(I forgot why there seem to be two editions of this book, with different subtitles)
Patterson’s book is misleading on Ouspensky, and my suggestion to consider the analog of The Bourned Identity might help. But it is hard to credit what I learned in my own way a long time ago, which is that Ouspensky’s rejection of Gurdjieff became amplified in his ‘return life’. He is a bad source for fourth way thinking, even as he is the main source. What a mess.
Patterson’s take is complete imaginary.
Gurdjieffians seem insenstive to the poignant dilemma: looking the other way at crime, to continue in the work. Ouspensky saw that was hopeless, and checked out early, willing, like Bourne, to take his chances in the attempts to ‘kill’ him.
Dandy on self-remembering
Self-remembering is a way Gurdjieff used to give some apparent substance to his teaching, in the realm of practice. But it is mostly a brochure mode philosophy. Anyone with any savvy would be wary of this abstraction and follow the classic paths of meditation, which are mapped out.
Self-remembering, as with everything in Gurdjieff is so hyped by lies that it ceases to be on the level, leaving one suspicious it is just window dressing.
Noone ever succeeds with this method, which is poorly defined. Look at the Gurdjieff people, they are the most retared spiritual types, without any practice. They just reread Ouspensky and hope.
Any teacher will even a trace of an objective of producing successful disciples who can graduate to real self-awareness wouldn’t inflict the confusing and impractical self-remembering on confused beginners.
The Bourned Identity
I finally got around to see the film The Bourned Identity after a curious experience of twice seeing the opening on TV as I was falling asleep.
It tweaked my curiosity, for a reason that at first escaped me. I never read thrillers, or go to see movies of such, but this film, or its opening seemed to have a remarkable symbolism.
This was confirmed by the film as a whole. On the surface the title, the ‘Bourne’ (born!) identity, and the opening with a near death experience at sea are good examples of the writer’s unconscious symbolism associations at work. Such things are very frequent in writers, but in this case the arrangement of pieces is remarkable (whatever one thinks of the Hollywood aspects)
Further the film is unusual in being a testament to the revolt against identity created by a social framework, and includes the attempt to remember the past identity involved.
I suddenly realized the unconscious attraction in me: the resemblance to the case of Ouspensky, or his reincarnation, a man who is trying to escape a previous identity in an ‘esoteric’ (‘intelligence agency’) after refusing a criminal mission.
More on this another time, but many have failed to see the ambiguity of Ouspensky, and the way he turned against the ‘company’.
Dandy, a good writer like Ouspensky can take something and make it vivid, but in this case, as with his book in general, ISOM, the result tends to mesmerize people, who read his book over and over and over again because of such passages. The moment described might have been more than we see, but what we see is something third rate occultists indulge in all the time. It is not worth the fixation. But it is true such experiences happen around gurus not infrequently. But then so what?
Your other question I can’t answer, and at this point the moment is lost.
This is my fault to have reified concepts of the ‘spirit world’ in terms that reify more than we can know. But my original point is true enough. People suddenly graduate from the useless public discussions of spirituality and move on to something more practical in a tacit dimension.
Beware of Gurdjieff, he is one of the most successful hucksters, but the substance isn’t there. Ouspensky can’t help, and the world has moved on.
24.08.10 at 12:26 pm ·
“It all started with my beginning to hear his thoughts. We were sitting in a small room with a carpetless wooden floor as it happens in country houses. I sat opposite G., and Dr. S. and Z. at either side. G. spoke of our “features,” of our inability to see or to speak the truth. His words perturbed me very much. And suddenly I noticed that among the words which he was saying to us all there were “thoughts” which were intended for me. I caught one of these thoughts and replied to it, speaking aloud in the ordinary way. G. nodded to me and stopped speaking. There was a fairly long pause. He sat still saying nothing. After a while I heard his voice inside me as it were in the chest near the heart. He put a definite question to me. I looked at him; he was sitting and smiling. His question provoked in me a very strong emotion. But I answered him in the affirmative.
“Why did he say that?” asked G., looking in turn at Z. and Dr. S. “Did I ask him anything?”” – From In Search Of The Miriculous
I think this is might be a good example of transference, of contacting higher forces. I highly doubt it was Gurdjieff who directed the question to Ouspensky. Am I wrong? And by the way, have you sensed something unusual in the last 24 hours?
Darwin, Nietzsche, and Hitler: Evolution of the Ubermensch
We discussed this issue in another context today at Darwiniana, but it is appropriate to raise these issue here (this article is limited, and from a conservative site) because of the way that esotericism intersects with ideas of the ubermensch (nonsense in Nietzsche’s format) and evolution (confused by New Agers)
Comment from Dandy
Your question is a good one, but there are no real answers here. The problem is that everyone is already psychic, but their apparatus is a cluttered cacophony of voices, as it were. It is like a filthy kitchen owned by a couch potato: last clean up was ages ago. The kitchen is an archaeological horror of mouldy plates of rotting food, the ghosts of dead meals seem to speak in belches. A spiritual slob, in the same way, can’t hear anything but noise. A spiritual slob badly needs a tune up.
Gurus, I suppose, were intended to solve the problem of spirit guides, and vice versa.
The mere use of the term will produce imagination and false beliefs. But, perhaps, when the time is ripe, the cacophony will subside for a moment and the silence will produce a moment of clarity.
Note the Kantian distinction of phenomenal and noumenal. It is highly unlikely that the things on the phenomenal side correspond exactly to the stuff on the other side. So one must be wary of it all. The messages are on this side: what chooses which one on the other side is another matter. That’s not much of a method.
You are often getting help without realizing it. The action never enters consciousness. So it is important to find who is tampering with you. It is very hard to navigate Christian culture with an Eastern religious path. ‘Spirits’ doing Christian domination magic will destroy such paths to maintain the Monopoly. This will produce howls of protest from Christians. Actually, sad to say, Christians are immersed in an occult world, but it always keeps them in check. Born again Christians, if real, often have a brief spell of interaction with an unknown power.
I was once down and out in LA (another penniless scholar of Latin and Greek) and spent many nights in the insufferable born again beans for prayer gospel missions, and suddenly realized that in some cases the ‘born again’ phenomenon was real, and propelled people into a new life. But only locked inside the Christian cult. But mostly it is prayer for beans, and worthless.
Is is an ugly side of Christianity but it is real, sometimes, and secularists have no understanding of it.
A lot of direct action springs from surprising sources, dead authors, or famous persons of one kind or another, ‘hungry ghosts’, who want contact, but can’t do anything but choose messages on this side. But you sense often they are there. You can often feel the prescence of such, often bewildered, unaware they are dead, seeking solidity from their admirers.
BTW, this happened to Wallace, someone who never had much occult savvy. But he must have sensed something, some tampering with the theory of evolution. Note the extraordinary way that Wallace and Darwin interacted in 1859 (and before). It looks like tampering to me. Something mysterious was at work, and it seems demonic: get the smart fellow (Wallace) to do the work (he produced the theory), and then get the establishment figure (Darwin) to rip it off, and promote it more successfully. The occult world that later produces esoteric Darwinian genocide is initiating somewhere/somewhen in the nineteenth century. The strange coincidences of Wallace and Darwin don’t seem coincidence to me. Some demonic force suddenly grasps the logic ten moves ahead with the theory of Darwin. Social Darwinist demonology was very real, you have but to study German occultism after Blavatsky to sense this.
And Blavatsky had experiences, probably mostly fake, of this kind over and over again. She clearly, despite her multiple strikeouts, had many intersections with spirit guides. Perhaps the whole confusion/mischief starts with her.
The beauty of Darwin’s theory for a devil who wants to initiate conflicts and strife, is the appearance of science given to what is really an injunction to such conflict in the name of evolution. It is a horrible swindle on its suckers.
I can’t figure it out, but it is clear that Wallace suddenly sensed the ghost world. He also saw that his theory, by now Darwin’s, had to be wrong, but he had no further opportunities to change the situation he had created.
In general, the question is beyond our understanding, since we can’t visualize a timeless reality without paradox. But note that the eminence of a dead ghost is ‘present’ to our time, because out of time.
Indians have noted this over and over, and speak of strange experiences near the tombs of dead saints, or spiritual figures of the past.
Again, we cannot easily understand this. Schopenhauer notes something else, that he felt his life had an overall logic to it, as if its incidents were precomputed, in general strokes, not details. He was onto something. and it is worth considerig that few, very few, can advise others if they don’t grasp this prior logic to an individual’s life.
Note that others can harm you with advice: who you are is already computed by nature, your ‘destiny’ is already fixed, maybe,up to a point,as a potential. But have you lost contact with that? Probably. So before trying the hopeless venture of contacting spirits, consider uncovering your own. Grafting a spiritual path onto that prior being is not likely to succeed. But spiritual methods can work, willynilly, because (e.g. meditation) they assume nothing about that deeper momentum. They work on whatever is there. You can remorph who you are, but it would be nice if nature had granted that deeper self a spiritual path, then it succeeds. most are trying in vain because they are spastically in contradiction to their deeper orbit through life.
Dandy has tricked me–again–into dispensing (spiritual) advice, but I am not a guru, merely jawboning on various subjects.
I bring up Gopi Krishna in part (MBFM thought well of him) because he speaks to secularists in an indirect yet convincing way, if you can bypass the distraction (??really) of ‘kundalimi’ to see beyond what he said to what he did: you can chew the cud of spirituality forever, but you can also do some serious work (what did Gopi Krisha do, beyond the blah blah in his books) and go in pursuit of the virtual tradition.
Kundalini: The Evolutionary Energy in Man [Paperback]
Gopi Krishna is a fascinating figure, and his use of the term ‘evolutionary’, however problematical, is intriguing in pointing beyond its own incorrect usage to something that lurks behind the standard Darwianian accounts with a supreme question mark.
To correct Krishna’s language, we should distinguish the energy leading to a particular (kundalini) state of consciousness from the evolution of the potential for that energy use, or something to that effect. Kundalini, I suspect, is a very later ‘sculpture’ of body potential made from the evolutionary clay.
The issue is not the stereotyped framework of kundalini but the complex potential deeper than that, and the really hard question, how did it evolve?
The Future of Buddhism in the West
Guruism versus democracy: the fatal confusion that will be the undoing of Buddhism, but not of its remade content, perhaps. We should consider the reality of the ‘new age’, which is leading beyond Buddhism to its recreation, perhaps. But consider that while the Jain lineage became ‘Jainism’ in the Axial Age as Buddhism took up the torch, so a new path will emerge as the Buddhist lineage turns into,well, ‘Buddhism’. The mechanization of a tradition is too hard to overcome, it would seem.
Update: a lot of garbage comments appeared here. I can’t say how many are the same person. I put them in a post to coopt the deception of getting a first comment approved, after which a la Fake James the flood begins.
The logo/email Black Magic Woman has been barred here. Since, if I am not mistaken, it refers also to a song from yore, I won’t make a federal case out of it. But in combination with anonymity it is barred. The user can use a new name and identity her/himself in public.
Here we are dealing with real thing, and idiot assholes with self-preening email names referring to black magic have no place here.
Give us all a break.
These questions are not funny, or helped by sophmoric email games.
As we saw with the fake James someone is all too likely to use this name for other purposes and get it blamed on the innocent idiot using it here.
Update: junk comments inserted below Read the rest of this entry »
I have put up these comments as posts, this one time, and retired the ‘black magic women’ logo/email, no more here, please.
What possesses people to (make up and) adopt such names for themselves?
Black Magic Woman said,
16.08.10 at 12:27 am ·
I don’t think anybody is surprised that this book does “not amount to much” for Nemo. Serious people, however, will find that it is indeed a wonderful read which I can fully recommend to everybody who is interested in finding out what inner work is really all about. De Salzmann, as we all know, was one of the closest pupils of Gurdjieff and – different from authors like Ouspensky or Bennett – she does not write about the theoretical implications of the “system” as such nor on Gurdjieff himself but rather, in a very humble and personal style, about what the forth way is really like in its daily practice. Thus it is a most honest account of someone who struggled hard to work on herself over decades. To me this is one of the best books on the subject since 30 or 40 years!
Black Magic Woman said,
16.08.10 at 12:51 am ·
Right, to my knowledge, he was involved in setting up that centre back in the 1970ies. An interesting study on Beshara can be found in http://www.amazon.com/Beshara-Ibn-Arabi-Movement-Spirituality/dp/1905937008/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1281941366&sr=1-1
The Reality of Being: The Fourth Way of Gurdjieff [Hardcover]
Jeanne De Salzmann
I see that the De Salzmann book is out, and it appears not to amount to much, recycling forty to fifty year old notes. Desperation. The people at the Foundation were front office dummies used as drones to perpetuate the ‘legominism’, and their efforts, for themselves, were all by definition totally wasted. The perps of the legominism have to be kept asleep.
A word of warning.
How to use WHEE
Our phantom James has been active again under several new phony names, and took on WHEE, in vain, I fear.
I am charged with secular humanism, but that is false. I am certainly a secularist, but if you study WHEE you will realize a different and better meaning for that. I think that the question of modernity is completed misunderstood by too many New Agers groups and gurus. There can’t be a new age at all if you are going to destroy modernity. I think WHEE is the best formulation possible for New Agers, and puts the question of religion in world history in a useful perspective. All these reactionary ‘New Agers’ are destroying the whole possibility.
So I recomment WHEE for a foundation: it is compatible with a new religious perspective even as it is propounds a secularist viewpoint.
One of the confusions of the fourth way is the status of Darwinism. Ouspensky was a clear critic of Darwin, but Gurdjieff was too cagey to state anything directly (although you would have to be totally an idiot to not see the contradictions) and left that to others, e.g. Bennett, whose reputation suffered as a consequence.
Now there are two sets of bad thinking, Darwinian, and New Age. You can’t win. But I think if you make careful use of WHEE you will be able to clarify you perspective on the question of evolution.