Gurdjieff, Castaneda, J-P Mallet Garnier and Cassiopéens

[Kisito]

Hello, I am seized with a disorde and I shall like being helped in my reflection. It's a comparison between Jean-Pierre Mallet, Carlos Castaneda, Georges Ivanovitch Gurjieff and Cassiopéens.

J-P Mallet Garnier

There have been already subjects on J-P Mallet Garnier, but I am going to try to make a summary.
The physicist elaborated a theory of the double. He stipulates that we have all a double (copy) which lives in our past. We would be the phantasmagorical projection, the creation of our double.
J-P Mallet Garnier mentions that the double is us and that he chosen always the good solution as us. But for this fact we have to warn it by recapitulating our day before sleeping. The recapitulation allow the double to keep in touch with us, without whom we are not protected and we can lose the link with our Me of past and be attacked by the other entities. He also thinks that the cycle of 300009 years arrives at its term and that the past and future are going to join.

C Castaneda

The ethnologist explains the difference between the tonal and the nagual. It seems to say that it is two entities which remain in us. The tonal and the emerged part, it would be our perception of the everyday life. The nagual our most powerful, hidden part which would live in a timeless time. Its power would be proportional in the powerlessness of the tonal.
It would seem that the power of the nagual would come when the tonal fades. And the disappearance of the tonal would be made (not only) by the fear. The fear would limit the tonal and would strengthen the nagual.

G.I. Gurdjieff

In his youth, G was in rivalry with a companion to agree the favors of a girl. Their duel consisted in staying as long as possible in shell-holes during a session of shootings of the Russian army. He mentions that he was so afraid, that another man was born. This man was stronger and developed new visions.

So this comparison with these three characters, have similarities enter they and with Cassiopéens. They speak all of a double, that of Castaneda and Gurdjieff seems to be a double along the way towards the fourth way, but them doesn't seem to be STO! The double of J-P Mallet Garnier seems to correspond to Cassiopéens, he speaks about a cycle of 300009 years. But the problem it'ss because he says that the double is us in past and cassiopéens say is us in the future!
So we find this notion of fear which seems to be every time either a lesson, or a door towards the truth!

Can we calm my confusion?

 

[Approaching Infinity]

I'm not sure there's necessarily a connection between the three. Castaneda got a lot of his ideas from Gurdjieff, so there may be a connection between tonal/nagual and personality/essence. I think this is what G is discussing with his 'two people' (the essence comes out in moments of intense emotion). There's a discussion in Patterson's book "The Life and Teachings of Carlos Castaneda" where the concept of Naugal comes from.

As for Garnier, I'm not familiar with his work. I'm not sure how he came up with the idea that we have a double from the past, but it seems speculative and impossible to verify.

 

[Buddy]

Seems to me the confusion may be due to the mixing of incorrectly understood metaphors within a single context of understanding, or a mixing of accurate metaphors in non-compatible contexts. So, I would say it is unwise to try and synthesize these three views until the full context of each author's work is understood.

Personally, I'd like to have an overview of Jean-Pierre Mallet's work before commenting further. Do you have a personal recommendation for a starting place?

 

[Esote]

AFAIK, J.P. Garnier-Malet's theory looks like BS.
He claims supposed huge scientific discoveries which have never ever been acknowledged by any scientific comity, despite what he is trying to make people to believe in.
He is obviously into making a lot of money out of a very clever and appealing theory, able to attract a lot of New Age oriented folks who don't have enough knowledge and critical thinking. I was one of them at the beginning, until I got through researches on JPGM incredible discoveries and found out how unfounded and false they can be...

 

[Kisito]

Yes Eoste, it's true that is needed a critical thought, but for one some to have thought, it is already necessary to have high intellectual abilities there mathémathique. JP Garnier-Mallet and holder of a doctorate of fluid mechanics. What also allows me not to believe absolutely in that theory because I have no level for the good to understand it. I know that there was as well a debate, on the fact as the theory is the plagiarism on a self-taught. The woman of JP G-M would also be on the base of this theory! He also speaks about many of crop circle and about their representation.

Here are both books: " Change your future by the temporal openings " and " Double how's that walking (work) " The first book and more scientific, more interesting because could be more open to criticism(more questionable), the second has authority to explain how's that work ".

 

[Esote]

Kisito, if you read French, here is a PDF written by a Physicist about Garnier-Malet

 

[Kisito]

Thank you Eoste for the link, I had already read things on him of this kind and you are probably right, but I wonder why a physicist would make such mathematical errors as the constant of the light? The STS misinform by putting a little of truth in a lot of lie so that it seems true. The opposite can be true. Einstein has includes false equations to prove that the universe was static... For lack of having the required knowledge, at the moment my scepticism doesn't allow me to deny categorically this theory. I again have to digest to make me a better opinion.
Thank you again to have taken time to answer me.

 

[Buddy]

Thanks for your input, eoste.

[quote author=Kisito]
I wonder why a physicist would make such mathematical errors as the constant of the light?[/quote]

That's pretty easy, I think. Do you, yourself, not believe in 'constants' whose terms imply "oneness"; in "one" gigantic overall context in which our quantum universe is supposed to fit? Example: This 1 is the same as that 1 which is the same as every other 1 and there is one speed of one light in one universe--all in one context and that our anthropocentric concepts are valid outside of anthropocentric contexts?

There are illusions in our mental, conceptual representations of reality that we must learn about, and we are learning about some of them on here. And it seems few, if any, people are immune to belief in these illusions.