Why the secrecy?

[Smallwood]

My experience is that regular posting costs me a lot of time/energy. I`ve written a number of posts over the past few month, but haven`t submitted them. Mostly for time reasons. It takes me quite long to put thoughts on paper, esp. since english isn`t my mother tongue (much better at reading).

I can sympathize with you on that. I have a couple of unsent posts sitting on harddrive myself.

I also find posting here to be heavy to energy levels, though not to the extreme that I did at one point. It's a bit complicated, but I've thought much about it and I think that for me it is taxing because of the fear of making mistakes (others have other reasons prbbl). How I regain the energy then? Well, I READ this forum and that gives me energy. To learn many new concepts, to have old ones confirmed/adjusted gives me energy and also to see that other people aren't some infallible gurus either lets me laugh at my own insecurities and work on them.

As for the time issue, realize that you are not alone... I have written this post for what feels like an hour atleast. I thought of expanding to some of my own issues to make a point but maybe it is externally considerate that I don't.

My problem is that I strongly tend to talk about "substantial matters". Small talk or chatting is not my forte and actually can get on my nerves. My whole conversational behaviour seems to be STS-leaning in that regard. So it seems clear that I should put more effort in external consideration. How other people deal with that does interest me much.

I don't much mind for small talk in normal social environment myself. Even with people I know well it's hard and awkward to just talk when there is nothing to talk about. I don't think there is much STS in that, considering some other stuff that we do, though it is obvious that I have much to learn in that respect too. I should rationalize less.

 

[gwb1995]

Quote from nemo

My problem is that I strongly tend to talk about "substantial matters". Small talk or chatting is not my forte and actually can get on my nerves. My whole conversational behaviour seems to be STS-leaning in that regard. So it seems clear that I should put more effort in external consideration. How other people deal with that does interest me much.

Quote from Smallwood

I don't much mind for small talk in normal social environment myself. Even with people I know well it's hard and awkward to just talk when there is nothing to talk about. I don't think there is much STS in that, considering some other stuff that we do, though it is obvious that I have much to learn in that respect too. I should rationalize less.

I have had a difficult time dealing with the same Self Importance Program. I think most of us on this forum have dealt with this program, or must do so at some point to move forward in the work. After reading about self importance, external consideration, and strategic enclosure, I have learned that one must be accomplished first in order to begin working on the next step, and so on. The Self Importance program can stop one cold if trying to learn how to be externally considerate. How can you be considerate if your self importance is kicking in? I don't think it can be done. The same applies to learning to build a strategic enclosure, if you have not learned how to be externally considerate, you can not build any enclosure, osit. I could of course be totally wrong here, but this is how I have been approaching it.

I think I have had some success with this, but who am I to really know for sure. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

 

[PepperFritz]

My problem is that I strongly tend to talk about "substantial matters". Small talk or chatting is not my forte and actually can get on my nerves. My whole conversational behaviour seems to be STS-leaning in that regard. So it seems clear that I should put more effort in external consideration. How other people deal with that does interest me much.

I was extremely "intense" as a teenager, and into my early 20s as well. I was rather "self-important", considering myself to be one of the few people on this earth concerned about the "substantial matters" of life, and thus could not be bothered with those who talked only about superficial matters. Then I got an extremely lucky break and a position in a very large and prestigious publishing company. There I was surrounded by people that I admired, who also talked about "substantial matters". In that environment I began to realize that it was not so much "depth of thought" that set me apart and made others uncomfortable, but a simple lack of social skills. When a co-worker one day joked "Why does everything you say sound so.... cerebral..."?, I saw myself in that mirror and determined to change.

As I advanced in that company and moved on to other positions in the writing and publishing industry, part of my job always involved a certain amount of "schmoozing" with people in social/professional situations. At first I really sucked at it. Big time. Then I saw it as a challenge to find a way to stop feeling so self-conscious in such situations, and to get the other person to do most of the talking. I discovered this could easily be done by asking other people an endless series of questions, as most people seem to LOVE talking about themselves. Soon I had developed an well-honed ability to get the most difficult, shy, withdrawn, perfunctory people to feel at ease and talk to me.

At first I felt almost ashamed of this "skill" I had developed, as it seemed artificial, superficial, even a little manipulative. But over time my well-rehearsed questions and patter turned into genuine interest in and inquisitiveness about other people. I found that, given time, I could find something to genuinely relate and connect to with almost any person I engaged with, and far from producing only superficial "small talk", this "skill" more and more led to people sharing very "substantial matters" with me, and I with them.

It was only when I started to become familiar with Gurdjeiff that I began to see that I had developed more than just a "social skill", I had learned how to be "externally considerate" with others. And that what had at first seemed an "artificial" and "superficial" technique to put people at ease and get them talking, was in fact an important means of opening the possibility of genuine communication and connection with others.

My point is this: Our self-importance can blind us to the degree to which our desire to talk to others about "substantial matters" may cause enough discomfort and wariness in others, that it actuality inhibits and blocks others from communicating genuinely with us. That is because we are primarily focussed on our own need and desire to "connect". And our aversion to "superficial small talk" as being "artificial" and "non-substantial" in nature can blind us to the importance of developing the kind of "social skills" that are necessary in the practice of "external consideration". If we want others to connect with us on a deeper level, we have to be willing to do whatever it takes to help them feel comfortable and relaxed in our presence, to make them feel that we are genuinely interested in them and what they have to say, no matter what "level" they are at.

Some of you may say, well, isn't adopting a "technique" or "method" to talk to others kind of "artificial" and therefore "manipulative" in nature? And I say, it all comes down to your intent. Not everyone is "born with" well-honed social skills; some require "practice". And as C.S. Lewis said, "We must wear masks until we have faces" -- i.e., if we "practice" the art of "external consideration" often enough, it will eventually become second-nature.

 

[Oxajil]

I also find posting here to be heavy to energy levels, though not to the extreme that I did at one point. It's a bit complicated, but I've thought much about it and I think that for me it is taxing because of the fear of making mistakes (others have other reasons prbbl).

If this helps:

When making a post you can ask yourself these questions;
-Could this post be beneficial for others? (or for me and others)
-How could others reply to this post? How would I then reply back?
-Is this externally considerate?

And other questions that you can come up with might help as well. What I try to say to myself is: try not to be afraid about posting, because if there is something ''wrong'' with it, then what would that matter? I could only learn from that, right?
It is important though, in my opinion, that before I post anything I first try to gain as much as info as I can about the given subject. But it won't hurt I think, if you have a sincere question about something or if you merely want to share your experiences etc.

It was only when I started to become familiar with Gurdjeiff that I began to see that I had developed more than just a "social skill", I had learned how to be "externally considerate" with others. And that what had at first seemed an "artificial" and "superficial" technique to put people at ease and get them talking, was in fact an important means of opening the possibility of genuine communication and connection with others.

Unfortunately, ''psycho's'' have probably developed that ''ability'' as well. And I agree with you, it's about what your intent is. I've met someone who I felt very comfortable with, but that person was very manipulative and told a lot of lies, so basically this ability that you described can many times be a good tactic for 'great' manipulation, because it's an 'easy' way to get info. And with info they can build more lies etc..

 

[nemo]

I also find posting here to be heavy to energy levels, though not to the extreme that I did at one point.
It's a bit complicated, but I've thought much about it and I think that for me it is taxing because of the fear of making mistakes.

Yeah, that`s another reason for me as well :( !

How I regain the energy then? Well, I READ this forum and that gives me energy.

Reading the forum and assorted books reminds me of issues at hand and helps me to question myself. Contribution is probably more "effective".

I thought of expanding to some of my own issues to make a point but maybe it is externally considerate that I don't.

I understand your worries, but think that on such a general problem your (and others) experiences might shed some light on the matter.
Maybe you had a moment of having dealt succesfully with the issue. That might make it worth sharing, imho.
There is a greater danger in being externally inconsiderate if someone would post about a specific individual problem, osit.

How can you be considerate if your self importance is kicking in? I don't think it can be done.

This is a bit of a chicken or egg-question, no? So I gather one has to work on "both fronts" (EC + SE).

When a co-worker one day joked "Why does everything you say sound so.... cerebral..."?, I saw myself in that mirror and determined to change.
Then I saw it as a challenge to find a way to stop feeling so self-conscious in such situations, and to get the other person to do most of the talking.
I discovered this could easily be done by asking other people an endless series of questions, as most people seem to LOVE talking about themselves.
I found that, given time, I could find something to genuinely relate and connect to with almost any person I engaged with, and far from producing only superficial
"small talk", this "skill" more and more led to people sharing very "substantial matters" with me, and I with them.

Thank you for sharing your experiences. I`ll value your lucid comment and keep remembering it in order to strife against this deeply ingrained behaviour .
In those past 18 or so months I`ve been learning the hard way of my shortcomings. While my "successes" are limited to becoming aware of the self-importance program
running after the fact, there is an increase of situations where I`m becoming aware while the program is running. On occasion I`m perceiving this p. and actually stopped it
(alas, in those cases the self-importance usually found a way though the back door). Speaking of the devil in the machine.

PS: If confronted with an especially outrageous statement (like "War is always justified" or some such nonsense) we still don`t offer our opinion
but rather, politely, ask some simple questions, like "Why do you think that?".
Am probably nitpicking. We offer our opinions only when asked or if we assess that the co-debater is ready for our information?

PS: Technical note: Preview does not work on Safari, but in Firefox
"Post-window" can be enlarged in Safari, not in Firefox.
Stupid programs, eh :D ?

 

[nemo]

Unfortunately, ''psycho's'' have probably developed that ''ability'' as well.

I know someone like that! He`s always asking nice questions, so he`s more socially skilled then me. When I make an unasked for statement he verbally "slits my throat".
He`s very persuasive and holds some very questionable opinions. Usually he wins the "competition" by being more glib than me, leaving me seething.
As a right brain person I`m probably at a genetic disadvantage when it comes to expressing an idea in a debate.
There`s definitely something wrong with him but I can`t quite put my finger on it.

 

[Bernhard]

There is a part in ISOTM where Gurdjieff actually encouraged his students, after they have gotten more familiar with the concepts, to talk to friends and acquaintances about The Work, but to differentiate who it is worth talking to and who not.

For instance, you ought by now to have some
understanding as to the nature of the system and its principal methods, and you ought
to be able to pass these ideas on to others. You will remember that at the beginning I
was against your talking about the ideas of the system outside the groups. On the
contrary there was a definite rule that none of you, excepting those whom I specially
instructed to do so, should talk to anyone either about the groups or the lectures or the
ideas. And I explained then why this was necessary. You would not have been able to
give a correct picture, a correct impression. Instead of giving people the possibility of
coming to these ideas you would have repelled them for ever; you would have even
deprived them of the possibility of coming to them at any later time. But now the
situation is different. You have already heard enough. And if you really have made
efforts to understand what you have heard, then you should be able to pass it on to
others. Therefore I give you all a definite task.
"Try to lead conversations with your friends and acquaintances up to these subjects,
try to prepare those who show interest and, if they ask you to, bring them to the
meetings. But everyone must realize that this is his own task and not expect others to
do it for him. The proper performance of this task by each of you will show first, that
you have already assimilated something, understood something, and second, that you
are able to appraise people, to understand with whom it is worth while talking and
with whom it is not worth while, because the majority of people cannot take in any of
these ideas and it is perfectly useless to talk to them. But at the same time there are
people who are able to take in these ideas and with whom it is worth while talking."

 

[PepperFritz]

If confronted with an especially outrageous statement (like "War is always justified" or some such nonsense) we still don`t offer our opinion but rather, politely, ask some simple questions, like "Why do you think that?". Am probably nitpicking. We offer our opinions only when asked or if we assess that the co-debater is ready for our information?

That's where discernment skills come in, where what we have observed and learned from previous experiences can be applied. The first question you have to ask yourself is, What is this person's intent in making such a statement? In my experience, those who go around making "outrageous statements" simply enjoy provoking people, creating combative, argumentative atmospheres in which they can draw attention to themselves. Clearly there is nothing to be gained by "taking the bait".

If you are genuinely unsure about the person's intent, asking a series of questions (without making any "opposing" statements) is a very good way of gauging their purpose. In most cases, the person will resist questions and instead try to further provoke you into "participating" in their little psychodrama. If the person makes a sincere attempt to answer your questions, you can usually "lead" them into seeing the flaw in their thinking through further questions.

Answering an "outrageous statement" with an opposing statement does nothing except announce to him, and any persons who may be within hearing distance, that you strongly disagree with what he says. I can think of situations where that might be a perfectly legitimate "purpose" -- say, if someone makes a racist statement in a work environment where they are people of mixed race, and it is important that you not appear to be "agreeing" with the other person by your silence -- in which case a strongly worded "statement" followed by walking away and refusing to "engage" is sufficient. But if your purpose is to change the other person's thinking.... nothing to be gained by it.

So, in a nutshell:
(1) Determine the other person's "purpose" in making the statement;
(2) Determine your own "purpose" in responding and/or not responding;
(3) Adjust your behaviour accordingly.

 

[PepperFritz]

There is a part in ISOTM where Gurdjieff actually encouraged his students, after they have gotten more familiar with the concepts, to talk to friends and acquaintances about The Work, but to differentiate who it is worth talking to and who not.

I don't think that Gurdjieff is saying that you need to simply be "more familiar with the concepts". I think he is emphasizing that you have to have outside confirmation -- i.e. by someone other than just yourself -- that you have a very accurate and clear understanding of the concepts, an ability to "teach" them without distorting or misrepresenting them. That is where a forum or "school" like this one comes in. A place where we can present our "take" on the concepts and have the opportunity to be "corrected" when we are "off-base" and/or "polluting" the concepts with our own emotional issues and programs.

...there was a definite rule that none of you, excepting those whom I specially
instructed to do so, should talk to anyone either about the groups or the lectures or the
ideas. And I explained then why this was necessary. You would not have been able to
give a correct picture, a correct impression. Instead of giving people the possibility of
coming to these ideas you would have repelled them for ever; you would have even
deprived them of the possibility of coming to them at any later time....

Gurdjieff is speaking of a very real and serious danger here, one to be avoided at all costs. I think for most of us here, it would be prudent to err on the side of caution rather than risk depriving others of "the Work" by misrepresenting it. It seems to me that for most of us a long "apprenticeship" period of practicing and gaining mastery over Self-Enclosure, Objective Observation, and External Consideration is a necessary prerequisite to "spreading the word"....

 

[Beau]

There is a part in ISOTM where Gurdjieff actually encouraged his students, after they have gotten more familiar with the concepts, to talk to friends and acquaintances about The Work, but to differentiate who it is worth talking to and who not.

The proper performance of this task by each of you will show first, that
you have already assimilated something, understood something, and second, that you
are able to appraise people, to understand with whom it is worth while talking and
with whom it is not worth while, because the majority of people cannot take in any of
these ideas and it is perfectly useless to talk to them. But at the same time there are
people who are able to take in these ideas and with whom it is worth while talking."

This task sounds more like a test for Gurdjieff's pupils than some kind of allowance by G that you can go ahead and speak about the work openly. The task to me is whether his pupils have properly assimilated his teachings and whether they can properly appraise people of being able to understand the concepts related to the Work.

 

[Bernhard]

There is a part in ISOTM where Gurdjieff actually encouraged his students, after they have gotten more familiar with the concepts, to talk to friends and acquaintances about The Work, but to differentiate who it is worth talking to and who not.

I don't think that Gurdjieff is saying that you need to simply be "more familiar with the concepts". I think he is emphasizing that you have to have outside confirmation -- i.e. by someone other than just yourself -- that you have a very accurate and clear understanding of the concepts, an ability to "teach" them without distorting or misrepresenting them. That is where a forum or "school" like this one comes in. A place where we can present our "take" on the concepts and have the opportunity to be "corrected" when we are "off-base" and/or "polluting" the concepts with our own emotional issues and programs.

Yes, "familiar" was certainly not the right word used. It takes more than that. However, I didn't get the impression that G told his students to "teach" any of "the work" or do "the work" with anyone outside the group. The way I understand that excerpt is that it was more of a test, in a sense like Pinkerton mentioned it and maybe see how people react to it, differentiating between the ones who are "worth it" and who are not, as he clearly says that "the majority of people cannot take in any of these ideas and it is perfectly useless to talk to them." I don't think it's about "lecturing", "teaching" or "spreading the word". It seems more subtle than that and more of a practice of observation combined with external consideration, the ability if evaluate (appraise) people objectively. osit.

 

[gwb1995]

I agree with Pinkerton and Pepperfritz 100% on their last posts. I made these exact type of mistakes several years ago, shortly after finding the Cass site, and it was not pretty at all! The impact to myself was very hard to grasp. I wanted to share this new knowledge with certain people, so as to set them straight, and save them from themselves. It was not the right thing for me to do; as I violated their free will, was not externally considerate, and my self importance program was totally running the show. This complicated my efforts in doing anything with the work. I would read the posts made on a daily basis, but just could not make myself get involved.

I don't place my problems in posting totally on these events, but this did play a part. The main thing is that it added to my problems concerning networking, and that is a huge part of the learning process. Yes, I have learned many things since that time. One thing I know for sure, I have learned more in the past few months, networking on this forum, than I learned in the previous three years just reading and trying to do it all by myself.

fwit,

gwb1995

 

[anart]

Yes, "familiar" was certainly not the right word used. It takes more than that. However, I didn't get the impression that G told his students to "teach" any of "the work" or do "the work" with anyone outside the group. The way I understand that excerpt is that it was more of a test, in a sense like Pinkerton mentioned it and maybe see how people react to it, differentiating between the ones who are "worth it" and who are not, as he clearly says that "the majority of people cannot take in any of these ideas and it is perfectly useless to talk to them."

Perhaps you are still missing the point.  My understanding is that if it was a test, it was not a test of the 'people' to whom one would talk, it was a test for G's students about their discernment and self-importance.  The fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of humanity cannot be spoken to about such things for exactly the reasons G states.  In fact, when one speaks about such things to someone that they should not, they are very likely destroying any chance that person has of coming to the material on their own - I can't imagine a more horrid thing; to block a path due to one's own self-importance.

Thus, those students who went out 'into the world' and attempted to do so would be clearly illustrating a limited level of discernment, or an over-riding self-importance.  In day to day life and in normal conversation, when one cannot allow those with whom one is speaking to be completely and utterly 'wrong' about the matters we discuss here without interjecting, without 'correcting' them or trying to influence their understanding, then self-importance and lack of discernment rules the day.

It is another application of the Law Of Three, external consideration and a strategic enclosure.  So, it was a test of the student, not the 'people' to whom they spoke.  osit.

It is a very subtle point and a very important one - and yet another facet of 'being in the world and not of it' - one simply must understand that the vast, vast majority of humanity is not only fast asleep, but will fight with their life to stay that way (this includes spouses, siblings, parents, lovers, best friends, employers, employees, casual acquaintances and drinking buddies).  For those who have potential to awaken, they must find the material on their own, through their own efforts and drive; any attempt to guide them to it may result in them turning away permanently.

It rather puts another slant on the idea that one should 'Act as if the fate of the Universe depends on what you do'.  fwiw.

 

[Bernhard]

Perhaps you are still missing the point. My understanding is that if it was a test, it was not a test of the 'people' to whom one would talk, it was a test for G's students about their discernment and self-importance. The fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of humanity cannot be spoken to about such things for exactly the reasons G states. In fact, when one speaks about such things to someone that they should not, they are very likely destroying any chance that person has of coming to the material on their own - I can't imagine a more horrid thing; to block a path due to one's own self-importance.

Thus, those students who went out 'into the world' and attempted to do so would be clearly illustrating a limited level of discernment, or an over-riding self-importance. In day to day life and in normal conversation, when one cannot allow those with whom one is speaking to be completely and utterly 'wrong' about the matters we discuss here without interjecting, without 'correcting' them or trying to influence their understanding, then self-importance and lack of discernment rules the day.

It is another application of the Law Of Three, external consideration and a strategic enclosure. So, it was a test of the student, not the 'people' to whom they spoke. osit.

I see, so you are saying that any of the students of G who have actually done, as he said as in

"Try to lead conversations with your friends and acquaintances up to these subjects,
try to prepare those who show interest and, if they ask you to, bring them to the
meetings. But everyone must realize that this is his own task and not expect others to
do it for him."

....have actually "failed" the test, because if one has truly understood "the work" he/she would not even have "tried" this to begin with?

 

[anart]

....have actually "failed" the test, because if one has truly understood "the work" he/she would not even have "tried" this to begin with?

Pretty much, but I don't know that 'failed' is the right word, simply because they certainly would have learned exactly what it was that G was trying to get them to See by doing so.  Ultimately, anyone who did go out and do such a thing, thinking they had 'found someone' who they could talk to about it, had not really 'gotten' the points G made about silence, the mechanical nature of man and how people will fight for it.  To my understanding, it is classic Gurdjieff to do such a thing; to teach a lesson in such a visceral way, using the student's own weaknesses to lead the way - but that's just my take on it and I certainly could be mistaken.