Why Gurdjieff?
- Thread starter monkey
- Start date
tridean
Jedi Master
I noticed the last thread was locked and I do apologize for this, but I find that threads such as that where there is some heat and argument in it actually teach me a few things about myself even if small.
A part of me felt for Monkey's initial question, so can I please elaborate on that first.
When reading ISOTM there was a point where Gurdjieff recounted a story where there was a master and his students, one of the students being Gurdjieff himself. The master clicked his fingers (I think) and every student had to stop and was not allowed to move until the master said so. One of the students was in a river or creek or something where the water was rising and was actually completely under water before the master allowed him to move again, however from the students point of view they thought that the master was unaware that he was unable to breathe, however the student did not break the rule.
When I read this, I immediately found myself suffering huge inner conflict. I thought to myself, how many other people who are doing the work are willing to go to this length? If there is not many, or that going to this length is not necessary, then why did Gurdjieff himself feel the need to go to this length? I knew straight away that I was not willing to go to that length. But I did not 'know' and I still don't, if going to this length is completely necessary.
Now, I also 'know' one of the reasons I felt for Monkey a little bit is because he has come across as someone wanting answers and guidance, but at the cost of doing much of the research and work himself....at least this is how the majority who responded have seen it....and this highlighted for me one of my own weaknesses and something that I need to continue to work on....so although the thread got heated, I was able to get something out of it. So thankyou!
If I could at least offer something as an answer or thought to Monkey though, I think one has to really look at the basics such as learning to give without expectation, understanding the difference between 'reaction' and 'response', observing oneself such as any action you take that involves the the 'taking' from someone else, etc etc (I'm sure there's a few more) and when looking from these angles, it really doesn't matter who before, and who will in the future, makes a name for themselves teaching it does it?
A part of me felt for Monkey's initial question, so can I please elaborate on that first.
When reading ISOTM there was a point where Gurdjieff recounted a story where there was a master and his students, one of the students being Gurdjieff himself. The master clicked his fingers (I think) and every student had to stop and was not allowed to move until the master said so. One of the students was in a river or creek or something where the water was rising and was actually completely under water before the master allowed him to move again, however from the students point of view they thought that the master was unaware that he was unable to breathe, however the student did not break the rule.
When I read this, I immediately found myself suffering huge inner conflict. I thought to myself, how many other people who are doing the work are willing to go to this length? If there is not many, or that going to this length is not necessary, then why did Gurdjieff himself feel the need to go to this length? I knew straight away that I was not willing to go to that length. But I did not 'know' and I still don't, if going to this length is completely necessary.
Now, I also 'know' one of the reasons I felt for Monkey a little bit is because he has come across as someone wanting answers and guidance, but at the cost of doing much of the research and work himself....at least this is how the majority who responded have seen it....and this highlighted for me one of my own weaknesses and something that I need to continue to work on....so although the thread got heated, I was able to get something out of it. So thankyou!
If I could at least offer something as an answer or thought to Monkey though, I think one has to really look at the basics such as learning to give without expectation, understanding the difference between 'reaction' and 'response', observing oneself such as any action you take that involves the the 'taking' from someone else, etc etc (I'm sure there's a few more) and when looking from these angles, it really doesn't matter who before, and who will in the future, makes a name for themselves teaching it does it?
Buddy
The Living Force
Dingo said:
Because he agreed to, if only implicitly? How many of us are truly aware of our responsibilities and the extent to which we consent to consequences by engaging with our lessons?
Hi Dingo. The "Stop" exercise was/is for the benefit of self-remembering, the will, the attention, the thoughts, the feelings, and of the moving center and more. The student who almost drowned was responsible for what almost happened to him because 1) He had made a pact of trust and obedience with the Teacher by virtue of having been accepted as a student, 2) Having voluntarily engaged in the lesson and understanding what it entailed, this student had failed to utilize his self-remembering tasks of preventing himself from coming to be in this vulnerable position in the first place, OSIT.
Added:
Monkey said: "Before I can accept such a major perspective change like man is a machine and all its connotations I need to know if it is the right way".
Can you see how backward that is? Can you see that it is the wrong way round? If so, then you'll probably see why he/she wasn't gettin' no satisfaction from the answers received. :)
Monkey said:
Monkey, you must be very young and inexperienced.
When I first read Gurdjieff, I was 33 years old and bed-ridden after having my fourth child. I had experienced many, many things at that point, including a considerable stint as a social worker for the State where I interviewed applicants for welfare all day long. I had worked as a hypnotherapist, and most of all, I was an avid reader of history. In case you don't know, really reading history can make a person despair that there is any hope for humanity at all, ever. Nobody remembers history, and they are doomed to suffer over and over and over again. There were a LOT of questions in my mind about life and people. So, there I was, bed-ridden and this book was available to read. Let me quote for you how I described this life-changing event in my book "Amazing Grace":
____________________________________Quote from Grace_________________________
Several years earlier I had found a book on a "bargain table" in a book store entitled "In Search of the Miraculous" by P.D. Ouspensky. The blurb on the cover said: "The noted author of Tertium Organum combines the logic of a mathematician with the vision of a mystic in his quest for solutions to the problems of Man and the Universe." Since it was a bargain and promised to reveal secrets about our world, naturally, I bought it immediately. When I got home with it and tried to read it, it proved to be rather dry, and I gave it up. It had lain on the shelf ever after.
I had continued, to a great extent, my reading habits through the past few years, though there had been considerable restriction on the time I was allowed to give to it. Larry resented the fact that I liked to read before going to sleep, and there were many nights when I sat up alone, shivering in the cold, to read what I considered to be my necessary daily allowance of intellectual input.
But now that I was bedridden, the door was wide open to reading as much as I liked. In that sense, it was a blessing. So, I remembered this book that I had put aside; it seemed that a book that promised insight to the issues I was struggling with - even a very dry book - didn’t seem like such a bad idea when I could do nothing else. I asked for it, and soon it was located and brought to me.
I realized pretty quickly that this book would go to the top of the list of "forbidden works" according to the elders of our church, but I didn't care. After my experiences with the church over the past few years, the teachings were rapidly declining as the standard by which reality ought to be measured. I was still "on guard" against "evil ideas," but I was sure that I could filter out anything too "dangerous" in a work that promised insight on the issues for which I was seeking answers.
Everything was fine for about 17 pages, and I was getting "into" the style of writing and found it to be deeply interesting and then - well - then this mysterious "G" (about whom I knew nothing), made a remark that completely knocked the wind out of my still mostly Fundamentalist sails. In response to Ouspensky's speculation that, in the industrial age, humans were becoming more "mechanized" and had stopped thinking, Gurdjieff said:
"There is another kind of mechanization which is much more dangerous: being a machine oneself. Have you ever thought about the fact that all people themselves are machines? ...Look, all those people you see are simply machines - nothing more. ...You think there is something that chooses its own path, something that can stand against mechanization; you think that not everything is equally mechanical."
At this point, Ouspensky raised the very argument that was forming in my own mind:
"Why of course not! ...Art, poetry, thought, are phenomena of quite a different order."
Gurdjieff replied: "Of exactly the same order. These activities are just as mechanical as everything else. Men are machines and nothing but mechanical actions can be expected of machines."
I was so enraged that I snapped the book shut and threw it against the wall!
How dare he say such a terrible thing about human beings! How dare he deny the reality of the spirit, the sublimity of music and mysticism and the salvation of Christ! I'm surprised that steam didn't issue from my head. I was hot with outrage!
But, it had been said. The seed of the thought had been planted in my mind. After awhile, my curiosity about such a concept came to the fore. I began to mull over the issue in an attempt to find ways to disprove it.
I mused over my own life, all my interactions with other people, significantly my own mother, and gradually, I began to realize that there was, indeed, something mysteriously "mechanical" about the interactions between human beings. I thought about the many people I had worked with therapeutically using hypnosis, and how "mechanical" the therapy was, and how the roots of most of their problems were rather like "mechanical" and conditioned reactions to their perceptions and observations. Generally, it seemed, these perceptions were erroneous, and it was the error of this "mechanical" thinking that created the problems in the first place.
But, over and over again, their problems and the ways they formed and operated, as well as the therapeutic solutions themselves, were, essentially, mechanical. It was like a formula. With just a few "hints" from the person, I could almost immediately see the whole dynamic of their past and the formation of their problem, as well as the "mechanical" way to solve it. I applied the technique, and just like changing the wires and spark plugs in a car, it made them start "firing on all cylinders" again.
Okay, so the guy has a point. But clearly, those people who were "saved" were saved from being mechanical, right? I wanted to find out if he had anything to say about that! I called one of the children to retrieve the book for me and I continued to read. The question was asked: "Can it be said that man possesses immortality?"
Gurdjieff's reply was fascinating:
"Immortality is one of the qualities we ascribe to people without having a sufficient understanding of their meaning. Other qualities of this kind are 'individuality,' in the sense of an inner unity, a 'permanent and unchangeable I,' 'consciousness,' and 'will.' All these qualities can belong to man, but this certainly does not mean that they do belong to him or belong to each and every one.
"In order to understand what man is at the present time, that is, at the present level of development, it is necessary to imagine to a certain extent what he can be, that is, what he can attain. Only by understanding the correct sequence of development possible will people cease to ascribe to themselves what, at present, they do not possess, and what, perhaps, they can only acquire after great effort and great labor.
"According to an ancient teaching, traces of which may be found in many systems, old and new, a man who has attained the full development possible for man, a man in the full sense of the word, consists of four bodies. These four bodies are composed of substances which gradually become finer and finer, mutually interpenetrate one another, and form four independent organisms, standing in a definite relationship to one another but capable of independent action."
Gurdjieff's idea was that it was possible for these four bodies to exist because the physical human body has such a complex organization that, under certain favorable conditions, a new and independent organism actually can develop and grow within it. This new system of organs of perception can afford a more convenient and responsive instrument for the activity of an awakened consciousness.
" The consciousness manifested in this new body is capable of governing it, and it has full power and full control over the physical body. In this second body, under certain conditions, a third body can grow, again having characteristics of its own. The consciousness manifested in this third body has full power and control over the first two bodies; and the third body possesses the possibility of acquiring knowledge inaccessible either to the first or to the second body. In the third body, under certain conditions, a fourth can grow, which differs as much from the third as the third differs from the second, and the second from the first. The consciousness manifested in the fourth body has full control over the first three bodies and itself.
"These four bodies are defined in different teachings in various ways. The first is the physical body, in Christian terminology the 'carnal' body; the second, in Christian terminology, is the 'natural' body; the third is the 'spiritual' body; and the fourth, in the terminology of esoteric Christianity, is the 'divine body. In theosophical terminology the first is the 'physical' body, the second is the 'astral,' the third is the 'mental,' and the fourth the 'causal.'
"In the terminology of certain Eastern teachings the first body is the 'carriage,' (the body), the second is the 'horse' (feelings, desires), the third the 'driver' (mind), and the fourth the 'master (I, consciousness, will).
"Such comparisons and parallels may be found in most systems and teachings which recognize something more in man than the physical body. But almost all these teachings, while repeating in a more or less familiar form the definitions and divisions of the ancient teaching, have forgotten or omitted its most important feature, which is: that man is not born with the finer bodies. They can only be artificially cultivated in him, provided favorable conditions both internal and external are present.
"The 'astral body' is not an indispensable implement for man. It is a great luxury which only a few can afford. A man can live quite well without an 'astral body.' His physical body possesses all the functions necessary for life. A man without 'astral body' may even produce the impression of being a very intellectual or even spiritual man, and may deceive not only others but also himself.
"When the third body has been formed and has acquired all the properties, powers, and knowledge possible for it, there remains the problem of fixing this knowledge and these powers. Because, having been imparted to it by influences of a certain kind, they may be taken away by these same influences or by others. By means of a special kind of work for all three bodies the acquired properties may be made the permanent and inalienable possession of the third body.
"The process of fixing these acquired properties corresponds to the process of the formation of the fourth body.
"And only the man who possesses four fully developed bodies can be called a 'man' in the full sense of the word. This man possesses many properties which ordinary man does not possess. One of these properties is immortality. All religions and all ancient teachings contain the idea that, by acquiring the fourth body, man acquires immortality; and they all contain indications of the ways to acquire the fourth body, that is, immortality."
The book went flying again!
I was outraged. But this time, my indignation lasted only a very short time. Again, in thinking over the many clues about human beings I had been collecting all my life, including those derived from observing myself, I saw something very deeply true being said here. As much as I might not like it, I could not deny the fact it was certainly a hypothesis supported by observation.
Hints of these matters did occur in the Bible, though they were among the most obscure references. Preachers and theologians generally tended to leave them strictly alone. At least 17 times in the New Testament, it's noted that Jesus taught his disciples in "secret". The teachings of Jesus in the Bible itself consists only of his purported public discourses. There was a lot missing, and Gurdjieff spoke as one with authority. What's more, it rang of truth.
The book was retrieved again. I was curious to see what further remarks might be made about Christianity. Ouspensky asked the same question I would have asked myself:
"For a man of Western culture, it is of course difficult to believe and to accept the idea that an ignorant fakir, a naïve monk, or a yogi who has retired from life may be on the way to evolution while an educated European, armed with 'exact knowledge' and all the latest methods of investigation, has no chance whatever and is moving in a circle from which there is no escape." Gurdjieff answered:
"Yes, that is because people believe in progress and culture. There is no progress whatever. Everything is just the same as it was thousands, and tens of thousands, of years ago. The outward form changes. The essence does not change. Man remains just the same. 'Civilized' and 'cultured' people live with exactly the same interests as the most ignorant savages. Modern civilization is based on violence and slavery and fine words.
"...What do you expect? People are machines. Machines have to be blind and unconscious, they cannot be otherwise, and all their actions have to correspond to their nature. Everything happens. No one does anything. 'Progress' and 'civilization,' in the real meaning of these words, can appear only as the result of conscious efforts. They cannot appear as the result of unconscious mechanical actions. And what conscious effort can there be in machines? And if one machine is unconscious, then a hundred machines are unconscious, and so are a thousand machines, or a hundred thousand, or a million. And the unconscious activity of a million machines must necessarily result in destruction and extermination. It is precisely in unconscious involuntary manifestations that all evil lies. You do not yet understand and cannot imagine all the results of this evil. But the time will come when you will understand."
And Gurdjieff was right. He was speaking at the beginning of the First World War, in the opening rounds of a century of unprecedented warfare.
My copy of "In Search of the Miraculous" flew across the room at least a dozen more times. I fumed and raged inside each time I was confronted with an idea that, upon reflection and comparison to my observations and experiences, seemed a far better explanation of the dynamics of human existence than anything I had ever read in my life.
As for this "unconscious evil" that Gurdjieff mentioned, he explained in the Tale of the Evil Magician:
"A very rich magician had a great many sheep. But at the same time this magician was very mean. He did not want to hire shepherds, nor did he want to erect a fence about the pasture where his sheep were grazing. The sheep consequently often wandered into the forest, fell into ravines, and so on, and above all they ran away, for they knew that the magician wanted their flesh and skins and this they did not like.
"At last the magician found a remedy. He hypnotized his sheep and suggested to them first of all that they were immortal and that no harm was being done to them when they were skinned. On the contrary, it would be very good for them and even pleasant. Secondly he suggested that the magician was a good master who loved his flock so much that he was ready to do anything in the world for them. In the third place he suggested to them that if anything at all were going to happen to them it was not going to happen just then, at any rate not that day, and therefore they had no need to think about it. Further, the magician suggested to his sheep that they were not sheep at all; to some of them he suggested that they were lions, to others that they were eagles, to others that they were men, and to others that they were magicians.
"And after this all his cares and worries about the sheep came to an end. They never ran away again but quietly awaited the time when the magician would require their flesh and skins.
Ouspensky wrote that theoretically, a man could awaken. But in practice this is almost impossible. As soon as a man awakens for a moment and opens his eyes, all the forces that caused him to fall asleep in the first place begin to act on him with tenfold energy. He immediately falls asleep again, very often dreaming that he is awake.
When I read this I immediately thought of the pastor who conducted that farcical effort to get me to speak in tongues, and the so-called "exorcism," the same pastor who'd been taken in by my mother's manipulations. Could it be possible that he was one of those described in Gurdjieff's tale as being hypnotized into believing that he was a magician? How many other people had I met who claimed to "know" things, but the evidence of their lives, their actions, did not support their claims?
I also thought about my study of the history of man in my search for the justification of God, and how I had come to see it as the biography of Satan. I was beginning to realize that something was very wrong with the picture of the world that we are taught from the moment we are born, and that is further implemented in our culture, our society and most especially our religions.
I thought back over my life and realized that all the events that had gradually maneuvered me into my present position could most definitely be perceived as the "forces that act to keep a person asleep". It was a certainty that some tremendous pressure had been applied to stop me from observing, from analyzing, and most of all from thinking and learning.
The question was: who or what was the true nature of the "Evil Magician?"
______________________end quote__________________________
Now, let me just add this: in the years since reading this book, years filled with working with people, I have come to appreciate Gurdjieff's insights even more. If you will read the psychological literature we recommend, you will discover that Gurdjieff's ideas about psychology are rather close to some of the latest cognitive research. Read, for example, Martha Stout's book "The Myth of Sanity," and Steve Mithen's "Prehistory of the Mind." If you do the reading on psychopathology and narcissism, you will discover that Gurdjieff was really, REALLY onto something.
Now, that doesn't mean that I consider his methods correct. Maybe they were right for him and his time and the people he worked with, but they are not right for us, our time, and the people we work with. Gurdjieff had a dominating moving center and most of his exercises were moving center related. We, on the other hand, work on the intellectual/emotional centers.
Time and time and time again, we have encountered individuals who come to this forum - or in real life - who have been accurately described by Gurdjieff and he has even predicted exactly what they will do, and subsequently do. Human beings really are just machines until they choose to WORK to become otherwise.
P.S. I'm still waiting for those citations. As a historian, I have covered the history of the Khazars to a great extent and your claims just don't seem to be supported by the evidence. Please cite your sources.
tridean
Jedi Master
Bud said:
Hi Bud,
One thing I do know is that I am not very intelligent, and nor do I absorb much of what I read. I think it takes me ten times to read something before I retain 10% of its message, and then I have no idea how much of that message came through as the author intended.
These are two examples. My understanding of the "stop" exercise was obviously way off now that you have explained it to me. I also can now only see how backwards Monkey's line was now that you have put it that way.
Sorry guys, I now realize that I have misjudged my understanding of where I am in relation to the work and that I have an obvious way to go, it must be very frustrating for you more experienced guys
I do have one question, and I guess this still sort of relates to the initial question put forward by Monkey, but when I read the STOP exercise and had that inner confusion which has plagued me pretty much ever since, how should I have addressed this? Is this a normal occurrence to come across such a point of confusion, not only about whether or not you should pursue a certain line of work, but also, whether you have indeed perceived it correctly, obviously in my case I didn't and have spent the last 18 months questioning a lot of things based upon an incorrect understanding.
Thanks
Dingo
Dingo, have you read "The Myth of Sanity" and "Prehistory of the Mind"???
Even though you say that you have trouble absorbing information, if you read these books and take notes as you read, you may come to understand some of the possible reasons for your difficulty understanding and retaining information.
The mind is like a building with many rooms and for most people, there are no doors between those rooms; each area of life is dealt with by a different mental function and there is little cross-communication. Your "reading self" may not be able to share what you read with the rest of you. This is not so mysterious as it sounds if you will read studies in cognitive science.
Gurdjieff's work was aimed at cutting doors between the rooms in the mind and getting them all to communicate with each other so that the real I could know, at all times, what was going on anywhere in the building and utilize this awareness to master the self and the environment.
I will tell you that I didn't like the "stop exercises" description either. But, as I mentioned above, Gurdjieff worked in a different way at a different time and perhaps it is good he did because we have the advantage of his knowledge and experiences, as well as a history of his successes and failures that we can utilize to evaluate whether or not what he did was useful to us here and now.
Even though you say that you have trouble absorbing information, if you read these books and take notes as you read, you may come to understand some of the possible reasons for your difficulty understanding and retaining information.
The mind is like a building with many rooms and for most people, there are no doors between those rooms; each area of life is dealt with by a different mental function and there is little cross-communication. Your "reading self" may not be able to share what you read with the rest of you. This is not so mysterious as it sounds if you will read studies in cognitive science.
Gurdjieff's work was aimed at cutting doors between the rooms in the mind and getting them all to communicate with each other so that the real I could know, at all times, what was going on anywhere in the building and utilize this awareness to master the self and the environment.
I will tell you that I didn't like the "stop exercises" description either. But, as I mentioned above, Gurdjieff worked in a different way at a different time and perhaps it is good he did because we have the advantage of his knowledge and experiences, as well as a history of his successes and failures that we can utilize to evaluate whether or not what he did was useful to us here and now.
obyvatel
The Living Force
We used to play a game as kids where we would be running around or doing something when someone would call out "statue" and everyone had to freeze in place. Later reading about Gurdjieff's stop exercise, I remembered this old game. Under ordinary circumstances, at least some of the challenges encountered in the stop exercise seem to be similar to what one would face when learning and holding new postures - like in martial arts or yoga.
G did say this regarding the stop command
[quote author=ISOTM]
"The 'stop' exercise is considered sacred in schools," he said. "Nobody except the principal teacher or the person he commissions has the right to command a 'stop.' 'Stop' cannot be the subject of play or exercise among the pupils. You never know the position a man can find himself in. If you cannot feel for him, you do not know what muscles are tensed or how much. Meanwhile if a difficult tension is continued it can cause the rupture of some important vessel and in some cases it can even cause immediate death. Therefore only he who is quite certain in himself that he knows what he is doing can allow himself to command a 'stop.'
[/quote]
Given G's own mastery of the moving center and special powers which he mentions in Life Is Real ....., it is conceivable that his teachers had such moving center related mastery that they could actually feel the physical state of students making the stop a safe exercise most of the time. Moving center dominated schools of yesteryears (specially in the eastern part of the world) would have had a different standard of physical fitness compared to the present and also students would also most likely be young in age when they were inducted.
Like Laura said, an exercise for a different place and different time .....but I liked the description of it.
G did say this regarding the stop command
[quote author=ISOTM]
"The 'stop' exercise is considered sacred in schools," he said. "Nobody except the principal teacher or the person he commissions has the right to command a 'stop.' 'Stop' cannot be the subject of play or exercise among the pupils. You never know the position a man can find himself in. If you cannot feel for him, you do not know what muscles are tensed or how much. Meanwhile if a difficult tension is continued it can cause the rupture of some important vessel and in some cases it can even cause immediate death. Therefore only he who is quite certain in himself that he knows what he is doing can allow himself to command a 'stop.'
[/quote]
Given G's own mastery of the moving center and special powers which he mentions in Life Is Real ....., it is conceivable that his teachers had such moving center related mastery that they could actually feel the physical state of students making the stop a safe exercise most of the time. Moving center dominated schools of yesteryears (specially in the eastern part of the world) would have had a different standard of physical fitness compared to the present and also students would also most likely be young in age when they were inducted.
Like Laura said, an exercise for a different place and different time .....but I liked the description of it.
Alada
The Living Force
I wonder if Gs example of the stop exercise where the guy has his head underwater is an adaptation of this teaching story, I've just grabbed an example from the web here:
So I think Dingo is right, the image of the guy underwater in the stop exercise really makes you think about yourself and how much you’re prepared to put in. Reminds me I have always to keep trying to bring all I have to the struggle.
guy with his head under the water story said:
So I think Dingo is right, the image of the guy underwater in the stop exercise really makes you think about yourself and how much you’re prepared to put in. Reminds me I have always to keep trying to bring all I have to the struggle.
Laura said:
Laura, doesn't EE work with the instinctive-moving center? Doesn't the directed and repetive attention on breathing intend to connect the moving center with the feeling center?
It has been my experience that the breathing exercises bring me to presence in the body, which led at first to negative emotional states; anger, anxiety, and fear. The attention to the physical sensation of fear shows me that fear is based in the automatic instinctive-motor center reaction to external events or the associated memory of external events.
When I experience the state of empathy for another's suffering it feels different than the distinct physical presence of fear. It is an opening to the possibility of relationship, rather than a closing of possibility. The inner sensation of truly feeling for another had mostly eluded me, as it was hidden or disconnect by fear. For me, instinctive-motor excercises of EE, have opened a new inner connection which put me in a new world I am only beginning to explore.
I want to offer an impression adding to your emphasis on intellectual/emotional center work. Our Work on EE, detox, and optimal nutrition is Work on the physical center. In other words, I think your Work and Mr. Gurdjieff's Work are more alike than they are different.
Thank you for attention to an interesting question. :)
go2 said:
Indeed, and this is something that we were missing for a long time. We had spent so much time working in the intellect that we overbalanced in that direction.
go2 said:
Except that Gurdjieff does not seem to have spent much time on emotional or intellectual centers. He was trying to access the whole shebang through moving center work, or so it seems based on all the material I've read about him and his activities.
On the other hand, we started with intellectual center work and that led to the understanding (via the intellect) that something really needed to be done for the body and emotions, thus, the EE program which actually works on all three centers, though intellect is only stimulated via POTS. The idea is that the affirmations in POTS will encourage the individual to begin to really use the intellect, to research on their own, to open their eyes and ears and mind. It is a vessel in which the higher emotional and intellectual centers can reside.
ec1968 said:
It is no longer available and should NOT be available online for copyright reasons. I have the last half dozen copies in existence.
However, I have already uploaded the text to the cass site, it is just not published yet. I'm working on getting all the original images back in before I do. When I first published it on the website, it had lots of photos which I think made the story more interesting because you could see photos of people and places as I talk about them. But, when it went to book form, it was too expensive to include all those pictures. That was the real downside of the book. So, I'm restoring the original text with photos and even MORE photos so it is more fun! and it should be ready to launch in a few weeks!
Mountain Crown
The Living Force
[quote author=Laura]So, I'm restoring the original text with photos and even MORE photos so it is more fun! and it should be ready to launch in a few weeks! [/quote]
That's great Laura, thanks for doing this.
That's great Laura, thanks for doing this.
Buddy
The Living Force
Dingo said:
Hey, Dingo. Do you know anyone who reads to go to sleep? How could that work, exactly? Do you know what Laura means by the compartments of the mind/brain? By the time you finish reading this post, you might have an insight about those questions.
I learned something back in the 1980's that might help you. To make it a bit more fun, grab a book and set yourself to read. Imagine a little 5 year old standing beside you asking all kinds of "why?" questions, like why are you sitting there? Why are you wanting to read? Why are you reading that? Why are you starting there? Why do you want to know that? WHY WHY WHY?
Once you've answered all the questions, I assume you are starting out pretty clear-headed about what you are doing, why you are doing it and what you expect to accomplish by doing it (so that you can tell when it's not going right). This will be your overview, or purpose for the moment.
Now, start reading and notice your reactions to the material as you read. Notice any tightening of the eyes and forehead, indicating extra concentration effort due to lack of perfect clarity. Stop right there and focus on the material to make sure you maintain the connection with the flow of ideas. Repeat as needed.
If there is confusion, do everything you can to clear up the confusion first, including looking up definitions for words or ideas that may cloud your meaning of what you're reading. If stuff still doesn't make sense, ask the network for feedback.
Sometimes disassociation can occur during reading at the exact point where confusion begins due to undefined or misunderstood words and concepts in the material being read. If this happens, and you don't take steps to regain clarity, you will likely begin disassociating, compartmentalizing off what you previously read and beginning a new compartment to hold the foggy parts. To prevent this, you can trace back to the point where you had total clarity and then step carefully through the material until you find the offending passage and link it all back together.
If you are tired and don't really care about the material so much, you can actually nod off at this point and go into actual sleep.
If you're really motivated to learn, then with some practice you can learn to zero in on the trouble spot in your reading material pretty quickly.
If you will think about this idea and practice it, it will help your comprehension and retention for the rest of your life, OSIT.
Dingo said:
I think it's normal, both before you enter the line of work and during the work itself. How do you think a scientist would answer that question about his own occupational interests and pursuits? (rhetorical question)
I think a lot depends on how well a person understands what they are attempting to do and why they are bothering to attempt to do it.
Asking yourself "why?" as if you had a curious 5 year old by your side every minute of the day may help. If you did, it would probably either drive you crazy or force you to pay attention and understand yourself much better. It might be a lot of work, at first, but FRV doesn't depend on pure intelligence. I'd rather be perfectly clear on what I do know than to be foggy on everything at once.
Hope that helps. :)
Laura said:
It is my impression that All and Everything is Gurdjieff's Work for the intellectual center and the emotional center for us, his grandchildren. The overarching aim of the Work is to balance and to interconnect the three centers making possible the seating of the higher emotional center and the higher intellectual center.
Certainly, I agree that Gurdjieff's early work emphasized the moving center, perhaps to balance the intellectual center of students like Ouspensky and Orage. In his haste to achieve a World impact in his lifetime, he tried a short cut focusing on one doorway.
The single center focus failed, and Gurdjieff and Laura concluded all centers must be involved in Real Work. Gurdjieff balanced his Work with students by writing All and Everything and Laura balanced her Work with students by introducing EE and POTS.
Laura, I hope I am not being presumptious with this line of discussion. There is precious little Real Work in the world today and I think your work on pathology in particular is an invaluable addition to this "ray of creation." I want to express my deepest gratitude for having found a living Work Group.
