ForumGarden

Gurdjieff chrystalised many 'comparative spirituality' Truths into a working system for the modern west. A synthesis of east and west!

I don't have the slightest idea what all that means, but welcome to FG anyway! :yh_peace

Hi Babyrider

thanks

check out 'In Search of the Miraculous' by P.D. Ouspenski. It's the best introduction to the work of Gurdjieff

johnscot wrote: Hi Babyrider



thanks



check out 'In Search of the Miraculous' by P.D. Ouspenski. It's the best introduction to the work of Gurdjieff
I'm more of a Stephen King gal, myself. My point, like Arnold's, was to get you to expand a bit on your topic. We can't very well discuss anything if we don't know something about it. Or are you just pushing a book?

OOps sorry ArnoldLayne, just sussed that was from you, not babyrider. Only joined today so finding my way around. Anyway, one image Gurdjieff presented was that of the human being being a 3 brained animal i.e. mind (menal); heart (emotional); body (physical). 'WE ARE ASLEEP!', he stated. He likened us, as individuals, to a stationary carriage (the body), with horses in front (emotions), a footman at the back (mind) . . . but there is no passenger (real/higher self) with the vast majority of people. This means that the journey to be undertaken is completely unknown to that majority. The passenger is the only real master. Does that help:)

Well, I like sophist type of topics......................................

Welcome to FG!

Thanks Chonsigirl. Hi

BabyRider wrote: I'm more of a Stephen King gal, myself. My point, like Arnold's, was to get you to expand a bit on your topic. We can't very well discuss anything if we don't know something about it. Or are you just pushing a book?


now i'm in trouble.

bad-a55 biker babe AND a fan of King.

holy crap. I have to sit down. feeling light headed.

johnscot wrote: OOps sorry ArnoldLayne, just sussed that was from you, not babyrider. Only joined today so finding my way around. Anyway, one image Gurdjieff presented was that of the human being being a 3 brained animal i.e. mind (menal); heart (emotional); body (physical). 'WE ARE ASLEEP!', he stated. He likened us, as individuals, to a stationary carriage (the body), with horses in front (emotions), a footman at the back (mind) . . . but there is no passenger (real/higher self) with the vast majority of people. This means that the journey to be undertaken is completely unknown to that majority. The passenger is the only real master. Does that help:)
Where does free will come in?

that's the whole point - true free will doesn't come in; not until we achieve sufficient inner balance to enable free will to be born

johnscot wrote: that's the whole point - true free will doesn't come in; not until we achieve sufficient inner balance to enable free will to be born
Gotta help me out with that one, John. Because I'm straining my free will to stick with this thread.

To "actualize latent potentialities" you think this exists in all of us? Some are born with different areas of abilities, and others are not. Do you believe that they exist within all of us, even if they are in the"off" mode?

chonsigirl wrote: To "actualize latent potentialities" you think this exists in all of us? Some are born with different areas of abilities, and others are not. Do you believe that they exist within all of us, even if they are in the"off" mode?




My understanding of this system, is that all of our 'lower self' (what we call 'fully functioning humanity', including 'latent potentialities', is mechanical. An example of this might be that on one day, a certain event might happen that creates an angry response. On another day, the same event might happen, but the response is one of calm acceptance. The difference between these being, that on the first day, inner tensions were already present - for whatever reason - and on the second day, inner satisfaction was already present - for whatever reason. Now, who is the 'real person? The one on the angry day or the one on the satisfying day? Gurdjieff states that all we experience solely through our senses is illusory. Only Work that joins the 'higher self' can result in the true 'actualisation of latent potentialities'.

What if a person is more attuned to the harmonius aspect of their being, then the other latent traits? (through misuc)

Is that not also reminiscent of Plato's Ideals? The reality exists elsewhere, in the perfected state but not here in the mortal realm.

chonsigirl wrote: What if a person is more attuned to the harmonius aspect of their being, then the other latent traits? (through misuc)

Is that not also reminiscent of Plato's Ideals? The reality exists elsewhere, in the perfected state but not here in the mortal realm.


I would say that a person who has achieved balance (God, wouldn't it be great?), could become attuned through any activity - even digging ditches! Re. Plato, this assumes that there is a different reality outside ourselves compared to that within ourselves. I prefer to lean toward the 'As above, so below'; microcosm/macrocosm stance i.e. in Reality there is know difference, the only difference is that created by our limited perceptions.

Or is it the purpose of life to remain "inbalanced" to continue to strive and reach for the perfect achievements that lay outside our grasp? Humans need that added push to keep going, and questioning as they progress through their lives.

chonsigirl wrote: Or is it the purpose of life to remain "inbalanced" to continue to strive and reach for the perfect achievements that lay outside our grasp? Humans need that added push to keep going, and questioning as they progress through their lives.


Maybe we're not as important as we think in the grand scheme of things! perhaps we're just 'psychic sustenance' (or fodder when we don't evolve our energies), for an intelligence beyond our understanding and beyond physical laws.

Or maybe it exists all the time, we have not enough cognition to recognize it, but only aspects of it..................that is why there are various facets to philosophical and belief systems.

Attached files

chonsigirl wrote: Or maybe it exists all the time, we have not enough cognition to recognize it, but only aspects of it..................that is why there are various facets to philosophical and belief systems.


Ah, yes the Cosmic Wheel and it's spokes. Time too, is perhaps simply another relativity.

If time is a human conception, is it locked into a forward movement, or is there no movement at all?

The concept of the universe from the basis of science would put it in a forward motion, constantly moving in one direction.

But, if time is an illussionary concept, is there time at all?

chonsigirl wrote: If time is a human conception, is it locked into a forward movement, or is there no movement at all?

The concept of the universe from the basis of science would put it in a forward motion, constantly moving in one direction.

But, if time is an illussionary concept, is there time at all?


My thoughts exactly. Time is inexorably linked to te physical universe and I would suggest that the physical universe is relatively small compared to what lies beyond the physical. I would really recommend reading' 'In Search of the Miraculous', by P.D. Ouspenski, it's about the best account of the incredible system developed by G. I. Gurdjieff.

All right. Hold on a sec. My eyes are stinging and I'm choking, I'm so far back in the dust.



Why should I even be interested, John? Why are you so turned onto this that you'd bring it to imperfect strangers?

It is an interesting system proposed, I perceive it as a mixture of philosophy, eschatology and Freudian interpretations, since the Ego plays the important role in the “problems” and resolution of them.

*in the reality of what time I do have to read, I probably in all honsesty could not read it, my backpile of journals alone are daunting and will probably have to wait until winter break for a glance*

I feel woefully inadequate.











Time for a brew!

You are never inadequete dear AC........................reminds me of philosophy class in the 70s.

*oops, shows my age*

Accountable wrote: All right. Hold on a sec. My eyes are stinging and I'm choking, I'm so far back in the dust.



Why should I even be interested, John? Why are you so turned onto this that you'd bring it to imperfect strangers?




Good question! I've checked out many different paths and schools of thought. This seems to me to bring together aspects from them all in a way that promotes individual responsibilty for developing our perception of reality. That's not to say it would be right for everyone. There are different basic 'types' of people, and it's up to each individual to determine their best path (or not as the case might be!)

Anyway, I'm sorry to say I must get to bed. It's 12.45 am here (Scotland), and my eyes feel like they've got dust in them! It's been great chatting with you. This is my first visit here and it's been good. I'll stay on for your reply, and maybe you could tell me when you'll be online again. Cheers

Chonsi and I practically live here, friend. See you tomorrow.

Accountable wrote: Chonsi and I practically live here, friend. See you tomorrow.
He's right, AC and the rest of us are here alot-have a good night's sleep johnscott! Let the ego go with the flow of your dreams, and tell us where you emerge in the morning's soft light!:)

chonsigirl wrote: He's right, AC and the rest of us are here alot-have a good night's sleep johnscott! Let the ego go with the flow of your dreams, and tell us where you emerge in the morning's soft light!:)


Thanks to you both. By the way Chonsi, I'm a 'Jungian' myself!

Good question! I've checked out many different paths and schools of thought. This seems to me to bring together aspects from them all in a way that promotes individual responsibilty for developing our perception of reality. That's not to say it would be right for everyone. There are different basic 'types' of people, and it's up to each individual to determine their best path (or not as the case might be!)

Anyway, I'm sorry to say I must get to bed. It's 12.45 am here (Scotland), and my eyes feel like they've got dust in them! It's been great chatting with you. This is my first visit here and it's been good. I'll stay on for your reply, and maybe you could tell me when you'll be online again. Cheers. 'Night.

Well, I am EST time, and I pop in and out during the school day, but come on at night during the week-it will be late your time the next two nights, I have to direct choir tomorrow and I teach a class on Thursday nights. Otherwise, I am on alot, FG is my home away from home, and my relief from daily life. Full of lots of good friends!

My school of thought-oh my, I am a very religious person and set in my belief system, but as far as discussing philosophy and school of thoughts I have some background since I took many a class in college. Just got through my lecture on Greek philosophy, hence the reference to Plato! And they get a quiz on it Thursday too! Oh, that was off track I know, but teachers do like to write up those tests! But I am open to philosophical discussions, it was a very nice exercise for my mind tonight, and a much needed relief to think of something else for awhile. You have a very nice evening johnscott, and let your mind rest from the discourses of the day, and the bane of everyday existence, and dwell in the dreamland of your imagination-or is it only imaginary? There is the old saying, dreams do come true.........................

Welcome to Forum Garden, John! I saw a very interesting movie once about Gurdjieff called "Meetings With Remarkable Men." I'm into, uh, "something else," But it did inspire my spiritual journey at the time.

johnscot wrote: Good question! I've checked out many different paths and schools of thought. This seems to me to bring together aspects from them all in a way that promotes individual responsibilty for developing our perception of reality. That's not to say it would be right for everyone. There are different basic 'types' of people, and it's up to each individual to determine their best path (or not as the case might be!)
There are several issues spinning in my foggy brain.



* You follow Gurdjieff's teachings to develop your perception of reality? So is this an academic exercise, or is it more?



* Also, I can't put together your earlier statement that we don't have self determination with a responsibility to develop our own perceptions of reality. How can both be true?

AC, I used this last night for reference. It will be interesting to hear johnscott's reply. I think I put in my previous post it was an academic exerciese for me, and reminded me of classes in college where we would debate such systems. I took many being in the social sciences.

But it was so much fun johnscott! I am sure there many more philosophical turns of the corner coming soon if you want to pull them out.

*no, not the rabbit from the magician's hat!*:wah:



http://www.gurdjieff.org/

chonsigirl wrote: AC, I used this last night for reference. It will be interesting to hear johnscott's reply. I think I put in my previous post it was an academic exerciese for me, and reminded me of classes in college where we would debate such systems. I took many being in the social sciences.

But it was so much fun johnscott! I am sure there many more philosophical turns of the corner coming soon if you want to pull them out.

*no, not the rabbit from the magician's hat!*:wah:

http://www.gurdjieff.org/


Thanks for that chonsi, I enjoyed it too. Mind you, it's not an obsession for me or anything and I have many other interests. Still, the questions of who/what/why we are, along with the 'inner journey' that answering this question entails, have been important to me for a long time. Now, to change the subject, I must make a confession! The reason I set up this thread was accidental. My 1st posting was meant to be a reply to a posting from Ancient Wisdom and not a new thread. Isn't that a hoot? I'm glad I did, though, as it's been fun. I'm new to ForumGarden and I'm afraid I'm not subscribed, so I can't get/send private messages. Hope you're having a great day today. C ya :-6

I've read all the posts in this thread and had a look at some websites. This is way , way over my head but interesting none the less.

Ha-ha, then that was pretty cool that a boo-boo turned out so well. You can continue philosophical turns of the mind on other threads, and see where they lead! I shall look forward to where they lead johnscott..............well, if time progresses forward and we can really reply to posts!:-6

:-2

Ha-ha, AC, was there really a post there, or is it somewhere else in time...............

Reminds me of H.G. Wells Time Machine.................................

Accountable wrote: There are several issues spinning in my foggy brain.



* You follow Gurdjieff's teachings to develop your perception of reality? So is this an academic exercise, or is it more?



* Also, I can't put together your earlier statement that we don't have self determination with a responsibility to develop our own perceptions of reality. How can both be true?
I was just getting my sea legs with this subject.

:yh_rotfl :yh_rotfl :yh_rotfl

ArnoldLayne wrote: I'm still throwing up over the side. Must be my lack of inner balance :rolleyes:
Oh Arnold, we love you!

Think of the philosophical discussion that could result from that comment...........

*oops*

Arnold ran for the side of the boat again..........................

Accountable wrote: I was just getting my sea legs with this subject.


Hi AC. Yes , it's a struggle. When Gurdjieff says we are 'mechanical' he doesn't mean we CAN'T take responsibility for our own perceptions of reality. He means that until we have done the 'Work' required, we are incapable of truly seeing reality, and therefore unable, until that's achieved, to really perceive reality in any other than a 'lopsided', incomplete way. Hope that helps! By the way, this is not anything new. In one form or another, symbolically/metaphorically/allegorically, all the world religions say the same (at least in their esoteric (hidden) aspects. Examples include: sufism (islam); Rosicrucians/ Knights Templar etc (Christian);

Judaism (Kabbalah); Hinduism and so on, plus theosophical organisations, not to mention Bhuddism (though strictly speaking, Bhuddism is not a 'religion' and does not therefore hide such aspects 'esoterically'). What Gurdjieff did was to bring esoteric knowledge from these various sources together, in order to create a practical system specifically designed for the modern, western mind (An example of how his teachings were received involves P.D. Ouspenski. On meeting Gurdjieff, Ouspenski turned his back on his position as the foremost mathematical mind in Russia at the end of the 19th century, in order to follow these teachings. Ouspenski's seminal book 'In Search of the Miraculous', is widely considered to be the best introduction to Gurdjieff's teachings. :-5

Oh, by the way, Why did the chicken cross the road? Because it was driven to it boom, boom!

I suppose for the sake of delving into this, I should look at what I consider to be considered adult human decision-making to be simply high-level animal instinct? Is that close to your understanding?



And I still don't have a grasp of any reason to entertain this discussion beyond, well, entertainment.

Accountable wrote: I suppose for the sake of delving into this, I should look at what I consider to be considered adult human decision-making to be simply high-level animal instinct? Is that close to your understanding?



And I still don't have a grasp of any reason to entertain this discussion beyond, well, entertainment.


I'd say that's a fairly good analogy, though human reason goes beyond the animal instinctive level. Nonetheless, we're speaking here about higher, abstract levels, to which reason alone has no access (though reason/cognition is one of the necessary tools for attaining higher levels). I suppose you could say that what human reason is, relative to animal instinct, so the higher, abstract level of consciousness (which goes beyond language as we understand it), is, relative to human reason.

By the way, the reason this thread is having this discussion is purely through a mistake of mine. I only found this site when I first posted this thread and, at the time, thought I was responding to someone else in the 'Ancient Wisdom' thread OOPS!

Here's what I posted to Chonsi about this:

Thanks for that chonsi, I enjoyed it too. Mind you, it's not an obsession for me or anything and I have many other interests. Still, the questions of who/what/why we are, along with the 'inner journey' that answering this question entails, have been important to me for a long time. Now, to change the subject, I must make a confession! The reason I set up this thread was accidental. My 1st posting was meant to be a reply to a posting from Ancient Wisdom and not a new thread. Isn't that a hoot? I'm glad I did, though, as it's been fun. Hope you're having a great day today. C ya

C ya too AC.

Now johnscott, you never know if the original post was a mistake or not, it could have been fixed in "time" for that post to appear, and not at an earlier time. What would have T Rex done if that post had shown up, right when he was ready to get a mouth watering snack?

"It is never possible to deduce judgements of value from matters of fact"

David Hume



Gurdjieff does seem to make assumptions based on his perception of belief, but are they facts? Does he bring any statistical data into play, or scientific thought before the leap into religion?

How does Gurdjieff reconcile previous philosophical thoughts with his system? If "Gurdjieff did... bring esoteric knowledge from these various sources together, in order to create a practical system specifically designed for the modern, western mind ," why is it not evident today through a unified philosophical and religous system?