I hope that some of you will make comments on this series and ask any questions you have. Soon enough, Ark's blog will revert to pure math, so take advantage of the break!
Well, on the one hand, it's a bit hard or even next to impossible to comment and/or ask a reasonable question, not being just sort of expression of curiosity about your (and of other more knowledgeable participants) opinion/stance on the specific topic, when there's seemingly insurmountable gap in knowledge and information base between you guys and us laymen about the issues at hands.
In addition to blogspot platform not being very mobile user friendly, i.e. not showing your new posts there on mobile devices, if they aren't explicitly linked in some of the previously published posts.
On the other hand, some questions (like the ones I'm about to lay out next in this post) may require/include additional background, which might be more or less specific to the things discussed on the Forum and/or that the C's have communicated through you to the others here and eventually transmitted elsewhere around the globe.
The questions related to
your comments under
Part 5, not just exclusively to you and/or Ark, but to all forumites better versed in life and work of G. I. Gurdjieff than just having ISOTM (which is not even real G's writing and which took me three attempts and almost a decade to go through to the very end) and few bits and pieces online about G's alleged life and shenanigans (like
'hiding' his early life backgrounds,
bragging to be able to kill a yak at 10 miles distance and 'torturous'
treatment of Ouspensky) under the belt, which IMO is not suited for blogspot there, would be:
- Have you ever considered a possibility that Gurdjieff might have been a psyop or even an 'undergrounder' in the context of the latest session with the C's?
- If so, what were the odds assigned to that possibility?
- If not, why not?
I mean, in your comments you write that G's morality was "a bit iffy" plus what I've read about his methods of breaking his followers' spirits and free wills, in addition to making them practically without question obeying 'group' authority (read "him") which translates rather evidently to making 'authority followers figures', what seems the PTB has been all about for as long as we can see back in the history, which together appears like a fishy business and kinda goes along the lines of what was discussed with the C's.
Q: (Possibility of Being) Do they know good and evil the same way as we would understand it?
A: No
Q: (Joe) Are they - from our perspective - very much like mind-controlled beings in that sense? They don't have much free will?
A: Yes. And much like very efficient psychopaths.
Next in your comment, you say:
But his cosmology was awful. In the book "Gurdjieff and Hypnosis", the author, Mohammad Tamdgidi, lays out Gurdjieff's cosmology very early in the book stripped of all the funny words and mythical presentation. As I read, two thoughts circled in my head: 1) this reads like L. Ron Hubbard; 2) this is a very bad re-telling of the Zoroastrian story of creation. Here we find Gurdjieff's conviction that ALL that existed was material and this is clearly wrong ( think of hyperdimensional physics and information theory). But for some reason, Gurdjieff simply could not conceptualize anything to exist that was not some form of matter.
which goes rather smoothly along the lines that OPs can't see anything else except material part of (their) existence, and since psychos are supposed to be 'broken OPs', it ties nicely into the PTB's 'programming agenda' for 3D humans to abdicate their Souls as something that does not exist.
At the end of this elaboration about the questions, we know that nobody gets to appear big in public eyes without doing some sort of agenda/job for the PTB, and in comment you write that "Gurdjieff for sure" will be one of the modern times philosophers whose name will be remembered thousands of years from now, which in itself kinda raises an eyebrow, or even both of them.
There are also some other things about Gurdjieff that smell kinda suspicious to me, but I'll stop at the above points, because, as said in the opening of the questions, I'm not really in position to make an educated and well informed & researched answer on my own about actual G.I.G.'s work and life. Which brings me to another sort of a question.
Slightly more than a year ago I was discouraged to take Beelzebub's Tales in my hands by another forumite in better standing than I was at that time on the reasons of "G being too much materialistic", better to invest the time in reading Mouravieff instead (which I more or less did, more than 15y ago during job-related trips abroad). Seeing on
wiki that all 'his' writings in English were not exactly written by Gurdjieff himself or, if they allegedly were, that
they were all actually published post-mortem which opens a door to being edited (maybe even heavily), which readings would you (and other better versed forumites) suggest to a focused and hence a rather slow reader to get a gist of what was G really about?
Apologies if these subjects above were already addressed and discussed elsewhere on the Forum, and thank you for taking the time to read this not-so-short post.
www.pilulerouge.com
