Sunday, December 23, 2012

this is the situation...,

To begin self-study it is necessary to study methods of self-observation, but that again must be based on a certain understanding of the divisions of our functions. Our ordinary idea of these divisions is quite wrong. We know the difference between intellectual and emotional functions. For instance, when we discuss things, think about them, compare them, invent explanations or find real explanations, this is all intellectual work; whereas love, hate, fear, suspicion and so on are emotional. But very often, when trying to observe ourselves, we mix even intellectual and emotional functions; when we really feel, we call it thinking, and when we think we call it feeling. But in the course of study we shall learn in what way they differ. For instance, there is an enormous difference in speed, but we shall speak more about that later.

Then there are two other functions which no system of ordinary psychology divides and understands in the right way—instinctive function and moving function. Instinctive refers to the inner work of the organism: digestion of food, beating of the heart, breathing—these are instinctive functions. To instinctive function belong also ordinary senses—sight, hearing, smell, taste, touch, the feeling of cold and warmth, things like that; and this is all, really. Of outer movements, only simple reflexes belong to instinctive function, because more complicated reflexes belong to moving function. It is very easy to distinguish between instinctive and moving functions. We do not have to learn anything that belongs to instinctive function, we are born with the capacity to use all the instinctive functions. Moving functions, on the other hand, all have to be learned— a child learns to walk, to write and so on. There is a very great difference between the two functions, since there is nothing inherent in moving functions, and instinctive functions are all inherent.

So in self-observation it is necessary first of all to divide these four functions and to classify at once everything that you observe, saying, 'This is intellectual function', 'This is emotional function' and so on.

If you practise this observation for some time you may notice some strange things. For instance, you will find that what is really difficult in observing is that you forget about it. You start to observe, and your emotions connect with some kind of thought and you forget about self-observation.

Again, after some time, if you continue this effort to observe, which is a new function not used in the same way in ordinary life, you will notice another interesting thing—that generally you do not remember yourself. If you could be aware of yourself all the time, then you would be able to observe all the time, or in any case as long as you liked. But because you cannot remember yourself, you cannot concentrate; and this is why you will have to admit that you have no will. If you could remember yourself, you would have will and could do what you liked. But you cannot remember yourself, you cannot be aware of yourself and so you have no will. You may sometimes have will for a short time, but it turns to something else and you forget about it.

This is the situation, the state of being, the state from which we have to start self-study.


ken said...

"Another curious psychological trick must be mentioned in connection with
the moment when a man first hears about self-remembering. If he connects it
with something he has heard or read before, with some religious or
philosophical or oriental term with which he is already familiar, the idea
immediately disappears for him, loses its power. For it can only open new
possibilities to him as a completely new idea. If it connects with some
familiar association it means that it has entered the wrong part of his mind,
where it will become pigeonholed like any other piece of knowledge. A
shock has been wasted, and only with great difficulty may the man return
again to the same opportunity"

Question: when do the new terminologies become familiar to the point where they also lose their power? Won't these new ideas also soon become pigeonholed like any other piece of knowledge?

CNu said...

People can spend their lives like you do, reading and talking and never coming to real things. Nine-tenths of your ordinary knowledge does not really exist Ken: it exists only in your imagination. But this work is practical from the first. Without work, you can do nothing.

Reading about tennis will not equip you to play Federer. You have to hit and you have to move, you have to observe and remember yourself.

If one begins to work, one has a chance. Everything else is merely conversation....,

ken said...

If Gurdjieff was a baptist preacher, and I were presenting his teachings, when would you bring up Gurdjieff's illigitament children and his general policies on how he charged money for services. Would you say Gurdjieff was successful in the work you talk about in his life personally, or was he just a vessel of communication, and we should look to what he presented and not how he lived his life?

Dale Asberry said...

Lol, you worry yourself with what other men and women do with their sexy parts because...? I'd see to that personal inner psychological issue first -- that log in your own eye, so to speak.

CNu said...

lol, le crocodile Rene Lacoste invented the steel tennis racquet and revolutionized the "stick" with which a truly ancient sport/game is played, of what consequence is it to me how Lacoste lived his life? George Ivanovitch Gurdjieff articulated the western mysteries right down to earth, in a way that anyone endeavoring to make an effort can understand. Of what possible consequence is it to me how Gurdjieff lived his life?

I utilize the stick left to me by Lacoste in exactly the same way I utilize the stick left to me by Gurdjieff - and in an entirely complementary fashion. If I could, I would try and make tennis more accessible to you online, however, there are infrastructural prerequisites which make this very difficult of accomplishment. OTOH, this attenuated context IS sufficient to the task of making a little of Gurdjieff's innovation accessible.

Take it for what it's worth, my Christmas present to you...,

ken said...

Thanks for your time and effort in packaging this present, I have to admit I enjoyed the study and, probably I would figure the best nugget for me would have been this:

"Should a permanent emotional aim become created, however, there becomes
possible an intense struggle between the constructive and destructive sides of man.
This inner division - which may be felt as conscience -produces friction. And inner
friction is precisely that by which consciousness may be generated, just as physical
friction is that by which heat and light may be generated. Thus the process of
regeneration always begins by a division, a separation.
The more a man separates his aim from the habits and failings of his body and
personality, and the more he forces the latter, however unwillingly, to serve that aim,
the more intensely will he become conscious of himself. Gradually, his most hidden
weaknesses, self-indulgences, excuses, and on the other hand his longings, capacities
and aspirations will be drawn into the light of consciousness; just as in the regeneration
of heavenly bodies, more and more of their hard hidden interior must be converted into
an atmospheric envelope capable of being irradiated and vitalised by the Sun."

I thought that was a very good.

That said of course, I do not accept your tennis illustration. From Christian teaching we are informed how we decide if the teaching is from God. Earlier my 1st John and John 1 scripture was pretty definitive, and I don't think Gurdjieff's message leads the student to Christ. Another tool Christian teaching asks us to use in deciding if the teaching is of God, or Christian teaching is in Matthew 7:

15 Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves. 16 By their fruits ye shall know them. Do [men] gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but the corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits ye shall know them. 21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy by thy name, and by thy name cast out demons, and by thy name do many 3 mighty works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

I am pretty certain today, you would not exalt the pastor who has 6 or more illegitimate with 6 different woman, your video of Creflo Dollar having no problem with accepting more and more money, isn't far from Gurdjieff accepting an oil well to use for his own purposes. and then his charging fees to attend his religious classes, I don't see you giving the same latitude to other religious leaders. If he pointed us to God and Christ, I can understand him as one who also missed the mark and a failed man like all of us in need for forgiveness, but that message isn't obvious or clear.

CNu said...

I do not accept your tennis illustration

lol, you know even less about tennis than you've read about Gurdjieff.

From Christian teaching we are informed how we decide if the teaching is from God.

rotflmbao..., that you imagined yourself in possession of truth was never seriously in question.

I am pretty certain today, you would not exalt the pastor who has 6 or more illegitimate with 6 different woman

That's because "pastoral" shepherds of suggestible, church-believing sheep set themselves up as exemplars of chastity and marital fidelity.

Gurdjieff never made any such claims.

Rather, he gleefully sheared sheep and concurrently fed the children and starving poor of Nazi occupied Paris. I have no qualms about the nature of his service to humanity.

If he pointed us to God and Christ, I can understand him as one who also missed the mark

This is a pretty extravagant overreach given that you don't yet understand the material culled, edited, and presented hereabouts for maximum ease of use.

ken said...

"That's because "pastoral" shepherds of suggestible, church-believing sheep set themselves up as exemplars of chastity and marital fidelity.

Gurdjieff never made any such claims.

Rather, he gleefully sheared sheep and concurrently fed the children and starving poor of Nazi occupied Paris. I have no qualms about the nature of his service to humanity."

I am with you about his good deeds during German domination, Do you remember your opinion when Cobb presented what he considered to be the couple of the year with Ferguson and Hersi? I believe Cobb responded to my thoughts about Feguson leaving his wife and kids for Hersi and he said:

Cobb said in reply to ken...
You may not believe this, but there are other things more important than family values.

And then you....
ReplySeptember 27, 2011 at 07:05 AM said in reply to Cobb...

Not when young children are involved. To believe and act otherwise is a sure indication of degeneracy. Ferguson and Hirsi Ali are detestable scum...,

Now Ferguson was no minister or anybody who pastored sheep or suggestible followers yet you and me were pretty much in agreement back then, why now when a man is actually having his way with some of his followers and making small fatherless children are you less inclined to see a problem you saw so clearly in the past?


CNu said...

Ferguson and Hirsi are respectively and jointly contemptible liars for profit - one would expect nothing but degeneracy from each. Ferguson pulled the classic conservative male move even, and kicked his ex-wife when she was down. My position on that filth stands

Gurdjieff never left his wife, and as far as I know, never neglected any of his children. More important than any of that, however, is that he left something we can each use to the extent of our diligence and each verify for ourselves. There's no need for faith in Gurdjieff, there's no need for faith in his system. The only thing necessary is to resist mechanical laziness and inertia because you know what you owe.

Everything else is merely conversation....,