ForumGarden

G.I. Curdjieff claimed that "ordinary people" have no unified self. What they call "self" is in fact an unruly committee of impulsive members (little selves) giving rise to internal conversations. The illusion of "unity" is sustained by our "name" which simply implies that we are socially accountable for our actions over time. But in essence, we spend our lives fulfilling promises made by "others".

Do you agree ?

Moriarty;1182074 wrote: G.I. Curdjieff claimed that "ordinary people" have no unified self. What they call "self" is in fact an unruly committee of impulsive members (little selves) giving rise to internal conversations. The illusion of "unity" is sustained by our "name" which simply implies that we are socially accountable for our actions over time. But in essence, we spend our lives fulfilling promises made by "others".

Do you agree ? Sort of......... I find 'love' a ubiquitious selfish act. We say we love the person for themself when in truth, we love that person because they make US feel good.

I agree that in order to truly love another, we must love ourselves first.













Are you "related" to coberst? Just "asking".

Oscar,

Yes. Another writer (J. Krishnamurti) wrote:

"Where the self is, love is not"

Whereas Gurdjieff said that only a few could ever transcend their ordinary (mechanical) existence and become "unified selves" through directed "work", Krishnamurti said all could reject "self" without instruction.

Along for the Ride.

You are clearly a Gurdjieff candidate rather than a Krishnamurti one !



LATER EDIT.

In order to understand Gurdjieff's position you need to spot the bickerings of "the committee" in yourself. G. says that this is difficult because it is like trying to awake from a dream. Indeed, he claims that the majority are in a state of "waking sleep"...and which of us would freely admit to that lack of control ?