge this difference and to keep it in the forefront of their minds. My question is, do you think this could be a helpful strategy for the Work or is it more likely an annoying artifice with little value, or something else entirely?

'We' are interested in your thoughts on this ;)

I'm sure others will have input, but it strikes me as being a bit 'off' simply because 'we' is plural and suggest many 'i's working or acting together. To my understanding, there is rarely, if ever, more than one 'i' in control at any one time - therefore the plural 'we' seems a bit inaccurate. While there can be many, many 'i's, they don't act in unison, but usually in opposition to one another - at least that's my take, fwiw... and perhaps others understand it differently.

 

[Bobo08]

I agree with Anart that the word "we" implies the i's working together towards a common objective, which is rarely the case. I also doubt that it will help to to remind one of his/her fragmented state for very long. I used to put some quotes on my PC's monitor, in my forum signatures, etc. But in every single instance, they disappeared from my perception after only a short time. They were still there but I no longer noticed them. After realising that, I got rid of them altogether.

 

[Thomas Alan]

I don't remember reading a book where the author used "we" to refer to his/her own "I's" in the way Gurdjieff/ Ouspensky mean it . Usually the "we" is used when the author wants to include his readers or even all of humanity in his statements.
Sometimes I wonder if this is a gap in the English language. Like there needs to be another pronoun that doesn't refer just to "me" but doesn't include 6.5 billion other humans. Most perplexing.

Mac

 

[second]

Those of us studying ourselves in light of Gurdjieff, Ouspensky, and Mouravieff's work are familiar with the concept of the real "I" and the many "i's."

If we begin to study ourselves we first of all come up against one word which we use more than any other and that is the word 'I.' We say 'I am doing,' 'I am sitting,' 'I feel,' 'I like,' 'I dislike' and so on. This is our chief illusion, for the principle mistake we make about ourselves is that we consider ourselves one; we always speak about ourselves as 'I' and we suppose that we refer to the same thing all the time when in reality we are divided into hundreds and hundreds of different 'I's.' At one moment when I say 'I,' one part of me is speaking, and at another moment when I say 'I,' it is quite another 'I' that is speaking. We do not know that we have not one 'I,' but many different 'I's' connected with our feelings and desires, and have no controlling 'I.' These 'I's' change all the time, one suppresses another, one replaces another, and all this struggle makes up our inner life.

Recently, 'I' have read a couple of books where the authors have used "we" instead of "I" to aknowledge this difference and to keep it in the forefront of their minds. My question is, do you think this could be a helpful strategy for the Work or is it more likely an annoying artifice with little value, or something else entirely?

'We' are interested in your thoughts on this ;)

I agree with others in saying that 'We' is incorrect not only because 'there is no unity of I's " in these and " they nullify each other to produce nothing permanent ".

 

[mamadrama]

I'm sure others will have input, but it strikes me as being a bit 'off' simply because 'we' is plural and suggest many 'i's working or acting together. To my understanding, there is rarely, if ever, more than one 'i' in control at any one time - therefore the plural 'we' seems a bit inaccurate. While there can be many, many 'i's, they don't act in unison, but usually in opposition to one another - at least that's my take, fwiw... and perhaps others understand it differently.

Good points, all. Thanks for your response :)

 

[go2]

Hi Laurel,

Here is some information on the ‘I’s and their groupings from Mouravieff that, if I understand the following quotes from Gnosis I correctly, are constantly shifting in alliance and in conflict with each other for control of the ‘I’ of personality, which must at least appear to be one or we would experience bankruptcy on a constant basis. Hence, the personality maintains its fiction of ‘I’ or ‘We’ by lies as barriers to experiencing our fragmentation. I tried the ‘We’ this morning as an experiment, for a couple of hours. It might be useful as an exercise in identifying the various configurations of little ‘I’s we call self on a very temporary basis. It emphasized the inner insanity and was very uncomfortable. I will try this some more, as the not ‘I’s are becoming more cunning, especially the ones identifying with this work. The real ‘I’ has to be invited by one of these personality fragments. This is tricky. I don’t know much, but this is fun. :)

Let us now return to the study of the ‘I’ of the Personality. It has been established that this ‘I’, as it is, is shifting. As used in the Gospel, the image of sand and that of legion are both very near reality. For what we take to be our ‘I’ is, in fact, a mixture of a number of little ‘I’s. In the Personality each little ‘I’ or groups of little ‘I’s enters the scene according to circumstance. There are many possible combinations between these ‘I’s, but their number is limited: it can be calculated.

These groupings generally occur in threes or twos; it is rather rare that one sector alone participates in a mental state. As long as the fusion of the particles of iron filings has not occurred, these nine hundred and eighty seven possible combinations of the centres and their and their sectors give birth to an equal number of partial states of consciousness of the Personality. Each affirms itself as—and at that moment thinks of itself as—the complete ‘I’.

As long as the fusion is not complete, what we call the character can be compared to a tent erected on a sandy beach, open to winds and tempests. In reality, this character represents—in the ensemble of the small ‘I’s---a grouping of a number of them having in common certain factors such as: innate disposition; education; training; common or personal interests on every level of consciousness, especially the sub-consciousness, and lastly accidental associations. Such grouping can be constituted on very different bases, and the strength of the bonds uniting the little ‘I’s can make a fragile federation out of them, or may constitute a partial fusion between them. The latter can be produced in different ways: either in the form of an annular or lateral crust, or in the form of lumps.

 

[Renaissance]

Recently, 'I' have read a couple of books where the authors have used "we" instead of "I" to acknowledge this difference and to keep it in the forefront of their minds.

They were talking about the same thing as the Gurdjieff's many i's? I've come across books whose authors use 'we' as well as some people who use it as a regular substitute for 'I' - personally, it gives me the creeps. The usage wasn't to demonstrate internal division but to link others and the self together - a sort of 'all is one' conformity, imo.

 

[anart]

The real ‘I’ has to be invited by one of these personality fragments.

Hi go2, I'm curious what you mean by this, since these 'personality fragments' cannot DO anything - much less 'invite' your real 'I' -- perhaps explaining (succinctly, with brevity) what you mean could help lead you to some clarification on this?

 

[go2]

The real ‘I’ has to be invited by one of these personality fragments.

Hi go2, I'm curious what you mean by this, since these 'personality fragments' cannot DO anything - much less 'invite' your real 'I' -- perhaps explaining (succinctly, with brevity) what you mean could help lead you to some clarification on this?

I arrived at this work with the inner conflict of undisciplined not ‘I’s leading to bankruptcy. One or a group of these ‘I’s,
directing the personality for a moment admitted bankruptcy and began to search for a way out of this state or so it seems
to me. This, probably a group of little ‘I’s of the self-improving variety agreed to “invite” or “create” an observer ‘I’ to
recapitulate and observe my life and inner states. I understood this is the way to establish a link between the real ‘I’ and
the personality.

I don’t understand the concept that “I cannot DO anything”, except that clearly I am not
typing, but the typing gets done, as I respond to your post. Perhaps this paragraph will
give you the information you need to point out any errors and directions to proceed.
Thanks, anart.

 

[anart]

I arrived at this work with the inner conflict of undisciplined not ‘I’s leading to bankruptcy. One or a group of these ‘I’s,
directing the personality for a moment admitted bankruptcy and began to search for a way out of this state or so it seems
to me. This, probably a group of little ‘I’s of the self-improving variety agreed to “invite” or “create” an observer ‘I’ to
recapitulate and observe my life and inner states. I understood this is the way to establish a link between the real ‘I’ and
the personality.

I don’t understand the concept that “I cannot DO anything”, except that clearly I am not
typing, but the typing gets done, as I respond to your post. Perhaps this paragraph will
give you the information you need to point out any errors and directions to proceed.

Well, I'll attempt to relay my current understanding of this most complex issue... You see, 'i's are completely and totally mechanical - they are programs learned throughout our lives - reactions and routines. They, in and of themselves can do nothing - it is the Essence - the tiniest seed of a soul - beneath these programs, these 'i's - that is able to Do - but only after it has been strengthened and fused, resulting in the magnetic center around which that seed of a soul can grow, as it were. This alone can take a very, very long time and an extraordinary amount of effort.

These 'i's, these programs, must be burned away within the heat of the crucible, which is the Work - in order that the essence can grow and form one, individual I. The essence has nothing to do with programs (the little 'i's). In fact, almost always, the essence is exactly opposite from the programs - the things the programs dislike, the essence likes and so forth. Thus, the purpose is to burn away those little 'i's - and in doing so, create inner conditions in which the 'I' can 'Be' - the unchangeable, constant, fused being who reflects, in all one does/says/conceives, their true Essence. The programs, the 'i's - hide this essence (assuming it is there to begin with; the seed of a soul) - they bury it, smother it, suffocate it, but there are extraordinary times when the essence is able to, just barely, 'sneak through' like a spark - especially after much previous effort and a bankruptcy, which, if the person is paying attention, might provide a signpost, as it were.


Then, there is this issue of bankruptcy - and what must happen in a person's life for them to be able to come to the Work and do the Work. I've included a quote that is rather lengthy, but the point is that when one speaks of bankruptcy, it is a very specific thing...

"You must understand that a man should have, first, a certain
preparation, certain luggage. He should know what it is possible to know
through ordinary channels about the ideas of esotericism, about hidden
knowledge, about possibilities of the inner evolution of man, and so on.
What I mean is that these ideas ought not to appear to him as something
entirely new. Otherwise it is difficult to speak to him.

"It is useful also if he has at least some scientific or philosophical
preparation.

"If a man has a good knowledge of religion, this can also be useful. But
if he is tied to religious forms and has no understanding of their essence,
he will find it very difficult.

"In general, if a man knows but little, has read but little, has thought
but little, it is difficult to talk to him.

"If he has a good essence there is another way for him without any talks
at all, but in this case he has to be obedient, he has to give up his will.
And he has to come to this also in some way or other.

"It can be said that there is one general rule for everybody. In order
to approach this system seriously, people must be disappointed, first of all
in themselves, that is to say, in their powers, and secondly in all the old
ways.

"A man cannot feel what is most valuable in the system unless he is
disappointed in what he has been doing, disappointed in what he has been
searching for.

"If he is a scientist he should be disappointed in his science If he is
a religious man he should be disappointed in his religion If he is a
politician he should be disappointed in politics If he is a philosopher he
should be disappointed in philosophy If he is a theosophist he should be
disappointed in theosophy If he is an occultist he should be disappointed in
occultism And so on.

"But you must understand what this means. I say for instance that a
religious man should be disappointed in religion This does not mean that he
should lose his faith. On the contrary, it means being 'disappointed' in the
teaching and the methods only, realizing that the religious teaching he
knows is not enough for him, can lead him nowhere

"All religious teachings, excepting of course the completely degenerated
religions of savages and the invented religions and sects of modern times,
consist of two parts, the visible and the hidden To be disappointed in
religion means being disappointed in the visible, and to feel the necessity
for finding the hidden and unknown part of religion

"To be disappointed in science does not mean losing interest in
knowledge. It means being convinced that the usual scientific methods are
not only useless but lead to the construction of absurd and self
contradictory theories, and, having become convinced of this, to begin to
search for others.

"To be disappointed in philosophy means being convinced that ordinary
philosophy is merely - as it is said in the Russian proverb - pouring from
one empty vessel into another, and that people do not even know what
philosophy means although true philosophy also can and should exist

"To be disappointed in occultism does not mean losing faith in the
miraculous, it is merely being convinced that ordinary, accessible, and even
advertised occultism, under whatever name it may pass, is simply
charlatanism and self deception and that, although somewhere something does
exist, everything that man knows or is able to learn in the ordinary way is
not what he needs.

"So that, no matter what he used to do before, no matter what used to
interest him, if a man has arrived at this state of disappointment in ways
that are possible and accessible, it is worth while speaking to him about
our system and then he may come to the work

"But if he continues to think that he is able to find anything on his
former way, or that he has not as yet tried all the ways, or that he can, by
himself, find anything or do anything, it means that he is not ready.

"I do not mean that he must throw up everything he used to do before.
This is entirely unnecessary On the contrary, it is often even better if he
continues to do what he used to do. But he must realize that it is only a
profession, or a habit, or a necessity In this case it is another matter, he
will then be able not to 'identify.'

"There is only one thing incompatible with work and that is
'professional occultism,' in other words, professional charlatanism. All
these spiritualists, healers, clairvoyants, and so on, or even people
closely connected with them, are none of them any good to us. And you must
always remember this and take care not to tell them much because everything
they learn from you they might use for their own purposes, that is, to make
fools of other people.

'There are still other categories which are no good but we will speak of
them later. In the meantime remember one thing only: A man must be
sufficiently disappointed in ordinary ways and he must at the same time
think or be able to accept the idea that there may be something- somewhere.
If you should speak to such a man, he might discern the flavor of truth in
what you say no matter how clumsily you might speak. But if you should speak
to a man who is convinced about something else, everything you say will
sound absurd to him and he will never even listen to you seriously. It is
not worth while wasting time on him.

"This system is for those who have already sought and have burned
themselves. Those who have not sought and who are not seeking do not need
it. And those who have not yet burned themselves do not need it either."

 

[PepperFritz]

Thank you so much for that post, Anart. It is enormously helpful.

 

[Bobo08]

I arrived at this work with the inner conflict of undisciplined not ‘I’s leading to bankruptcy. One or a group of these ‘I’s,
directing the personality for a moment admitted bankruptcy and began to search for a way out of this state or so it seems
to me. This, probably a group of little ‘I’s of the self-improving variety agreed to “invite” or “create” an observer ‘I’ to
recapitulate and observe my life and inner states. I understood this is the way to establish a link between the real ‘I’ and
the personality.

Hi go2,

I just want to add to Anart's explanation by emphasizing that the real I is not somewhere outside to be invited or created in oneself. It has to be there already to allow one the possibility of growth. What the Work does is to burn away the false i's and strengthen the real I below. This also explains why not all people have the possibility of growth. Some just do not have anything to begin with.

 

[go2]

These 'i's, these programs, must be burned away within the heat of the crucible, which is the Work - in order that the essence can grow and form one, individual I. The essence has nothing to do with programs (the little 'i's) - in fact, almost always, the essence is exactly opposite from the programs - the things the programs dislike, the essence likes and so forth. Thus, the purpose is to burn away those little 'i's - and in doing so, create inner conditions in which the 'I' can 'Be' - the unchangeable, constant, fused being who reflects in all one does/says/conceives their true Essence.

Is "heating the crucible", the same as “conscious suffering”?

I walked for thirty two days across northern Spain on the Camino de Santiago this spring. The body was wet, tired, and the feet blistered. I would not stop walking 25k, day after day, with single minded purpose. There was much complaint (from the little ‘I’s) and body which like comfort and pleasure. I often repeated the Gurdjieff quote below to the body and (little ‘l’s), ”I wish the result of this suffering to become my own, for Being.” Many of (the little I’s) became silent after it became clear I would not stop. I experienced a strange joy and strength from this effort.

Is this the Work you are describing, anart?

http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=8655.0

'I will tell you one thing that will make you rich for life. There are two struggles -- an Inner-world struggle and an Outer-world struggle. But these two worlds can never make contact with each other, to make data for Third World; even God cannot give the possibility for contact between Inner-world and Outer-world struggle; neither can your heredity give it.
'Only one thing can give it: you must make an intentional contact between the two worlds; then you can make data which crystallize for the Third World of man, called by the ancients the World of the Soul.
'I can give you a small example which will perhaps give you the "taste" of this intentional contact. You, for example, when you give up cigarettes. You have an Outer-world struggle (not to buy, not to take, but remember always to break habit); and you have an Inner-world struggle (you imagine how it was when you could smoke -- you imagine it in a different way, more keen, and with more longing); and it will seem (with this Inner-world imagining) even more desirable than it had ever been. You will have made this cigarette an Intentional Contact between the two struggles, and even by this small effort you will have made data for the Third World.
'This can be a thing for power. I will tell you one very important thing to say, each time when the longing to smoke comes. You say it the first time, and maybe notice nothing. You say it a second time, and maybe nothing. Say it a third time, and perhaps something will happen. Say: "I wish the result of this suffering to become my own, for Being". Yes, you can call that kind of wishing suffering, because it is suffering.

'This saying can maybe take force from your animal and give it to Being. And you can do this for many things -- for any denial of something that is a slavery. A force such as this has special results, special emanations.
'Man is man -- he can never be another thing. But he can make his body work for another part of him -- his mind. If it is easy to subdue the body, then the exercise is no good. If the body will lie down at once, nothing happens. The greater weakness the body has, the more labour it does, the more it can give to the mind, and to Being.'

 

[anart]

Is the heat of the crucible “conscious suffering”?

Not necessarily - mostly because in order to suffer consciously, one must first be conscious, or at least intermittently so. However, it does involve that, but in a specific way - that, to my experience at least, involves an objective network and a Mirror.

I walked for thirty two days across northern Spain on the Camino de Santiago this spring. The body was wet, tired, and the feet blistered. I would not stop walking 25k, day after day, with single minded purpose. There was much complaint (from the little ‘I’s) and body which like comfort and pleasure. I often repeated the Gurdjieff quote below to the body and (little ‘l’s), ”I wish the result of this suffering, to become my own for Being.” Many of (the little I’s) became silent after it became clear I would not stop. I experienced a strange joy and strength from this effort. Is this what you are describing, anart?

No, not necessarily, though not knowing the details of 'the purpose', it is difficult to know for sure. It might benefit you to develop a deep understanding of the misuse of centers; most especially the sex center. That might sound odd, but there is a reason I bring it up, which is in bold below. Everyone, as they begin the Work experiences the misuse of centers - the energy of the emotional center is usurped to run the intellect (very common), the energy of the sex center is usurped to run the intellect/motor center. Working to reinstate the natural operation of all centers is what's often called 'Cleaning the machine' - and involves conscious suffering and, always, intense self-observation, employed within a network which can provide objective input (no one can do this alone).

Before this gets too long winded, here is some relevant information, though there are several threads that discuss it as well, since it's a rather common, though quite complicated issue:

It is necessary, further, to remember that the sex center works with
'hydrogen' 12. This means that it is stronger and quicker than all other
centers. Sex, in fact, governs all other centers.

The only thing in ordinary circumstances, that is, when man has neither
consciousness nor will, that holds the sex center in submission is
'buffers.'

'Buffers' can entirely bring it to nought, that is, they can stop its normal
manifestation. But they cannot destroy its energy. The energy remains and
passes over to other centers, finding expression for itself through them; in
other words, the other centers rob the sex center of the energy which it
does not use itself.

The energy of the sex center in the work of the thinking, emotional, and
moving centers can be recognized by a particular 'taste,' by a particular
fervor, by a vehemence which the nature of the affair concerned does not
call for.

The thinking center writes books, but in making use of the energy of the sex
center it does not simply occupy itself with philosophy, science, or
politics-it is always fighting something, disputing, criticizing, creating
new subjective theories.

The emotional center preaches Christianity, abstinence, asceticism, or the
fear and horror of sin, hell, the torment of sinners, eternal fire, all this
with the energy of the sex center. ...

Or on the other hand it works up revolutions, robs, bums, kills, again with
the same energy.

The moving center occupies itself with sport, creates various records,
climbs mountains, jumps, fences, wrestles, fights, and so on.

In all these instances, that is, in the work of the thinking center as well
as in the work of the emotional and the moving centers, when they work with
the energy of the sex center, there is always one general characteristic and
this is a certain particular vehemence and, together with it, the
uselessness of the work in question.

Neither the thinking nor the emotional nor the moving centers can ever
create anything useful with the energy of the sex center. This is an example
of the 'abuse of sex.

Have you read In Search of the Miraculous by Ouspensky?

I'm not saying that this is definitely the mechanism at play here, it is just a possibility, considering your input thus far - fwiw.