Can we be sure what emotions might have driven our thoughts and behavior? If so, how? If not, how can we use other people as a mirror?
This topic continues a discussion that began in another thread. In my opinion, it's not necessary to read the other thread before joining this one, however for completion here is the reference: http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=13561.0.
It seems to me that some themes Gurdjieff often discussed include these concepts:
Most people do not have a single "I" of consciousness that chooses responses to situations. In general, people are instead driven by an assortment of programmed, conditioned, unconscious reactions. Whichever "I" is currently in control of the organism claims to have continuity of control, but that claim is an illusion. Soon enough another reactionary program will take over, and make its own claim to have always been in charge. Gurdjieff used the metaphor of machines with different components or assemblies acting in their own way, without a unified purpose.
I suppose that today, we might use as metaphors a car without a driver, or a computer without an operator. In either situation, random mechanical or electronic activity might cause observable effects, but there would not be an conscious control. An unaware and unintegrated person would be like that.
It is difficult for many people, but not impossible for everyone, to start to observe these competing claims, to observe the multitude of reactionary characters that temporarily seize control. With difficult work over time, there is the potential to build the ongoing presence of an Observer who is not swept along in all of these competing programs. With further difficult work over time, the Observer can become capable of taking action as a unified "I" who really does have continuity of existence and control. Without some level of unity to consciousness, ongoing moral choice is not possible.
To continue the metaphors, an observer would be like a driver or computer operator who first notices what is happening with the machine, and then takes control to drive to a particular location, or select and use software that accomplishes a purpose.
From what I have read at this forum, I believe this summary will be mostly uncontroversial here.
Now the question seems to be whether a person can ever be self-aware enough to know whether a particular past activity was driven by negative emotional programming. As I see it, Gurdjieff describes such awareness as difficult but not impossible to obtain. Therefore, when someone asks if an action might have been driven by an emotion, it is reasonable to reconsider whether this might have been the case. However, just because the question was asked, and answered with a "No," does not necessarily mean that the person is unaware of their emotions, or blind to how emotions might have influenced actions at that particular situation.
This is something of a "hot button" issue for me, because of many years of indoctrination from people who told me that they knew more than I did about my own thoughts, feelings, emotions, and intentions.
They insisted that just because they said so, my inner life was terrible, hateful, indifferent, and cruel, based on the fact that the condemners felt bad. There was, however, no possible way to explain what standard I could have lived up to have not been hurtful, nor anything I could do to make amends. To me, these are the key indicators that their condemnation was utterly subjective based on their discomfort with their own feelings.
I've since realized that these were situations of abuse, projection and cult indoctrination. While my mind realizes that, my emotions can respond with fearful anxiety if the pattern seems to be repeated. I can feel that I am in danger if someone appears to question my motives.
What bothered me personally in the other thread was not that I was asked if there was a hidden emotional cause to my actions, but that I felt that I would not be believed about my emotions and thoughts no matter what I said. The repeated challenge felt to me to indicate the same kind of disrespect, the assumption that I could not have meant what I said or known how bad my feelings were, that I encountered in the abusive situations. However, there is no evidence that those who didn't take my first answer were abusive, or projecting their issues onto me. At the same time, there is also no evidence I can see for them to not accept my answer about my own thoughts and feelings, but to continue to challenge the integrity of my self-observation.
My hope is that this thread will include discussions to clarify these issues for myself and, perhaps, for others.
This topic continues a discussion that began in another thread. In my opinion, it's not necessary to read the other thread before joining this one, however for completion here is the reference: http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=13561.0.
It seems to me that some themes Gurdjieff often discussed include these concepts:
Most people do not have a single "I" of consciousness that chooses responses to situations. In general, people are instead driven by an assortment of programmed, conditioned, unconscious reactions. Whichever "I" is currently in control of the organism claims to have continuity of control, but that claim is an illusion. Soon enough another reactionary program will take over, and make its own claim to have always been in charge. Gurdjieff used the metaphor of machines with different components or assemblies acting in their own way, without a unified purpose.
I suppose that today, we might use as metaphors a car without a driver, or a computer without an operator. In either situation, random mechanical or electronic activity might cause observable effects, but there would not be an conscious control. An unaware and unintegrated person would be like that.
It is difficult for many people, but not impossible for everyone, to start to observe these competing claims, to observe the multitude of reactionary characters that temporarily seize control. With difficult work over time, there is the potential to build the ongoing presence of an Observer who is not swept along in all of these competing programs. With further difficult work over time, the Observer can become capable of taking action as a unified "I" who really does have continuity of existence and control. Without some level of unity to consciousness, ongoing moral choice is not possible.
To continue the metaphors, an observer would be like a driver or computer operator who first notices what is happening with the machine, and then takes control to drive to a particular location, or select and use software that accomplishes a purpose.
From what I have read at this forum, I believe this summary will be mostly uncontroversial here.
Now the question seems to be whether a person can ever be self-aware enough to know whether a particular past activity was driven by negative emotional programming. As I see it, Gurdjieff describes such awareness as difficult but not impossible to obtain. Therefore, when someone asks if an action might have been driven by an emotion, it is reasonable to reconsider whether this might have been the case. However, just because the question was asked, and answered with a "No," does not necessarily mean that the person is unaware of their emotions, or blind to how emotions might have influenced actions at that particular situation.
This is something of a "hot button" issue for me, because of many years of indoctrination from people who told me that they knew more than I did about my own thoughts, feelings, emotions, and intentions.
They insisted that just because they said so, my inner life was terrible, hateful, indifferent, and cruel, based on the fact that the condemners felt bad. There was, however, no possible way to explain what standard I could have lived up to have not been hurtful, nor anything I could do to make amends. To me, these are the key indicators that their condemnation was utterly subjective based on their discomfort with their own feelings.
I've since realized that these were situations of abuse, projection and cult indoctrination. While my mind realizes that, my emotions can respond with fearful anxiety if the pattern seems to be repeated. I can feel that I am in danger if someone appears to question my motives.
What bothered me personally in the other thread was not that I was asked if there was a hidden emotional cause to my actions, but that I felt that I would not be believed about my emotions and thoughts no matter what I said. The repeated challenge felt to me to indicate the same kind of disrespect, the assumption that I could not have meant what I said or known how bad my feelings were, that I encountered in the abusive situations. However, there is no evidence that those who didn't take my first answer were abusive, or projecting their issues onto me. At the same time, there is also no evidence I can see for them to not accept my answer about my own thoughts and feelings, but to continue to challenge the integrity of my self-observation.
My hope is that this thread will include discussions to clarify these issues for myself and, perhaps, for others.
