Why is it so hard to talk about the Work?

[Barbara]

I read whatever I can on the web about Gurdjieff. And sadly, too much of it is not
very useful. There are so many people who are hostile. There are so many people
who are so self absorbed that what they say has relevance only for themselves.

It isn't surprising. Look at the current political debates and find the same problems.
This is a societal problem. We can't think and communicate at the same time.

There must be something that we can use in the various writings of the 4th Way tradition
to practice meaningful communication. This would be communication that would serve
all three centers. It would add to the understanding of all the communicants. It would
offer a sense of community that one would feel. (This is not the community of warring
relatives sitting around the obligatory Thanksgiving dinner, or whatever this would be
outside of the US). It would have practical effects that would make real (non verbal)
changes.

I would like to see 4th Way ideas that speak to this and (important) examples of how
these are being used in communication.

 

[henry]

The communication you discuss must have as its basis external consideration. We must take into account the people towards whom it is addressed. But there are many types of people and therefore many ways they need to be addressed.

But this communication must also have as its basis the search for what is true.

We have found that those who are interested in the truth understand that no one person "has" the truth and are able to get over their false personalities to some degree in order to work with others.

The warring that you mention comes when individuals and groups give up the search for what is true and fight over which subjective interpretation is correct.

Unfortunately, the defence of the truth can also appear to be fighting of the same type. How often do you hear variations on "Stop fighting, we can all be friends"? Yes, it is possible for individuals and groups with differences of opinions to collaborate over specific issues and tasks. But groups that are going in fundamentally difference directions will find it difficult.

However, your message is quite vague. Can you give some examples of what you mean? What types of communication do you see as possible or necessary?

 

[kenlee]

It isn't surprising. Look at the current political debates and find the same problems. This is a societal problem. We can't think and communicate at the same time.

There must be something that we can use in the various writings of the 4th Way tradition to practice meaningful communication. This would be communication that would serve all three centers. It would add to the understanding of all the communicants. .

I'm also not sure what you mean by "meaningful communications". The communicants may not be interested in meaningful communication. This is something that must be considered otherwise it is just ‘pouring from the empty into the void ‘ (as. Gurdjieff would say). The free will of the communicants must be respected and the level of their own understanding must be understood otherwise the communication can fall into “the art of splitting a hair four ways”.

From http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/wave13i.htm

First of all, it is important to note that the law of Free Will contains within it the explicit condition of non-linearity. And for those who wish to take issue with my remarks here, claiming that the Cassiopaeans have said that we are controlled by 4th density STS, and therefore this implies that there is no free will, keep in mind that we have as much free will in relation to 4th density as 2nd density creatures have in relation to us. The more awareness of 3rd density beings the 2nd density creature obtains, the more likely it is to avoid being captured and eaten. So, let's not get sidetracked into tetraphyloctomy on that point. [A term coined by Umberto Eco in Foucault's Pendulum; means "the art of splitting a hair four ways.]

Implicit in non-linearity is the fact that the future is, as the Cassiopaeans have said a thousand times, if they have said it once: OPEN. Not only is it open, it is multiple in probability. In their own words, there is an uncountable infinity of "quasi-quantum propensities."

I understood Gurdjieff to say (I don’t have time at the moment to find the quote) that If we see the world in only one or even two centers then we are pretty much witnessing (more or less) a hallucination or mirage. Only “three center knowing” can bring us to reality. If the communicants and communicator are not willing to learn how to know from the totality of themselves and think in new ways along with opening new possibilities of discovery then I can’t see how any exact language and understanding can eventually be established between them so as to facilitate the growth of their relationship.

 

[Darren]

I didn't find the Gurdjieff quote but there's this from 'Understanding the Enneagram':

Gurdjieff asserted that the greater potentials inherent in all human beings, the aspects of higher consciousness, were manifestations of two additional centers which he called the "higher emotional" and "higher intellectual" centers. However, Gurdjieff said that we did not need to add or develop these two higher centers. On the contrary, he taught that they were fully operational and ready to manifest through us. He claimed that the reason we seldom experience the action of these higher centers was due to what he called the scrambling or misuse of the three "regular" or lower centers. In other words, the lower centers of thinking, feeling, instinct are so distorted and off balance that the "signals" from the higher centers cannot get through to us.

But it seems, from what you're saying that as long as the lower centers are balanced then with or without higher centers we will have the potential to see objectively. And that's what is needed if we are to see our programs, even if they've been pointed out to us, and deal with them. That nothing can really be done until some sort of balance has been achieved.

There's also this from 'In Search of the Miraculous Vol 1' (not the Ouspenski version).

I am aware about me, why I am here. And this meeting of ours can be meaningful if you too are here
for the same reasons, and if you and I meet each other at the same plane. Otherwise, as it often
happens, there can be no meeting whatsoever even though we are crossing each other’s paths. If
you are not here for the same reasons as I am, there will be no meeting point between us in spite of
our living in such close physical proximity.
I would like you to see that which I now see. It is so near that it is amazing how you don’t see it. And
many times I suspect that you have deliberately closed your eyes and ears. Otherwise how could
you miss it? Jesus has said again and again that people have eyes but they don’t see and they have
ears but they don’t hear. Not only the blind are blind and the deaf are deaf, even they are blind and
deaf who have both eyes and ears That is why you don’t see and hear and feel that which is so near
and which surrounds you from everywhere. What is the matter?
Undoubtedly there is some small obstruction in the way of your vision. It is, however, not a big
obstruction. It is like a speck of dust that gets in the eye and obstructs the view of a whole mountain.
Just a tiny speck of dust can blind your eyes. Logic will say that it should be a huge thing that
obstructs the view of a mountain. Arithmetic will say that the thing that prevents you from seeing a
mountain must be something bigger than the mountain itself. But in reality the speck of dust is a
very small thing and so are our eyes. But because the dust covers the eyes the mountain is covered
and thus made invisible to the eyes.
Similarly, what obstructs our inner vision is not something as big as a mountain, it is but a little dust.
And it is what has made us blind to reality. Because of a tiny obstruction all the truths of life remain
hidden from us.
Certainly, I am not talking about the physical eyes with which we see things. This creates great
confusion. Remember well that in existence only that truth is meaningful for us for which a sensitivity
is created within us to receive it, to grasp it, to accept it and to live it. If I have no ears, I cannot
hear even the roar of the sea which is so loud and powerful. Even if the ocean continues to roar for
eternity I can never hear it. Just for lack of ears the roar of the ocean will be wasted on me. And
even if the sun appears at my doorstep I cannot see him if I have no eyes. And similarly if I don’t
have hands I cannot touch anyone, howsoever I may wish to touch him.

And that small speck of dust in the eye could be analogous to the program(s) that make seeing what is right in front of ones eyes - seeing objectively - impossible.

 

[Barbara]

“The communication you discuss must have as its basis external consideration”

"External considering is a form of self-remembering in relation to people. You take other people into consideration and do, not what is pleasant to you, but what is pleasant to them. It means you must sacrifice yourself, but it does not mean self-sacrifice. It means that in relation to people you must not act without thinking. You must think first, and then act. Your thinking will show you that, more often than not, if this person would prefer you to act in one manner and not in another, it is all the same to you, so why not do what he likes? So the idea of sacrifice does not enter into it. But if it is not the same to you, it is quite a different question. What is better for you, what is better for them, who those people are, what you want from them, what you want to do for them - all this must enter into it. But the idea is that in relation to people things must not happen mechanically, without thinking."

(I am copying this from someone who was quoting Ouspensky
In The Fourth Way, but I do not have access to my copy of this book now. So I am trusting
that it is correct)

First, I don’t think that there is anything easy about external consideration. To do it well, one must usually ask the other person about their perspective. And even then I may just hear the echo of my own projections. I usually only have the vaguest clue about what would be pleasant to them. Often, for me, I just need to listen.

If I decide that I want to practice external consideration, what are some general guidelines.
On the internet, I cannot see another’s face. I may have no idea of their age, nationality,
life condition or background in the 4th Way. In some forms of 4th Way work, asking questions about these things can be rude. How have you practices external consideration?
What are some experiences that might illustrate this?

It seems to me that there is another perspective from communication. Suppose that I
am trying to teach a child to add. I can consider it from the child’s perspective – does she
had the correct background, how does she feel about the it, etc. I can consider it from
my perspective – what do I know, how do I feel, etc. Or I can consider it from the
perspective of mathematics. I know that some day she should take algebra and beyond.
I will shape much of what I say to the demands of the knowledge I am trying to explain
to her. There is a context much beyond today.

Certainly, I do not stand in relation to other people studying the 4th Way as I would be
to a child, but it makes the example clearer.

If we are talking about a 4th Way idea, there are the simple demands of the ideas themselves. They will make intellectual demands like clarity, relevancy, and honesty. They will make emotional demands like respect for the ideas, their context and their value. They will also make demands that we act or serve these ideas if they are believed. There are real consequences beyond a theoretical debate.


“I'm also not sure what you mean by "meaningful communications". The communicants may not be interested in meaningful communication. This is something that must be considered otherwise it is just ‘pouring from the empty into the void ‘ (as. Gurdjieff would say). The free will of the communicants must be respected and the level of their own understanding must be understood otherwise the communication can fall into “the art of splitting a hair four ways”.”

I may be crazy, but I really do believe that no one gets into this stuff without some degree of sincerity, no matter how often it is forgotten. Meaningful communication would reach out for this point of sincerity. There would always be the attempt to connect. Meaningful communication is when both parties learn. It is not a waste of breath. It does not require
agreement.


”Implicit in non-linearity is the fact that the future is, as the Cassiopaeans have said a thousand times, if they have said it once OPEN. Not only is it open, it is multiple in probability. In their own words, there is an uncountable infinity of "quasi-quantum propensities."”

Here is an example of something which can be done. I am familiar with 4th Way writers,
but not this. So I cannot follow the discussion. Could you cite a source for this so I could
follow your reasoning. Also, I do not want to spend weeks reading in order to understand
what you are saying, could your reiterate this in general language? I have absolutely no
clue what this means and I bet I am not alone.


“Only “three center knowing” can bring us to reality. If the communicants and communicator are not willing to learn how to know from the totality of themselves and think in new ways along with opening new possibilities of discovery then I can’t see how any exact language and understanding can eventually be established between them so as to facilitate the growth of their relationship”

I have had meaningful communications. Let me give an example.

I, if you haven’t guessed, am pretty much a head case. And when I was younger, I could not so artfully look grounded. I was in a 4th Way group and at the house of one of the other members. She is an artist.

I had decided that I was going to redecorate my bedroom. I had gone down to the paint store And gotten a number of paint swatches. I was reading the names of the paint shade – petal gray, lemon sunrise, or whatever. I was trying to determine which idea was more in harmony with my general philosophy of life.

My friend stared at me with something between horror and utter disbelief. Completely out of character, she grabbed my arm and pulled me to a small room filled with art books. She grabbed one of them an said, ‘Look, do you see how blue looks different when it is next to yellow, or here when it is next to green’.

I, honestly had never seen this before. I spent the next two weeks just looking at things in amazement. I use looking at colors as a way of self-remembering. She gave me a great gift.

I don’t know if the moral of this story is that being incredibly stupid helps communication,
or if it is proof that one does not have to be totally together to have meaningful communication.

 

[kenlee]

“Meaningful communication would reach out for this point of sincerity. There would always be the attempt to connect. Meaningful communication is when both parties learn. It is not a waste of breath. It does not require agreement.

Well, the impression I got from your earlier post is that you were looking for something in the ideas expressed by Gurdjieff to have meaningful communications to those who are "hostile" to these ideas. At the same time you said that in the information you found on Gurdjieff there was much of it that was “ not very useful”.

But the question is: useful to whom?

If the ideas are not useful to ourselves then how can we be useful to anyone else? So, I think, we must begin here, with our own subjectivity, before we can even try to consider to have meaningful communications with others to help them (and by so doing help ourselves) . That, as I understand it is the point of “the work.” How can we help anyone else with “meaningful communications” if we do not remove the mote from our own eyes first? If we do not purify our own emotional centers and “clean our own machines” then how can we intuit the inner state of another (and determine what they are sincerely asking for) with any reasonable degree of accuracy for “right action” and proper external consideration?

Gurdjieff said in Ouspenskys’s book ‘In Search Of The Miraculous:'

"External considering requires a knowledge of men, an understanding of
their tastes, habits, and prejudices".

"At the same time external considering requires a great power over
oneself, a great control over oneself".

Otherwise, if we are not “able” to externally consider others then we will just propagate the ‘sins of our fathers' onto the next generation when we try to help them.

”Implicit in non-linearity is the fact that the future is, as the Cassiopaeans have said a thousand times, if they have said it once OPEN. Not only is it open, it is multiple in probability. In their own words, there is an uncountable infinity of "quasi-quantum propensities."”

Here is an example of something which can be done. I am familiar with 4th Way writers, but not this. So I cannot follow the discussion. Could you cite a source for this so I could follow your reasoning. Also, I do not want to spend weeks reading in order to understand what you are saying, could your reiterate this in general language? I have absolutely no clue what this means and I bet I am not alone.

Sure, try researching the concepts of "Service To Self" and Service To Others" in the Wave material and on this forum. Here's a good link to The Wave that explains the distinction. External Consideration always takes into account the free will of others. This opens up possibilities and does not close them, opening up new possibilities to think in new ways.
http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/wave12e1.htm

 

[ael]

"This would be communication that would serve all three centers. It would add to the understanding of all the communicants."

Interesting that you mention communication that would serve all three centers as this relates to understanding, what G. according to O. says is understanding.

"The difference between knowledge and understanding becomes clear when we realize that knowledge may be the function of one center. Understanding, however, is the function of three centers. Thus the thinking apparatus may know something. But understanding appears only when a man feels and senses what is connected with it."(ISOTM) Repeating,understanding is the function of three centers.

" 'The outer circle' is the circle of mechanical humanity to which we belong and which alone we know. The first sign of this circle is that among people who belong to it there is not and there cannot be a common understanding. Everybody understands in his own way and all differently. This circle is sometimes called the circle of the 'confusion of tongues,' that is, the circle in which each one speaks in his own particular language, where no one understands another and takes no trouble to be understood. In this circle mutual understanding between people is impossible excepting in rare exceptional moments or in matters having no great significance, and which are confined to the limits of the given being. If people belonging to this circle become conscious of this general lack of understanding and acquire a desire to understand and to be understood, then it means they have an unconscious tendency towards the inner circle because mutual understanding begins only in the exoteric circle and is possible only there. But the consciousness of the lack of understanding usually comes to people in an altogether different form.
"So that the possibility for people to understand depends on the possibility of penetrating into the exoteric circle where understanding begins."

 

[Barbara]

Well, the impression I got from your earlier post is that you were looking for something in the ideas expressed by Gurdjieff to have meaningful communications to those who are "hostile" to these ideas. At the same time you said that in the information you found on Gurdjieff there was much of it that was “ not very useful”. Kenlee 12-3-2007

The information is not very useful to me. Either it is a quote from Gurdjieff or one of the other 4th Way teachers is presented, often out of context, but with no elaboration by the one who is quoting.

It is more useful for me just to go back to the original writings themselves and forget about discussion. For the discussion to be useful, I would like to see an active exploration of the ideas, what they might mean when applied to particular, present day experience. I would like to see people with different interpretations of an idea carefully explore how the difference arises and what it might mean rather than try to prove use it as a platform for intellectual one upmanship.

When I have read people who were hostile to Gurdjieff’s ideas, it was generally in the form of showing that his ideas were in conflict with some other dogma. I think that such people should stay with the dogma they find comfortable. Anyone who could legitimately criticize 4th Way ideas would have to understand them first, and I haven’t read anyone who came from this perspective.


“Sure, try researching the concepts of "Service To Self" and Service To Others" in the Wave material and on this forum. Here's a good link to The Wave that explains the distinction. External Consideration always takes into account the free will of others. This opens up possibilities and does not close them, opening up new possibilities to think in new ways” Kenlee 12-3-2007


I tried reading this. I think that your explanation is clear. I agree with you. (If you want to discuss it, though, the distinctions of Service toward Others and Service toward Self make little sense to me when the only and highest value seems to be avoiding dominance. Perhaps it is only because I am reading a short piece in a longer discussion. I tried to understand the rest of the article but I don’t and it will take more time than I want to give to it right now.)


If people belonging to this circle become conscious of this general lack of understanding and acquire a desire to understand and to be understood, then it means they have an unconscious tendency towards the inner circle because mutual understanding begins only in the exoteric circle and is possible only there. But the consciousness of the lack of understanding usually comes to people in an altogether different form.
"So that the possibility for people to understand depends on the possibility of penetrating into the exoteric circle where understanding begins." Quoted from Ouspensky

I have seen people who seemed to be understanding each other in normal context. Even at my job, which, believe me, is not an example of an exoteric circle, we can focus in on a subject if it very specific. When a problem is idealized like this, it seems to implicitly say that it would take a miracle, or something completely outside any single person’s control to make any improvements. Maybe it would be possible to look for practical way to make small improvements in short periods of time.

Rather than give descriptions to the problem, it is more useful to look for practical ideas which allow people to explore ways that 4th Way ideas become more than doctrine.

Are there unconscious social norms at place that make real questioning of these ideas unacceptable?

If someone actually thinks that Gurdjieff was wrong in some way, is there any possibility that this idea will be respectfully considered? Or will it be considered as evidence of mechanical thinking a priori?

Barbara

 

[ael]

I want to apologise for my post. It was just my ego writing something I thought I understood in a poor context. So- sorry. It doesn't really add anything useful.

I'm going to skip what I was going to write just now because I'm going to end up going in circles not knowing really what I'm saying or just saying a bunch of non-sense. However, I'm intrigued why you hadn't answered Henry's questions, unless I'm mistaken and you have, as they could help clarify what it is you meant in your initial post.

So just to post his last line again,"However, your message is quite vague. Can you give some examples of what you mean? What types of communication do you see as possible or necessary?"

Maybe again I shouldn't have written this last part, because I would be making a mistake.

 

[anart]

However, your message is quite vague. Can you give some examples of what you mean? What types of communication do you see as possible or necessary?

I have to agree with Henry - I'm not sure exactly what you're asking, Barbara, nor why you seem to be getting a bit frustrated with the input you've received so far.

Well, the impression I got from your earlier post is that you were looking for something in the ideas expressed by Gurdjieff to have meaningful communications to those who are "hostile" to these ideas. At the same time you said that in the information you found on Gurdjieff there was much of it that was “ not very useful”. Kenlee 12-3-2007

The information is not very useful to me. Either it is a quote from Gurdjieff or one of the other 4th Way teachers is presented, often out of context, but with no elaboration by the one who is quoting.

An elaboration is really not necessary if one is familiar with the material. In order to become familiar with the material, one must invest a lot of time and effort - it is simply not something that lends itself to a quick understanding or casual discussion. No offense intended at all, it just seems that you're looking for a 'Cliff's Notes' version and that's not really possible.

It is more useful for me just to go back to the original writings themselves and forget about discussion.

This might be a good idea, since at this point it is still rather unclear exactly what you'd like to discuss - again - no offense intended at all, but there seems to be a general lack of clarity in the purpose of the discussion at this point.

For the discussion to be useful, I would like to see an active exploration of the ideas, what they might mean when applied to particular, present day experience. I would like to see people with different interpretations of an idea carefully explore how the difference arises and what it might mean rather than try to prove use it as a platform for intellectual one upmanship.

Ok, this is what would make the discussion useful for you - yet you still give no concrete question or example while simultaneously demanding that the 'discussion' go a certain way. It's really rather a confusing way to go about things. Also, the fact that you allude to 'intellectual one upmanship' indicates that you might be missing a base of knowledge from which to work. If one doesn't understand the material, then one might feel that quoting the material is 'intellectual one upmanship' when, really, it is merely providing data to apply to the discussion at hand.

When I have read people who were hostile to Gurdjieff’s ideas, it was generally in the form of showing that his ideas were in conflict with some other dogma. I think that such people should stay with the dogma they find comfortable. Anyone who could legitimately criticize 4th Way ideas would have to understand them first, and I haven’t read anyone who came from this perspective.

So, you are saying that you are looking for someone to criticize 4th Way ideas who really understands 4th Way ideas? Again, I get the sense that you are putting the cart before the horse here, and that time spent truly studying the material might be more beneficial to you.

“Sure, try researching the concepts of "Service To Self" and Service To Others" in the Wave material and on this forum. Here's a good link to The Wave that explains the distinction. External Consideration always takes into account the free will of others. This opens up possibilities and does not close them, opening up new possibilities to think in new ways” Kenlee 12-3-2007


I tried reading this. I think that your explanation is clear. I agree with you. (If you want to discuss it, though, the distinctions of Service toward Others and Service toward Self make little sense to me when the only and highest value seems to be avoiding dominance. Perhaps it is only because I am reading a short piece in a longer discussion. I tried to understand the rest of the article but I don’t and it will take more time than I want to give to it right now.)

Unfortunately, to really understand the material, you are going to have to invest more time than you seem willing to invest right now. There is simply no other way to really grasp it to the point of being able to discuss it in depth the way you seem to want to do it. I get the sense that you're looking for a short cut and this material simply does not lend itself to such things.

I have seen people who seemed to be understanding each other in normal context. Even at my job, which, believe me, is not an example of an exoteric circle, we can focus in on a subject if it very specific. When a problem is idealized like this, it seems to implicitly say that it would take a miracle, or something completely outside any single person’s control to make any improvements. Maybe it would be possible to look for practical way to make small improvements in short periods of time.

You are missing the point, as Gurdjieff said, it is possible for understanding of one another to happen in the exoteric circle, but only in matters of no importance (to paraphrase).

Are there unconscious social norms at place that make real questioning of these ideas unacceptable?

Not to my knowledge, because 'unconscious social norms' would be purely mechanical and antithetical to 4th Way work. However, in order to question an understanding, one must have a grasp of what it is really about - so without a thorough knowledge, such a questioning would be rather meaningless since one wouldn't really even have the concepts or vocabulary to question effectively - and - this material simply does not lend itself to a quick or 'easy' interpretation that can then be discussed at the water cooler at work. In fact, it is not meant to be discussed at the water cooler at work since the vast majority of people have no interest in it nor use for it and that is certainly their choice to make.


Well, it seems I might be going in circles here, so, again, it might be best to start at the beginning with Henry's question if you'd like to move forward with this:

However, your message is quite vague. Can you give some examples of what you mean? What types of communication do you see as possible or necessary?

 

[ael]

Anart wrote:
You are missing the point, as Gurdjieff said, it is possible for understanding of one another to happen in the exoteric circle, but only in matters of no importance (to paraphrase).

I think you meant to say,"...it is possible for understanding of one another to happen outside the exoteric circle, but only in matters of no importance (to paraphrase)."

 

[Peam]

I think you meant to say,"...it is possible for understanding of one another to happen outside the exoteric circle, but only in matters of no importance (to paraphrase)."

Are you mixing up the term exoteric with the term esoteric by any chance Ael?

 

[anart]

I think you meant to say,"...it is possible for understanding of one another to happen outside the exoteric circle, but only in matters of no importance (to paraphrase)."

Are you mixing up the term exoteric with the term esoteric by any chance Ael?

Yes, the confusion may be because by 'exoteric' I meant the outer circle - and the 'esoteric circle' is the inner circle where there can be no discord nor misunderstanding. fwiw.

 

[Barbara]

I wrote

I read whatever I can on the web about Gurdjieff. And sadly, too much of it is not
very useful. There are so many people who are hostile. There are so many people
who are so self absorbed that what they say has relevance only for themselves.



And this was the response


Well, the impression I got from your earlier post is that you were looking for something in the ideas expressed by Gurdjieff to have meaningful communications to those who are "hostile" to these ideas (Kenlee)


I suppose that I should simply have asked how anyone would get this impression from what I had written rather than try to give more of an explanation because it becomes an endless cycle of person after person reading whatever they want into my comments.

And there was this response

"I'm also not sure what you mean by "meaningful communications". The communicants may not be interested in meaningful communication. This is something that must be considered otherwise it is just ‘pouring from the empty into the void ‘ (as. Gurdjieff would say). The free will of the communicants must be respected and the level of their own understanding must be understood otherwise the communication can fall into “the art of splitting a hair four ways”.

From http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/wave13i.htm
First of all, it is important to note that the law of Free Will contains within it the explicit condition of non-linearity. And for those who wish to take issue with my remarks here, claiming that the Cassiopaeans have said that we are controlled by 4th density STS, and therefore this implies that there is no free will, keep in mind that we have as much free will in relation to 4th density as 2nd density creatures have in relation to us. The more awareness of 3rd density beings the 2nd density creature obtains, the more likely it is to avoid being captured and eaten. So, let's not get sidetracked into tetraphyloctomy on that point. [A term coined by Umberto Eco in Foucault's Pendulum; means "the art of splitting a hair four ways.]

Implicit in non-linearity is the fact that the future is, as the Cassiopaeans have said a thousand times, if they have said it once: OPEN. Not only is it open, it is multiple in probability. In their own words, there is an uncountable infinity of "quasi-quantum propensities."
If people who write about Gurdjieff on the web are not interested in meaningful communication, it is an answer to my
question. There is no point in any of the 4th Way groups on the internet. "

If I, at this point quoted an obscure passage about advanced calculus, and then expected you to read a book before answering my questions, perhaps you would understand what is not useful about this response. It is an example of your not practicing external consideration as you are interacting with me.

There is a difference between opening a topic for consideration and declaring my own opinions. I, of course, have ideas about what is a meaningful communication. But I don’t need to write to you to get my own opinions. I write to hear what others
think.

I do not see in these responses what the writers are thinking. I only see what they are quoting. I would find their own thoughts meaningful.



And there was this response

Anart wrote:
You are missing the point, as Gurdjieff said, it is possible for understanding of one another to happen in the exoteric circle, but only in matters of no importance (to paraphrase).

I think you meant to say,"...it is possible for understanding of one another to happen outside the exoteric circle, but only in matters of no importance (to paraphrase)."
Whatever Anart wrote, if we must already be an exoteric group to have any important communication then I guess that there is no point to my question and I should not try to communicate on this forum. Nothing that can be said will be important.


However, your message is quite vague. Can you give some examples of what you mean? What types of communication do you see as possible or necessary?
Are you really asking a question because you are interested in hearing what I say, or are you just interested in argument?
I have done explained what I was looking for over and over again. You do not look at my examples or reply directly to anything I say except to reinterpret it.

You win.

Barbara

 

[ael]

Anart wrote:
You are missing the point, as Gurdjieff said, it is possible for understanding of one another to happen in the exoteric circle, but only in matters of no importance (to paraphrase).

Ael wrote:
I think you meant to say,"...it is possible for understanding of one another to happen outside the exoteric circle, but only in matters of no importance (to paraphrase)."

Peam wrote:
Are you mixing up the term exoteric with the term esoteric by any chance Ael?

Anart wrote:
Yes, the confusion may be because by 'exoteric' I meant the outer circle - and the 'esoteric circle' is the inner circle where there can be no discord nor misunderstanding. fwiw.

I hadn't actually thought of the terms in the way Anart describes. I was thinking more along the lines of 4 circles, outer circle, exoteric circle, mesoteric circle, esoteric circle.