05.31.09

Charges of ‘hatred’

Posted in Uncategorized at 12:36 pm

This is an aggrieved comment from some groupie from somewhere: the charge is of ‘hatred’.

Comment on LL post

Hercules Washington said,
31.05.09 at 10:18 am ·
As I said you’ve entirely failed to understand it. In a childish way also.
You obviously have some sense of grievance – which wouldn’t be surprising if you’ve dealt with these so called ‘work’ groups. But to project that as some great truth ….
This is a ‘hate’ blog and won’t help anybody. How have you got yourself into putting so much effort into ‘hate’?

While we have certainly not given the appearance here of New Age lovie-dovie (hug me) style, this is certainly not a ‘hate’ perspective.
The charge is totally unfair, and completely naive.

Who exactly is the hate peddler? Gurdjieff is on record criticizing the ‘sufi path of love’ and saying that the solution was a ‘path of hate’. The viciousness of his ‘path’ bears him out on this statement.
It was Rajneesh who exposed the tactic of hate being promoted by certain esoteric groups (Buddhists) in fomenting the spiritual fascism of the early twentieth century.
It is E.J. Gold who was overheard praising the holocaust, as a kind of ‘spiritual work’. This from a jew.
Gold is notably vicious and hateful in his style of interaction.
He is on record saying he thinks disciples should be so harrassed that they are close to death are all times.
One of Gold’s prinicipal disciples formed a secret ‘nazi’ group, with people wearing nazi armbands, a group celebrating the value of mass murder.
Gold is a secret Crowley agent, routinely using hate voodoo against his enemies, and,worse, his own followers who are unsuspecting and trust him.
Lozowick wrote a book called ‘Spiritual Slavery’, an extreme provocation for democratic Americans, and then made this a test of surrender, using voodoo against those who resisted.
To preach slavery is a prima facie instance of using hatred.

I could go on. As a matter of fact I do hate slavery.

The charge of promoting hatred is the other way around.

Comment on sufis/poets

Posted in Uncategorized at 12:26 pm

MBFM
comment Sufi hyenas on the lookout to vampirize/invultuate poets for reactionary agendas

mybrainisafleamarket
Submitted on 2009/05/28 at 9:47am
Damn. I love TS Eliot’s quartets.

(His play, The Cocktail Party’ gives me the creeps. So does Murder in the Cathedral).

But nemo is right. According to Gary Lachman, who refers to this in his book, In Search of PD Ouspensky, TS Eliot was very greatly influenced by Ouspensky.

Beauty is not always truth. In some tragic and scary cases, beauty can be used to adorn and sweeten an agenda that darkens the mind, not awakens it.

Just the way Henry VIII used jewels, perfume and music, and the resources of many great artists and visiting scholars to conceal a court that was lethally dangerous to pursue a career in.

Damn. I love TS Eliot’s quartets.

(His play, The Cocktail Party’ gives me the creeps. So does Murder in the Cathedral).

But nemo is right. According to Gary Lachman, who refers to this in his book, In Search of PD Ouspensky, TS Eliot was very greatly influenced by Ouspensky.

Beauty is not always truth. In some tragic and scary cases, beauty can be used to adorn and sweeten an agenda that darkens the mind, not awakens it.

Just the way Henry VIII used jewels, perfume and music, and the resources of many great artists and visiting scholars to conceal a court that was lethally dangerous to pursue a career in.
mybrainisafleamarket

Comment on The ‘calmswan’ G group

Posted in Uncategorized at 12:24 pm

mybrainisafleamarket
MBFM
Comment on The ‘calmswan’ G group

Submitted on 2009/05/29 at 10:21am
“There was no overt cruelty, and the oppression was subtle and voluntary on the part of the oppressed. ”

Yawn. That’s the standard BS.

Groups of this sort recruit people already wounded enough to gravitate toward oppressive power imbalance.

Anyone with sufficient adult agency to avoid such a group is despised as being egoistic or asleep.

Anyone unconsciously re-enacting oppressive power imbalances is acting out of a preformatted script learned in childhood. Adult consent is not even possible in such an instance.

G groups and anything like it just continue the oppression rather than assisting us to wake up enough to break the cycle.

And for that, G work is not enough. One needs a licensed psychotherapist who has worked thorugh personal counter transferance issues via a training analysis.

We can only hope to steer clear of the many therapists whose professional formation gets gummed up by instructors who have bought into gurdjieff bullshit and think it can be reconciled with psychotherapy. It cannot.

Am guessing that a lot of folks in the G world dont like it now that the internet is aiding in disperson of first person reports of time wasted in groups such as Calmswan.

We dont know how much time we each have to live. Wasted time is a tragedy and not always by conscious consent.

Again, what is so awful about dying like a dog?

Dogs reciprocate our love and loyalty, which is more than can be said of operators like Gurdjieff.

“There was no overt cruelty, and the oppression was subtle and voluntary on the part of the oppressed. ”

Yawn. That’s the standard BS.

Groups of this sort recruit people already wounded enough to gravitate toward oppressive power imbalance.

Anyone with sufficient adult agency to avoid such a group is despised as being egoistic or asleep.

Anyone unconsciously re-enacting oppressive power imbalances is acting out of a preformatted script learned in childhood. Adult consent is not even possible in such an instance.

G groups and anything like it just continue the oppression rather than assisting us to wake up enough to break the cycle.

And for that, G work is not enough. One needs a licensed psychotherapist who has worked thorugh personal counter transferance issues via a training analysis.

We can only hope to steer clear of the many therapists whose professional formation gets gummed up by instructors who have bought into gurdjieff bullshit and think it can be reconciled with psychotherapy. It cannot.

Am guessing that a lot of folks in the G world dont like it now that the internet is aiding in disperson of first person reports of time wasted in groups such as Calmswan.

We dont know how much time we each have to live. Wasted time is a tragedy and not always by conscious consent.

Again, what is so awful about dying like a dog?

Dogs reciprocate our love and loyalty, which is more than can be said of operators like Gurdjieff.

mybrainisafleamarket

05.30.09

Gurdjieff’s distortions, and distorted world view

Posted in Uncategorized at 1:40 pm

The teaching of Gurdjieff, and I suspect sufism generally, are fragments of something that has become distorted, nay, perverted, by the context and society in which these people were forced to live. It is nothing less than a misfortune that this supposedly new approach to spirituality got mixed up with the occult politics of the nineteenth century, the reactionary cultural milieu of Tsarist Russia (which Gurdjieff by his conditioning thought just!), and the whole legacy of sufistic tradition as it coexisted with the infelicities of medievalism, violent histories, and authoritarian government.
The result is a kind of cancerated non-starter, that noone can use, and that noone suspects for the dark teaching it really is.

Autonomy discussion

Posted in Uncategorized at 1:27 pm

Comment at Darwiniana on a series of posts on ‘autonomy’.
There was a confusion of the sense in which the term was taken (Kantian).

In general this is not the same issue as that of autonomy. Autonomy is a given, it should be the case in any normal society. It is not a precondition of abolition that men have a certain consciousness.

Gurdjieff talks about abnormal ‘man machines’, but he is himself the product of an abnormal spiritual culture that has deviated from true sense into diabolical occultism, and genocidal fascist politics.

05.27.09

Sufi hyenas on the lookout to vampirize/invultuate poets for reactionary agendas

Posted in Uncategorized at 2:25 pm

MBFM in Gurus and creativity throws down the gauntlet here on the question of Gurdjieff, Ouspensky and creativity.
Bravo for the nerve to spit it out. However, never be too sure of anything, and keep probing/reflecting on this. There are many dimensions to these tricksters. It is true that Gurdjieff lacked ‘creativity’, but a number of sufis I have met have expressed (religious/Islamic) contempt for the ‘creative types’, who are often egoic. Gurdjieff, who may well have been the ‘vampire’ MBFM depicts, nonetheless had bigger fish to fry, and, well….

A long time ago at Darwiniana I was pursuing a very similar theme but in the distractions of the blog, and fearful of not being understood (the Gurdjieff Con didn’t exist yet), and in the midst of Sillykitty getting upset, I got sidetracked from what I wanted to say, which was very similar to what MBFM is trying to say. This was under the category ‘sonnets’ which I have since deleted, although the posts are still there. Having gone through a renewed phase of writing poetry (I was pretty good at it once, long before, and then fell into silence) in the post-guru encounter phase of the seventies, I suddenly stumbled on what some insidious people are up to, and, remarkably, MBFM stumbled on it, although I might put it differently.
But you cannot talk about this and be understood (perhaps the readers of G-con blog are different tho from the darwiniana readers who would just freak out)
It is strange to discover that shadow sufis have poets on their radar (not all, most self-styled poets aren’t worth the bother), and with G or some circle around him, …how explain it…
Read the history of twentieth century poetry, and consider T.S.Eliot, who, we forget, was a conservative, and anti-modernist.
That’s what they are looking for: a pliable poet who can be invultuated without his awareness, and used to promote various cultural interests.

I have to leave you to figure it out, but it was all that point that I ‘caught the sufi hyenas red-handed’, as writing poetry died, and respect for sufis died, and…

05.26.09

Sufism and poets

Posted in Uncategorized at 6:34 pm

Gurus and creativity

MBFM hits the nail on the head, and yet the situation has a lot of complexities. Sheiks in the sufi tradition are beset with the mystery of their own tradition, and their inability to truly understand, let alone surpass it. The issues of poets in the sufi tradition, after all, goes back a long way! And then all at once all that is gone, even as crystallizing traditions of sufism become something else, and can’t decipher what their original line was about.
People like Gurdjieff are frustrated by their own ignorance of such mysteries and their inability to generate creativity in their disciples, what to say of their own lack of such.
The electic nature of his ‘teaching’ should be obvious, but his manner of constantly clipping the presentation, as if the real thing was esoteric stops people from skeptical evaluations.

MBFM citation of Lachman on Ouspensky is worth considering. I think we haven’t heard the last of him.

Gurus and creativity

Posted in Uncategorized at 6:23 pm

Comment:The ‘calmswan’ G group

It is not clear quite at which dates the author served time in ‘calmswan’, but internal evidence and some clues suggest that it was a Gurdjieff Foundation group.

And…to me what stuck out was that the author’s own initiative and creativity as a musician were sidelined, vampirized for the service of the leaders of the group.

This repeats what to me is the chief feature of G work itself–that people with genuine original talent but who do not have the confidence and self knowledge to protect their own treasure, are easily persuaded to consider thier genuine and original talent as sleep or mere egotism and to let some G work leader vampirize the recruit’s creativity to keep the fossilized system going.

Gary Lachman made a persuasive case that Ouspenksy had a more original talent than Gurdjieff did and made the tragic mistake of subordinating his own insights and his own personality to Gurdjieff’s.

My take is that the best way to describe Gurdjieff and anything that spins off from him is that all this stuff is parasitic–it can keep going only by filching vitality and creativity from others–and often by conning persons with genuine talent into believing that their genuine talent is an impediment to their spiritual development–and, when a person disowns his or her talent–co-opting their energy to serve whatever Fourth Way entity has lied to them.

IMO, Gurdjieff was incurably ego driven. He had no creativity of his own, but envied originality in others. All he could do was steal from others richer than he.

His sytem was just a gimmick he created from bits and pieces of traditions that were distorted the instant Gurdy touched em, and glued together with fat gobs of disinformation and cognitive double binds. The closest thing Gurdy came to art was to live his own life as a performance artist, using bits of ancient truth to conceal a life of deceit and confusion mongering.

Gurdy had not talent of his own, and it may be that he got a kick out of conning genuinely talented people into devaluing what Gurdy himself longed to possess but did not possess–creativity.

Thomas de Hartmann had real promise as a composer, had already published compositions that showed originality, yet he sacrificed his own creativity to take dictation for Gurdjieff’s own nutty music.

The vampirizing is still going on.

Take home lesson is—Artists and creatives–beware. No matter what your own self doubt, be aware there are persons who prey on creativity, and who get off on trying to get creative people to doubt themselves.

Safeguard your talent from all creativity-envying vampires, Fourth Way or otherwise, who have no life force of their own and who want to trick you into disowning your own treasure.

They can keep alive only by conning you into jettisoning your creativity–so that they can steal it after they’ve tricked you into disloyalty to yourself.

Your own unanswered question is better than someone elses’ Answer.

Even if you dont understand your own riddle, honor it and dont let anyone
trick you into devaluing it.

So what if you cant explain this in a sound bite, or give someone a satisfactory answer at a party.

And what’s terrible about dying like a dog?

Dogs are playful, and they are more capable of love and loyalty than Gurdy ever was.

Good points. I will let it stand without comment (for the moment).
But you are righter than you know. Over at Darwiniana, a long while back when SK was still around, we had several discussions hinting at all this. I learned my own version of this as I wandered in the wake of the New Age movement writing poetry, stumbling on the strange game going on here in sufi circles.

Autonomy

Posted in Uncategorized at 6:16 pm

Gray reviews ‘God Is Back’
The discussions of autonomy in the past few days at Darwiniana are of interest here: that’s what we have been talking about all along. The loss of autonomy in the Gurdjieff sphere.

05.24.09

The ‘calmswan’ G group

Posted in Uncategorized at 6:26 pm

Welcome back to MBFM. Great link. Get us back to the ‘gurdjiff con’ business. nemo (I hope to continue with the Bennett/DU debriefing at some point. We can’t abandon the people mired in that book)
We should try to save in some form since these things tend to disappear.
Comment on Labyrinth of self:http://www.gurdjieff-con.net/2009/05/23/the-labyrinth-of-self/comment-page-1/#comment-34905

MBFM:

mybrainisafleamarket said,
24.05.09 at 11:28 am ·
Hi nemo.

I found this item recently when doing a google search. It purports to be a chronicle by someone who spent years of his or her life in what sounds like a very long lasting, lavishly run ‘Gurdjieff’ group. Its identity is concealed under a pseudonym ‘calmswan’

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=calmswan+gurdjieff&btnG=Google+Search

The essay is over a hundred pages long and is not split up into paragraphs which will make it hard for most readers and require a lot of editorial formatting after conversion to a Word document.

But it appears to be quite a detailed account by an insider who is in the conflicted situation of remaining loyal to ‘the system’ but very critical of the culty dynamics of the group he or she was in–making that account all the more painful to read.

This was a somewhat unusual G group in that it actually did utilize the music, the so called ’sacred dances’ included Beelzebub’s Tales, which means that die hard Gurdjieffians cannot dismiss it as a fake group.

Despite this being a so called real group, it still sounds from the authors description as though it was an expensive, despotic waste of time, talent and energy, laid at the feet of the leaders who ran it as a petty fiefdom, leaving it out of step with the needs of the present world where human dignity and liberty need to be affirmed and maintained, not abdicated in service to a pseudo spiriutal and delusional agenda.

Some online books

Posted in Uncategorized at 6:11 pm

Free PDF Ebooks of Osho, J Krishnamurti, Ramana Maharshi and Gurdjieff

http://www.messagefrommasters.com/Ebooks/ebooks_download.htm

05.23.09

Evolution, homo sapiens’ sense of a spirit world, and Kant

Posted in evolution, Kant at 5:57 pm

Dreams of a Spirit Seer

The labyrinth of self

Posted in Dramatic Universe at 1:55 pm

The reason Bennett’s The Dramatic Universe is interesting to me is that it shows a way to reinterpret the ancient Samkhya psychology, whose key has been long lost. Once you see how Bennett sets up the whole system of human spiritual psychology in terms of ‘being, function, will’, and then shows how the different selves manifest the descending triads of will in more and more mechanical fashion the point is brought home about the original intent of Samkhya as an aid to meditation and self-knowledge.
But now the whole thing is mixed up with the system of Gurdjieff and I fear it will never be straightened out.

DU commentary aborted?

Posted in Dramatic Universe at 1:52 pm

I had projected some commentary, DU commentary, on Bennett’s The Dramatic Universe, but have failed to get it started. Part of the problem is the sheer scale of the work, and, more, the lack of time on my part.
So I may just collect a few notes on each aspect. Also, it is a problem if what is intended is a critique, when what is also needed is some degree of appreciation. We have pointed that out a number of times here: the rightness and confusion of Bennett.
Another problem is that you are close to the dragon here: this book adds to the mystique of Gurdjieff, with none of the blame that falls to Bennett, for his mixture of good and bad scholarship.
That’s always the problem with these followers. They should have known better than to have placed their work at the feet of the master (bation chief).
Moral: you get the whole ghost including the postage when you attack the sacred script.
Since we have attacked the sacred idiots t hemselves, I guess a little more VouDou won’t matter.

Ouspensky, Gurdjieff not Darwinians

Posted in evolution at 1:44 pm

Comment on Selection from Book on Social Darwinism

Andrew said,
20.05.09 at 4:51 am ·
Ouspensky was actually an anti-Darwinist, but his arguments are very cranky and ill-thought out. Gurdjieff parodied Darwinism in Beelzebub’s Tales, saying that periodically people got together to work out whether monkeys were descended from mankind or vice-versa.

So I don’t think either of them can be counted as Darwinists in any sort of way.

Thanks for the comment. My post was misleading perhaps, to many. I had thought that everyone was aware of Ouspensky’s anti-Darwinism (and I hadn’t recalled Gurdjieff’s comments on the subject)

My point was that the influence of Social Darwinism on such people was indirect, and connected with their own false views of evolution with the influence of Nietzsche in the background.

All in all, it is misleading to charge them with Social Darwinism if they were not Darwinists, which they weren’t .
But Darwinism seems to have somehow spoiled the tone of much guruism, as they gurus began to compete with each other and fight to destroy each other behind the scenes (but then again that was true long before Darwin).

Another critic of Darwin is J.G. Bennett.