Why is it so hard to talk about the Work?

[j0da]

At this point I'd propose a simple answer to your question, Barbara.

Why is it so hard to talk about the Work?

It's not that hard. You make it hard, for yourself.

You win.

Maybe this remark is a clue?

 

[kenlee]

Barbara, I think it would be a good idea if you read and study very carefully the Wave Series since many of the important concepts of Gurdjieff are part of it. But there is still even more (within the Wave material) that Gurdjieff did not cover.

The impression I got from your first post on this thread is that you wanted to 'use' the ideas of Gurdjieff to enhance communications. This told me that you did not see the real significance of his ideas since the value of his ideas relates more to their utilization so we can understand ourselves more so then using them so we can be better understood. How can we be understood and better understand others if we do not understand our own subjectivity? Otherwise there will be only 'opinions' and nothing more.

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

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.

I think being aware of humans and having any understanding about us are two different things. Animals who are aware of 3rd density humans don't perceive us as a natural predator (despite being instinctively cautious), and don't really know what to do with us. They can't connect destruction of forests, pollution, and even putting them into zoos and coops and pens to us. Similarly, most humans are not aware of the hyperdimensional control system and how it works. Heck, they don't even know how the 3rd density control system works. People can be aware that "aliens exist" as many people have learned, but this does not mean they have any clue about the nature of their interaction with us, similarly to how a sheep may have a thought or two about those bipedal things walking around beyond the fence, which is probably on the same level as most UFO buffs think about UFO's (ooooh funky shiny thingy, cool!), never even wondering that those are slave masters and the sheep is the slave, and soon to be food or clothing.

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 don't mean to tetraphyloctomize, but just for the sake of accuracy, they said "quasi-quantum possibilities".

If people who write about Gurdjieff on the web are not interested in meaningful communication

Some people. Similarly, some people who write about Bush on the web are not interested in meaningful communication. It really depends on the person, not the subject matter, osit.

There is no point in any of the 4th Way groups on the internet.

Some groups, maybe even most. But that doesn't mean all. I mean, what did you expect, that higher knowledge and deep understanding of the human condition and how to develop a conscious center would be guaranteed just because a group calls itself a 4th way group? I think it's just another example of there being no free lunch in the universe, that it doesn't matter how much knowledge you expose someone to - what they get out of it only depends on how much they put in, which I guess also depends on how much they are capable of putting in.

It is an example of your not practicing external consideration as you are interacting with me.

I'm sorry, I am not sure to what you are referring here. Could you please quote what you consider to not be externally considerate?

There is a difference between opening a topic for consideration and declaring my own opinions.

I think perhaps the problem is what the C's have said:
A: No, your question cannot be answered unless you stop assuming the range of acceptable answers.

As you yourself have stated above,

First of all, it is important to note that the law of Free Will contains within it the explicit condition of non-linearity.

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.

I may be wrong, but somehow I'm getting the impression that your actions don't match your alleged understanding. You don't seem to be OPEN for non-linear and free-will based result of "opening a topic for consideration".

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.

But why do you care what others think if you're not open to changing your mind based on what they say? It is contrary to the concept and purpose of a network.

Anart wrote:
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.

The catch 22 is that you can never become an "exoteric" group without constant communication and networking, and refinement of same. How do you think an exoteric group would ever come into existence, just out of nowhere?

You win.

Ironic how every time there is a thread that discusses the concept of meaningful communication, communication tends to break down, whether it is what is being said, or the understanding of it, or both. This same irony has been pointed out in those other threads as well, but it never fails to occur. I think that's the universe's sense of humor, ya gotta love it. But I think as always, the universe's sense of humor is centered on a lesson, and while you can end this discussion with "you win" and just move on, you can work out just what the problem is, and re-establish "meaningful communication" by addressing the source of the issue. Once again, I think that would depend on your true reason for being here.

 

[Renaissance]

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.

(...)

There must be something that we can use in the various writings of the 4th Way tradition
to practice meaningful communication.

I think observations (particularly those that have some emotional attachment) toward 'other' Fourth way groups can often serve as a mirror of our own struggles in the Work; it seems like it can reveal our projections in our relationship with the Work. Having said this, it's interesting the direction this thread has been going. Do you think it may be you whose been hostile, self absorbed and unable to communicate with the members of this board?

 

[anart]

I think observations (particularly those that have some emotional attachment) toward 'other' Fourth way groups can often serve as a mirror of our own struggles in the Work; it seems like it can reveal our projections in our relationship with the Work. Having said this, it's interesting the direction this thread has been going. Do you think it may be you whose been hostile, self absorbed and unable to communicate with the members of this board?

That's an interesting observation, since I continue to get the sense that we are not 'giving Barbara what Barbara wants/requires'. What I mean by that is that Barbara seems to have quite a specific requirement for what is 'useful' to her and what is not. Since it is difficult to tell from what she's written exactly what she considers useful for her - although she's made it very clear what is 'not useful' - we are left rather lost in the communication.

She seems to be left frustrated and even a bit angry that we cannot intuitively understand what would be 'useful'. It is, certainly, an example of the 'confusion of tongues' - but it also seems as though Barbara fully expects others to move toward her personal understanding of 'useful' - instead of working to broaden her own understanding in order to be able to utilize (find useful) the input, and understanding, of others.

This is just my current impression, and I could be mistaken.

 

[Ryan]

That's an interesting observation, since I continue to get the sense that we are not 'giving Barbara what Barbara wants/requires'. What I mean by that is that Barbara seems to have quite a specific requirement for what is 'useful' to her and what is not. Since it is difficult to tell from what she's written exactly what she considers useful for her - although she's made it very clear what is 'not useful' - we are left rather lost in the communication.

I agree that this seems to be the crux of the matter. Perhaps there is a further clue here:

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.

It seems that Barbara wants something that the respondent would consider "their own". Concepts that are not provided in the context of "ownership" (such as quotes), seem to be of less value to Barbara, regardless of whether these concepts are objectively True or not. I might tentatively propose the hypothesis that Barbara wishes for posts or responses that contain a level of ego-identification by the respondent.

Now, why might somebody want such a thing rather than information which - although coming from "external" sources such as Gurdjieff - might be a perfectly appropriate answer to the question as originally asked?

 

[TheSpoon]

Perhaps it's the process of conversation that is sought, rather than an "appropriate answer" with it's implication that the original question was based in ignorance? I think most (specifically 86.5% ;) ) problems with communication stem from an attitude of "I'm right therefore you must be wrong".

I'm reminded of a chapter in "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" which talks about how a woman (perhaps more PC to say 'a person's feminine side') will declare there's a problem they're unhappy about and the man will either claim that the woman is wrong about it being a problem, or will offer suggestions about how to fix it. The woman is looking for "yup that's a problem", where the man is trying to get rid of a perceived problem. Combat ensues.

It seems that Barbara wants something that the respondent would consider "their own". Concepts that are not provided in the context of "ownership" (such as quotes), seem to be of less value to Barbara.
<snip>
Now, why might somebody want such a thing rather than information which - although coming from "external" sources such as Gurdjieff - might be a perfectly appropriate answer to the question as originally asked?

Perhaps quoting could be considered impersonal (and therefore of less value) because you're not putting yourself - who you are, what you think - on the line. Quoting Gurdjieff in some ways separates the response from the responder. It's then very difficult to disagree with the response because it's come directly from an authoritative source. The responder does not "risk" anything by quoting because "they" are not directly represented by their post.

Most institutions that I've come across (and the best example of this is the Christian Church) have their canonical texts which are accepted as being "correct" or "true". They can then be quoted with impunity (and an assumed air of authority) because questioning the text gets seen as an attack on the institution - which gets translated back into accusations of a lack of understanding.

We are encouraged to question everything, yes?

Back to the topic of how to improve communicaton:
I have a tendency - as I think many engineers do - of correcting people. Because I'm SMART me, and it's really important that everyone knows that. (Spot the Program). Does that really help them, or just irritate them? Are they greatful for being corrected? I've started trying really hard to ask myself "does this point have an important material impact on this conversation" before correcting anyone.

 

[anart]

Perhaps quoting could be considered impersonal (and therefore of less value) because you're not putting yourself - who you are, what you think - on the line. Quoting Gurdjieff in some ways separates the response from the responder. It's then very difficult to disagree with the response because it's come directly from an authoritative source. The responder does not "risk" anything by quoting because "they" are not directly represented by their post.

Most institutions that I've come across (and the best example of this is the Christian Church) have their canonical texts which are accepted as being "correct" or "true". They can then be quoted with impunity (and an assumed air of authority) because questioning the text gets seen as an attack on the institution - which gets translated back into accusations of a lack of understanding.

I can see where this would apply in a situation where the material 'quoted' is supported by a 'belief system' - as if it were 'gospel' and can't be questioned - as if there were a debate and it's being used to 'prove a point'. That, however, is almost always not the case here, since Gurdjieff quotes are used here to help explain and clarify, and nothing more. There is no 'vested belief' - it is simply that Gurdjieff explains things in a much better, more clear way than most people here can - thus - they use quotes to help explain - more clearly. Not ever to 'prove a point' since this Work on oneself simply does not and cannot lend itself to that sort of black and white 'I'm right and you're wrong' thinking. It just doesn't work that way because, although there are concepts that have been time tested and proven to assist with awakening, each person is different.

So, in situations where quotes are used to more fully explain a concept (his words are certainly more clear than mine most of the time) - it really has nothing to do with 'proving' anything, or 'right or wrong' or dogma or anything associated with that, at least not to my understanding. I suppose the difference might be found in comparing the idea of telling someone what is 'so' with the idea of providing information that may help them figure out in their own way, in their own life, what is 'so'. Apologies for not being more clear, I'm having difficulty verbalizing my thoughts this morning.

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

Perhaps it's the process of conversation that is sought, rather than an "appropriate answer" with it's implication that the original question was based in ignorance?

I was under the impression that conversation was happening. And in case you are referring to the quote by the C's regarding inability to answer a question when preconceived answers exist, I didn't mean that it applies to this thread in the sense of Barbara being the questioner and everyone else taking the role of answerer. I just meant that perhaps Barbara is placing a preconceived limitation on what is an acceptable response to her post (not necessarily "answer", but reply).

Perhaps quoting could be considered impersonal (and therefore of less value) because you're not putting yourself - who you are, what you think - on the line. Quoting Gurdjieff in some ways separates the response from the responder. It's then very difficult to disagree with the response because it's come directly from an authoritative source.

I disagree here. I don't think there are any authoritative sources. If you perceive G as such, and this makes it difficult to disagree, then could you please elaborate on what gave you this impression? G has a consistently low noise to signal ratio, and he often says things of great importance that are supported by much data. In other words, his work contains a lot of important truth in it. So it is not surprising that he is often quoted, just as Ponerology and other sources are as well - these are works that have a great deal of in-depth analysis of the human condition, which also very much includes topics relating to "effective communication" (and reasons for lack thereof), so it just makes sense that if there is a source that has explored a given topic in depth, and it applies to the discussion at hand, then it can be quoted.

Ironically, people's lack of understanding and twisting of G's material IS discussed by G, as it is part of the mechanical human condition and the state of "dreaming of waking up". In fact, it may be the reason that he closed his school to begin with - he saw that most people, including his students, just weren't really getting it. So if his own students had this problem, it is even more likely that the later generations will have it too - except in very rare cases. So if G's work actually provides an answer to the very inquiry this thread was opened for, why not quote it?

The responder does not "risk" anything by quoting because "they" are not directly represented by their post.

I must again disagree. It is an every day occurance on this forum that someone quotes something and it turns out to be wrong after further analysis. They are then held responsible for what they are quoting. This is also the case when you quote Gurdjieff, or anyone. Gurdjieff and his work have been greatly explored on this website, and because of this analysis, many things he said have been determined to be truth, or very close to it. So quoting those things does not usually spark a brand new re-analysis from scratch, as it is already know that they are true and are supported by vast amounts of data. So it may perhaps appear that something is just "taken for granted" when all the data that supports the quote is not included together with the quote (that would often be impossible), but this is not at all the case.

Most institutions that I've come across (and the best example of this is the Christian Church) have their canonical texts which are accepted as being "correct" or "true".

But they are not interested in the truth, they just assume what is true. That's not what is done here, the direct opposite is done.

We are encouraged to question everything, yes?

Have you ever seen any indication anywhere on this forum or its accompanying websites for that to not be the case?

Does that really help them, or just irritate them? Are they greatful for being corrected? I've started trying really hard to ask myself "does this point have an important material impact on this conversation" before correcting anyone.

I'd also ask if they want to be corrected, if they are "asking". I'm almost afraid to say this but, have you read what Gurdjieff said about internal consideration and external consideration? :P

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

Ok, I have bolded parts that I think particularly describe TheSpoon's situation, but the entire quote (heck, the entire book) applies and is very important to understand, osit. And as Anart said, I just have to quote, I cannot possibly say it any better than the book did, and if I attempt paraphrasing, I risk introducing inaccuracies and errors due to my own lack of understanding of all the vital points. This text is so saturated with signal, no matter how many times I read it, I always spot something I never noticed or understood before, and learn something new. So by quoting it, I'm not stripping it of all those things I don't understand, and don't introduce subjective distortions, and don't deprive the reader of learning something from it that I myself have not learned and therefore was unable to accurately convey in my own words.

There are several different kinds of 'considering.' On the most prevalent occasions a man is identified with what others think about him, how they treat him, what attitude they show towards him. He always thinks that people do not value him enough, are not sufficiently polite and courteous. All this torments him, makes him think and suspect and lose an immense amount of energy on guesswork, on suppositions, develops in him a distrustful and hostile attitude towards people. How somebody looked at him, what somebody thought of him, what somebody said of him - all this acquires for him an immense significance.
And he 'considers' not only separate persons but society and historically constituted conditions. Everything that displeases such a man seems to him to be unjust, illegal, wrong, and illogical. And the point of departure for his judgment is always that these things can and should be changed. 'Injustice' is one of the words in which very often considering hides itself. When a man has convinced himself that he is indignant with some injustice, then for him to stop considering would mean 'reconciling himself to injustice.'

There are people who are able to consider not only injustice or the failure of others to value them enough but who are able to consider for example the weather. This seems ridiculous but it is a fact. People are able to consider climate, heat, cold, snow, rain; they can be irritated by the weather, be indignant and angry with it. A man can take everything in such a personal way as though everything in the world had been specially arranged in order to give him pleasure or on the contrary to cause him inconvenience or unpleasantness.

All this and much else besides is merely a form of identification. Such considering is wholly based upon 'requirements.' A man inwardly 'requires' that everyone should see what a remarkable man he is and that they should constantly give expression to their respect, esteem, and admiration for him, for his intellect, his beauty, his cleverness, his wit, his presence of mind, his originality, and all his other qualities. Requirements in their turn are based on a completely fantastic notion about themselves such as very often occurs with people of very modest appearance. Various writers, actors, musicians, artists, and politicians, for instance, are almost without exception sick people. And what are they suffering from? First of all from an extraordinary opinion of themselves, then from requirements, and then from considering, that is, being ready and prepared beforehand to take offense at lack of understanding and lack of appreciation.

There is still another form of considering which can take a great deal of energy from a man. This form starts with a man beginning to think that he is not considering another person enough, that this other person is offended with him for not considering him sufficiently. And he begins to think himself that perhaps he does not think enough about this other, does not pay him enough attention, does not give way to him enough. All this is simply weakness. People are afraid of one another. But this can lead very far. I have seen many such cases. In this way a man can finally lose his balance, if at any time he had any, and begin to perform entirely senseless actions. He gets angry with himself and feels that it is stupid, and he cannot stop, whereas in such cases the whole point is precisely 'not to consider.'
It is the same case, only perhaps worse, when a man considers that in his opinion he 'ought' to do something when as a matter of fact he ought not to do so at all. 'Ought' and 'ought not' is also a difficult subject, that is, difficult to understand when a man really 'ought' and when he 'ought not.' This can be approached only from the point of view of 'aim.' When a man has an aim he 'ought' to do only what leads towards his aim and he 'ought not' to do anything that hinders him from going towards his aim.

As I have already said, people very often think that if they begin to struggle with considering within themselves it will make them 'insincere' and they are afraid of this because they think that in this event they will be losing something, losing a part of themselves. In this case the same thing takes place as in attempts to struggle against the outward expression of unpleasant emotions. The sole difference is that in one case a man struggles with the outward expression of emotions and in the other case with an inner manifestation of perhaps the same emotions.

This fear of losing sincerity is of course self-deception, one of those formulas of lying upon which human weaknesses are based. Man cannot help identifying and considering inwardly and he cannot help expressing his unpleasant emotions, simply because he is weak. Identifying, considering, the expressing of unpleasant emotions, are manifestations of his weakness, his impotence, his inability to control himself. But not wishing to acknowledge this weakness to himself, he calls it 'sincerity' or 'honesty' and he tells himself that he does not want to struggle against sincerity, whereas in fact he is unable to struggle against his weaknesses.

Sincerity and honesty are in reality something quite different. What a man calls 'sincerity' in this case is in reality simply being unwilling to restrain himself. And deep down inside him a man is aware of this. But he lies to himself when he says that he does not want to lose sincerity.
So far I have spoken of internal considering. It would be possible to bring forward many more examples. But you must do this yourselves, that is, you must seek these examples in your observations of yourselves and of others.

The opposite of internal considering and what is in part a means of fighting against it is external considering. External considering is based upon an entirely different relationship towards people than internal considering. It is adaptation towards people, to their understanding, to their requirements. By considering externally a man does that which makes life easy for other people and for himself.

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. Very often a man desires sincerely to express or somehow or other show to another man what he really thinks of him or feels about him. And if he is a weak man he will of course give way to this desire and afterwards justify himself and say that he did not want to lie, did not want to pretend, he wanted to be sincere. Then he convinces himself that it was the other man's fault. He really wanted to consider him, even to give way to him, not to quarrel, and so on. But the other man did not at all want to consider him so that nothing could be done with him. It very often happens that a man begins with a blessing and ends with a curse. He begins by deciding not to consider and afterwards blames other people for not considering him. This is an example of how external considering passes into internal considering. But if a man really remembers himself he understands that another man is a machine just as he is himself. And then he will enter into his position, he will put himself in his place, and he will be really able to understand and feel what another man thinks and feels. If he can do this his work becomes easier for him. But if he approaches a man with his own requirements nothing except new internal considering can ever be obtained from it.

Right external considering is very important in the work. It often happens that people who understand very well the necessity of external considering in life do not understand the necessity of external considering in the work; they decide that just because they are in the work they have the right not to consider. Whereas in reality, in the work, that is, for a man's own successful work, ten times more external considering is necessary than in life, because only external considering on his part shows his valuation of the work and his understanding of the work; and success in the work is always proportional to the valuation and understanding of it.

 

[Redrock12]

ScioAgapeOmnis, for my own information (and hopefully further enlightenment) could you please quote or paraphrase what Gurdjieff said about internal consideration and external consideration. Thanks

 

[Redrock12]

Thanks Scio. Very understandable. And you're right. Paraphrasing can tend to alter or diminish the meaning.
Again, thanks.

 

[Mr. Premise]

I think both paraphrasing and quoting is useful. Paraphrasing (putting it in one's own words) helps you learn the material (quoting can be mechanical). Then if you add the quote to the paraphrase, people can let you know if your understanding is wrong-- valuable feedback.