Vision of Punishment

Thanks PepperFritz, very helpful!

My problem remains: How do you, or maybe - where do you - make the transition from the "purely intellectual" persuit of the work (e.g. reading Gurdjieffs "4th Way" book) and LEARNING. As I understand it, part of this is my point 2 (Identify/ Observe/ Correct programs) but I seem to be missing some point here. LEARNING seems to include ACTION, meaning that you incorporate what you have learned into your life. But if you are incorporating this in your life, you already KNOW - so where is the learning bit?

Sorry to be dense, maybe Ouspensky explains all that in his book "in Search ...". I have it on order, unfortunately I cannot just walk into a bookshop to buy it, but have to order it either from Europe or the US, which takes approx. 2 months ... so still waiting!
 
Hi Nicklebleu - ISOTM will answer many of your questions. If you really want to goto the man himself I suggest getting a copy of Beezelbub's Tales to His Grandson and reading through it in the manner he describes in his introduction. Then there's his follow ups - Meetings with Remarkable Men and Life is only real, When I am. All excellent tomes for those interested in Gurdjieff, his life and his system.
 
nicklebleu said:
How do you, or maybe - where do you - make the transition from the "purely intellectual" persuit of the work (e.g. reading Gurdjieffs "4th Way" book) and LEARNING. As I understand it, part of this is my point 2 (Identify/ Observe/ Correct programs) but I seem to be missing some point here. LEARNING seems to include ACTION, meaning that you incorporate what you have learned into your life.
That's exactly right. When you put what you read about into practice, you are moving away from the "purely intellectual" into real learning. One could read the 4th Way teachings all night and day, but until you incorporate them into your life, they remain theoretical. Then, once you start the objective observation of self that the teaching espouses, learning about YOURSELF and your MACHINE becomes a life-long learning process. "How" and "Where" do you begin? Answer: Self-Observation....

nicklebleu said:
But if you are incorporating this in your life, you already KNOW - so where is the learning bit?
Sorry, but I have NO IDEA what you are trying to say in the above sentence. Could you try rephrasing the question?
 
Thanks Cyre2067 & PepperFritz for your feed-back ...

Cyre2067: Have these books on order as well ... just have to be patient I guess (see above)!

PepperFritz: Maybe I try to ask the other way around ... KNOWING means to see who you are, how you interact with reality and what reality "really" is. For me this entails ACTION, this is probably the consequence of the KNOWING: You don't "mechanically" react to your environment, but you "conscioulsy" assess and act. So it seems to me, that you already have LEARNED the lesson - or haven't you? That's the missing bit for me: The transition from the "purely intellectual" to the "consiously" applying of what you learned. Maybe an analogy helps taken from psychology: You can talk all you life about a certain feeling, but how do you get to really "feel" it, to incorporate it intou your "soul" ... doesn't sound much more intelligible, I'm afraid. I feel I'm a bit over my head here - maybe I'll get back to that after having read said books. Sorry, can't do better ...
 
nicklebleu said:
So it seems to me, that you already have LEARNED the lesson - or haven't you?
Well, when it comes to the Work, you are never "done". Learning about your mechanical responses and uncovering the real "I" is a never-ending task, a life-long process. It's like peeling away the layers of an onion; just when you think you have discovered and corrected one mechanism, you find another, and another.... Think of it as a process of refinement. Or like learning to play an instrument. A pianist who strives for musical purity is never "done" learning his craft, is never fully acquainted with his instrument, there is always more the learn....

nicklebleu said:
That's the missing bit for me: The transition from the "purely intellectual" to the "consiously" applying of what you learned. Maybe an analogy helps taken from psychology: You can talk all you life about a certain feeling, but how do you get to really "feel" it, to incorporate it into your "soul" ...
Well, the Work is not about learning to "feel" certain emotions, it's about learning to recognize the programs that cause your Machine to produce certain emotions and behaviours . Once you see the connections, the emotions dissipate, because you come to see them as not actually "real", but mechanical in nature. And that allows the real and authentic "I" to emerge.

An example: You compulsively make jokes whenever your wife is angry at you, which only makes her more angry because she thinks you are not taking her seriously. You don't know why you do that, it's just an automatic response. If you begin to practice "observing" yourself in those situations, in an objective manner, over time you will start to see connections; that just before the "joking" begins, you actually feel fear, which is the emotion you are trying to avoid with the "joking". If you follow that feeling of "fear", it will eventually take you back to the circumstances in which you first learned the behaviour. You will discover that, say, as a child, whenever your father became angry, he became violent, and that your mother used to try to prevent that by attempting to change your father's mood, by being "light" and joking, and trying to make your father laugh. She taught you to do the same. So, as an adult, whenever someone close to you gets angry, your "Joking Program" takes over, without any thought on your part. Once you come to recognize the mechanism involved, however, you can begin to let go of the Program as mechanical in nature, something that stands in the way of your real "I" interacting with your wife in those situations.

That's an example of just one Program that might be operating in a person's life, one that might take months of disciplined, conscious observation of one's Machine to identify and eliminate. But it is only one of hundreds, so the Work is never ending. But through the daily, patient, and consistent practice of Self Observation, you are able to identify and eliminate more and more, to behave less and less mechanically; and with each peeling away of the "skin" of your mechanisms, you are able to reveal more and more of your real "I", and become more and more authentic in your daily behaviour.

I hope this begins to help.
 
pepperfritz said:
Well, the Work is not about learning to "feel" certain emotions, it's about learning to recognize the programs that cause your Machine to produce certain emotions and behaviours . Once you see the connections, the emotions dissipate, because you come to see them as not actually "real", but mechanical in nature. And that allows the real and authentic "I" to emerge.
Just a small interjection: while the general gist of what pepperfritz is saying in the previous post makes sense, the section above is a bit off.

The point is not to get emotions to 'dissipate' - emotions, and an active, fully functioning emotional center is crucial to the Work, it cannot be done without it. This is the source of the heat necessary to fuse the magnetic center, without emotions, there is no heat.

Very often, before anything can be 'done' at all, the emotional center must be fully awakened, because most people have shut their emotional centers down out of necessity - because it hurt too much to 'feel', they put the emotional center to sleep, as it were.

If the emotional center is active and functioning, it is then necessary to learn to control ones emotions and not be controlled by them (to keep the horses under control - they are now healthy, well-fed, well-exercised and groomed horses, who are under control of the master of the carriage) and this is part of becoming more conscious.

fwiw.
 
Thanks, Anart. I suspected that wasn't quite right, thank you for correcting it.

Would it be accurate to say that there are emotions that are more "mechanical" in nature that "mask" or cover-up "real" emotions? Let's say a man has a program that causes him to become angry and lash out whenever someone questions his competence. The anger is "mechanical" in that it is used as a shield to fend off further attacks on his competence, but also as a way of avoiding feeling the underlying emotion of fear -- fear that he is in fact hopelessly incompetent and unworthy.

Bear with me here, I'm struggling with this: Could it be said that the anger is "mechanical" or even "artificial" in nature, while the underlying fear is the "authentic" emotion? That the fear emotion will lead him to his authentic "I", while the anger just leads him further away?
 
PepperFritz said:
Bear with me here, I'm struggling with this: Could it be said that the anger is "mechanical" or even "artificial" in nature, while the underlying fear is the "authentic" emotion? That the fear emotion will lead him to his authentic "I", while the anger just leads him further away?
To me they are both mechanical and both are negative emotions which should be kept "below the neck" (my neck must be really short because it goes to my head pretty fast :D).
Unless the fear helps you to avoid a danger on an instinctive level, I think that fear is going to override your intellectual center.
I don't see why one or the other would bring you closer to your real I, just by their qualities, without the work they are both leading you astray osit.
But I think in general it's a good exercise if you can spot the different layers (maybe it is more like a very fast kaleidoscope) composing the emotions .

EDIT : Anger has another side, useful in some cases, which I did not talk about but there is much more in the thread "The usefulness of negative emotions" : http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=7197
 
Tigersoap said:
Anger has another side, useful in some cases, which I did not talk about but there is much more in the thread "The usefulness of negative emotions" : http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=7197
Thanks, so much for providing this link, it was very helpful. The significant thing for me was Irini's post about thymos.
Irini said:
In greek language, the word for anger is Thymos, which in ancient greek was the word for spirit, soul, life. I found this interesting piece in a search:

Thymos, one element of Plato's tripartite division of the soul — the other two being reason and desire — can be translated as spiritedness. It is the location of such feelings as pride, shame, indignation, and the need for recognition for oneself and for others.

From the same page:

Francis Fukuyama, the author of The End of History and the Last Man[url], puts it thus: "Thymos is something like an innate human sense of justice."

He elaborates in two distinct directions:

1. "...people believe that they have a certain worth, and when other people act as though they are worth less — when they do not recognize their worth at its correct value — they become angry..."
2. "Thymos... as such is the psychological seat of all the noble virtues like selflessness, idealism, morality, self-sacrifice, courage, and honorability."

in greek there's no other word to mean anger, and anger in english of what i know is the only word to mean that (correct me if wrong). But i think that there should have been two words, because there are two different states that we call anger, and i am not sure how else to describe them other than how they feel in myself:

there's an anger state which is felt in the head, i think there is a phrase that goes like "i am seeing red!" That's from the ego taking offense, and it feels as if the face is getting hot.

the other one is that anger state that it's as if it is a living breath inside one's body and animates it, it's mostly felt as heat in the torso area (perhaps emotional center?) and it comes from the "i won't take anymore of this!" state of mind. I think that's the one that thymos describes, that Plato and Fukuyama talk about, even Restin and Barbara talk about. This feeling of anger is the one that respects the self and won't allow it to be lied to, manipulated, abused. It is also the one that gives courage to people to do impossible things in extremely difficult situations, for real love of oneself and for others in the macrocosm, and would burn off the voice of internal introjects and the petrifying fears in the individual microcosm.

Perhaps we are using the word anger too broadly and it is confusing us. There seems to be a distinction between the two types of anger and and maybe what we call "righteous anger" comes from the intellectual or emotional part of the centere and the other type of anger that is from the ego, comes from the mechanical part of the emotional centre (edit) or the artificial centre Ouspensky describes.

Ouspensky said:
I want to tell you a little more about centres which will help you to understand the situation. Some centres are divided into two halves - positive and negative. This division is very clear in the intellectual and instinctive centres. In the intellectual centre it is "yes" and "no", affirmation and negation. All the work of the intellectual centre consists of comparing. The division in the instinctive centre is quite plain: pleasure - pain. All instinctive life is governed by this. At a superficial glance it seems the emotional centre also consists of two halves - pleasant and unpleasant emotions. But it is not really so. All our violent and depressing emotions, and generally most of our mental suffering has the same character - it is unnatural, and our organism has no real centere for these negative emotions; they work with the help of an artificial centre. This artificial centre - a kind of swelling - is gradually created in us from early childhood, for a child grows surrounded by people with negative emotions and imitates them.
Q: Are instinctive emotions not negative?
A: They may be negative, but they are rightfully so. They are useful. The negative half of the instinctive center is a watchman warning us of danger. In the emotional centre, negative emotions are very harmful.
Then each half of a centre is divided into three parts: intellectual part, emotional part and moving or mechanical part. The moving part of each centre is the most mechanical and the most often used. Generally we use only the mechanical parts of centres. Even the emotional parts are used only occasionally; as to the intellectual parts, they are very seldom used in ordinary conditions. THis shows how we limit ourselves, how we use only a little part, the weakest part, of our organism
 
Back
Top Bottom