Spacecraft Orbiting The Sun Is About To Die From Hypothermia

I just read this article about the likely fate of an exploratory spacecraft, Ulysses, that orbits very close to the sun. But, due to a malfunction, it's fuel will likely "freeze" and be rendered uncontrollable from earth.

For lack of an atmosphere, the radiation from the extremely close sun, cannot even keep this fuel at an operable temperature. It just goes against everything we think about our supposedly "hot" sun.

For more on this, read the chapter entitled, "The Arch Absurd (According to the Assertion of Beelzebub, Our Sun Neither Lights nor Heats)" from Beelzebub's Tales To His Grandson!



Some further thoughts: Although much of the book should be taken on a metaphorical level, I think there is a danger in completely dismissing the literal level of his stories altogether. Obviously the spacecraft in the article wasn't in danger of 0 degree Kelvin-type temperatures. But the point is because there are so few atoms in outer space to be energized, "heating" is limited.

We can also look at the light from the sun in this way. Our atmosphere alters the light coming from the sun, so that when our part of the earth is turned toward it, our entire sky lights up. If you were to escape our atmosphere however, you would notice that the sun is actually surrounded by a "night sky" at all times.

Spanish Translations

If anyone out there is proficient in English and Spanish and would like to help out with our website, we need some articles and exercises translated into Spanish. Some have already been translated. But there are many more we need help with. Contact me at info@kesdjan.com if you're interested in helping out.

Good Posture In Freezing Temperatures

I was standing outside the other night having a cigarette in the
freezing cold. I realized that one of the consequences of winter
temperatures is that my back always seems to hurt from the constant
shivering that is so instinctively necessary for us Minnesotans this
time of year. I don't know if this back pain is experienced by many
people or not, when it comes to cold temperatures, but it is certainly
something I've observed in myself.

The question that came to me, while i was standing out there shivering,
was of course, why should my back hurt from this? It didn't seem to make
any sense, and it didn't seem like it was a necessary consequence of
shivering. So i observed my body in this state, which wasn't exactly
easy because my attention always wanted to wander inside, where it was warm.

What i found was that my legs were locked and the shivering that was
occurring proceeded from the base of my spine. This meant that all the
vibratory movement was originating from the pivot point of the very
place where i was experiencing this backache i previously described. My
lower back was doing all the work here.

The remedy for this was for me to bend my knees slightly so that the
vibration (shivering) no longer originated from my lower back, but from
my legs. It's the same principle behind lifting heavy objects, lift from
the leverage of the knees rather than the back. In the case of
shivering, we are also "lifting" albeit in a different way. It still
needs to be done from the legs and not the back.

Something perhaps a little different.

My apologies to Bob if I wander off a little further into left field than he may like. I have a point to make and it may take me a while to get there.

Many years ago, someone recommended to me that I read the Philokalia. The Philokalia is a four volume collection of texts in the Orthodox Christian tradition written between the fourth and fifteenth centuries. At the time, I found one of the volumes at a book store, bought it, put it on my book shelf and left it there for 20 or so years.

Over the last year or so between reading Gurdjieff's books, I also read "The Way of the Pilgrim" and "A night in the desert of the Holy Mountain." "The Way of the Pilgrim" is the story of a 19th century Russian pilgrim who wanders about trying to fulfill St. Paul's admonition to pray always. It makes frequent references to the Philokalia. "A night in the desert of the Holy Mountain" is the account of a Greek Orthodox priest of his conversation with a monk in a monastery on Mt. Athos. It also makes references to the Philokalia. So I decided to buy the other three volumes and read it. Thank God for ebay.

A couple of days ago I began reading volume one. The first text is by a gentleman named St. Isaiah the Solitary. The title of the text is "On Guarding the Intellect." I quote: "When a man has exact knowledge about the nature of thoughts, he recognizes those that are about to enter and defile him, troubling the intellect with distractions and making it lazy. Those who recognize these evil thoughts for what they are remain undisturbed..." I read this and I was floored. He was describing what happens after one has observed oneself for a long time, "has exact knowledge about the nature of thoughts," and has learned to recognize "I"s before one becomes identified with them. This is the process of separating from "I"s, described by a 5th century monk from Palestine. Great stuff.

Reading Group

I've started reading Beelzebub's Tales again. We've got a small reading group started again in the Twin Cities (MN). It's something i'd recommend to anyone: get a few people together, or even just yourself and one other person, and take turns reading aloud from the book, once a week. At the very least this can serve as a reminding factor, a sort of minimal obligation to something that is more-than just one's own struggle for self-development (which, on one's own, as is the American way, can only get you so far according to law). I wouldn't call reading from this very important piece of Gurdjieff literature "group work" per-se, but it represents at least the seed of what that can mean.

If you are in the Twin Cities and would like to read with us send me an e-mail.

If you are from another part of the world consider starting your own reading group.
And of course, as always, if you'd like to write about results from your readings or any other work activity
consider posting to this blog.

142857

www.142857.com

Taking the next step

In chapter 13 of "In Search...", Ouspensky described a moment where he understood what he called "the esoteric principle of the impossibility of violence." From the context I think he was referring to physical acts. But what he missed is psychological violence. By this I mean internal considering. Take internal considering to it's ridiculous extreme and you find violence.

In Ouspensky's "A New Model of the Universe" chapter 8, he described some experiments he performed. When he passed what he called the second threshold, he encountered an infinity that swallowed everything. He recoiled from this in terror.

What this illustrates is the reluctance (or inability) we all have in taking the next step, whatever it is, in the work. We are always ascending or descending an octave. Unless we continually push onward, we slide back. We can not let fear, laziness or complacency stop us.

And perhaps I shouldn't pick on Ouspensky.

Reading: "Views from the real World" -- Ch. 6 (pp. 84-87)

"Parallel with this river is another river. In this other river there is a different kind of suffering...."

The two rivers that Gurdjieff refers to often in his lectures are worthy of much pondering. One river imposes a certain set of laws upon it's own atoms of water, while the other river imposes a completely different set of rules. In other places, Gurfdjieff refers to different sets of laws that govern beings depending upon their level of development. Some are completely under the law of "accident" while others have been fortunate enough to escape only to find themselves now under the law of "fate".

I am reminded of the idea of parallel universes. Often a person can look back on their life and look at all the choices they've made and consider what would have happened if a certain decision wasn't made (or as is often the case, what would have happened if a choice was in fact made). One can consider all the possible "parallel universes" that exist for a person where things ended up differently.

When i look back on my life for instance, and in moments of regret, i often think about such possible universes where things were different. But on closer inspection i often see that where a choice seemed possible, it wasn't in fact possible for me, at that time, to make any choice about it. Things just happened the only way they could have happened. Often people say, upon this realization that "choice" is mostly an illusion, that things were "fated" to happen the way they did, in fact, happen.

I was watching an episode of Futurama recently where the crew of Planet Express travels to the edge of the Universe. The main character, Fry, looks through the stationary binoculars that were provided for the tourists here (much like the ones you can use at the Grand Canyon) and he sees a parallel universe, where him and his crew, are also at the edge of the universe peering back - exactly the same people, looking exactly the same, except in this parallel universe that Fry witnesses, they are all wearing cowboy hats. Fry, being excited by actually being able to see himself in a parallel universe, then asks the semi-senile professor, who is with him, if he can see other parallel universes - that there must be an infinite number of them. The professor replies that he couldn't, that there was only the one.

How disappointing! and the only thing different is that they are wearing cowboy hats. What a drag.

The analogy of the two rivers is a lot like this in my view. It is like speaking of two universes, wherein the first universe everything just happens to people quite randomly. Some get kicked to the gutter while others win the lottery. And all suffering that takes place, and all joy for that matter, is a result of things just happening to people independently of their will and having nothing whatsoever to do with them. They are all victims or beneficiaries of circumstance. Everyone in that universe is a slave to circumstance. Here for instance, money is the only certain means to happiness.

The second universe looks exactly the same. The circumstances that appear in the first universe show up also and are exactly the same in the second universe except there is something significantly different. Those belonging to the second universe take complete responsibility for everything that does happen to them. Everything that has to do with oneself is viewed as being under the domain of oneself and thereby rendering oneself solely accountable for all that happens; all that ever has happened and all that ever will. There is no fault in the external world - only in oneself. Accidents just don't happen in this second universe - everything happens for a reason, and nothing is random.

Its often easy to tell ourselves that if circumstances were different for us, we would be happier. But there are only two possible universes for us and circumstances are the same in both. The only thing that could possibly be different (and by this i mean a world of difference) is in the attitude we have toward our universe.

...well that, and perhaps a cowboy hat.

What difference 25 years makes

The first time I read "In Search of the Miraculous" was about 25 years ago. I was told to read it as a novel. Instead I tried to understand it. I did the same thing when I read "Beelzebub's Tales". I ignored Gurdjieff's friendly advice. Anyway, when I first read "In Search" I struggled with it. I was difficult for me to read, it took me a very long time, and I thought at the time that I understood very little.

Reading it now is an entirely different ball game. The book has come alive for me. It's as if when I read the passages where Ouspensky is quoting Gurdjieff, Gurdjieff is speaking directly to me. It has become very helpful to me to take what I read from "In Seach" in the evening and try to apply it the next day. It's almost as if I can take assignments from the book as to what to work on. It really is amazing stuff.

Movements Video

"The Gurdjieff Movements are here presented by Jeanne de Salzmann, his prime pupil. This is a rare bootleg of a film made by Jeanne de ... all » Salzmann in collaboration with members of the Gurdjieff Foundation in an effort to preserve a visual record of the sacred movements and dances taught by Gurdjieff ever since he appeared in the West in 1912. Best to watch in silence, alone, in a darkened room:)" - from Google Video Page

Seeking with "Flair"

I took the following quote from a comment on "The Terror of the Situation" post:

The topic of finding a teacher or a school seems to be one of the biggest challenges to a seeker. There are so many out there who just want to take advantage of others.

First, thanks for the comment Gary. I'm glad to hear there is some interest out there in this blog.

About your above statement, and in my opinion, it's not that there are many out there who "teach"- especially Gurdjieff's ideas- with the intention of taking advantage of others but that it is hard to find a teacher because so many who want to teach others inevitably get caught up in some unhelpful manifestations resulting from their "teacher" self-image (sometimes called "work personality" - a variation on the idea of false personality)

A conscious man can do no evil, it's impossible. So in my mind it is more important for the seeker to find a conscious individual than to find a "teacher". Furthermore, a conscious person, even if they make it a point to not advertise (perhaps they don't want to be bothered), cannot refuse to teach a sincere seeker because of this same principle.

Unfortunately the dilemma for the seeker still ultimately comes down to his or her ability to discern what a conscious individual should "look like". Gurdjieff refers to this ability as "flair".

There is a good article on the Kesdjan website on this very subject called "Developing Flair".

I also am reminded of a couple relevant links to some blog entries i received in a Gurdjieff related newsletter about a group called the Fellowship of Friends (a.k.a. "Gurdjieff-Ouspensky-Centers") and their leader Robert Burton.

Here are those links:

http://fellowshipoffriends.wordpress.com/ http://animamrecro.wordpress.com/2006/04/16/fellowship-of-friends-a-cult-for-intellectuals/

"And it is here that a man's flair is more important than anywhere else. He chooses a guide for himself. It is of course an indispensable condition that he chooses as a guide a man who knows, or else all meaning of choice is lost. Who can tell where a guide who does not know may lead a man?" --Views From The Real World, p 57.

The Terror of the Situation

Thanks Bob for letting me post my musings.

Those of you who have read "Beelzebub's Tales..." are familiar with Ashiata Shiemash's Legomonism. But the title could also be applied to a different situation.

Gurdjieff's teaching is eminently practical. All of the cosmology, chemistry, history, psychology and laws that comprise Gurdjieff's system mean nothing without applicaiton to oneself. The only study that's really possible is of oneself. It is only through the practical application of Gurdjeiff's teaching that one can understand it.

After one has tried for a long time to apply Gurdjieff's teaching by self-observation, attempts at self-remembering, struggling with the expression of negative emotions, and struggling with internal considering one comes to the realization of one's own mechanicalness. This is much more than the intellectual understanding of the mechanical condition of man. This is being confronted with the reality of one's own mechanicalness. This is the realization of one's helplessness, of one's slavery. This is the true terror of the situation.

Soul Searching

Well, It's been a while since i last published to this blog and i'm sure
that if anyone out there has been checking up on it, it would seem as if
this thing, like an uncooperative cow, has kicked the bucket for the
last time. Truth be told, I've seriously been considering sending this
thing to slaughter.

It's not that this blog hasn't gotten any traffic. Since this blog was
created 175 days ago it's gotten 663 unique hits. Many of those, i'm
sure are entirely accidental. But many of those are likely people who
are looking for something substantive and of those, i'm sure, there are
a few who'd be able to contribute something substantive themselves.
Unfortunately these days, i am the only one writing on this blog and i'm
uncomfortable writing by myself to an unknown audience without any
feedback. In the days when i wanted to be a "writer" i might have had no
problem with this. But as i see it today, a conversation with nobody,
written or otherwise, is as useful and productive as an act of masturbation.

In my break from blogging i've come to accept that, so far, this blog,
has served nothing more than as an act of masturbation. It's not only
that it feels entirely self serving, writing to a silent audience and
without the company of other writers - but it's not even achieved its
function in serving me in any satisfying way.

What i need is people who are "in the work" that want to write. People
who are not afraid to be judged or make mistakes that will be apparent
to absolutely anyone. What i need is people, say, from different
Gurdjieff groups who do not believe that their "group" is the only
legitimate group - the only audience worth talking to. (I'll just say
right now that no one from a "group" should be afraid to write on a
Kesdjan.com--associated website/blog because "we" are not a "group" -
there is no Kesdjan.com organization or 'school' or anything of the
kind. If anything like that existed in the past, it is not true today.
"We" are just people associated with a website so there should be no
qualms that if someone were to interact with this website/blog that you
would be betraying your "group" somehow.)

I need writers with a small "w", not good writers, not writers who are
going to blow people's socks off, just people who want to share
something of their experience with the teaching. You don't have to be a
"legitimate student" either. You don't have to have had practice with
the movements or have interacted with someone who had interactions with
someone who had interactions with Gurdjieff himself. If his teachings
have touched you in some way, please, you are welcome to share those
experiences here.

What i need is for this blog to no longer be just an echo chamber of my
inconsequential ramblings, but for some dialog and diversity to start
happening here if i'm going to continue milking this cow for what i want
it to be worth. If you have any interest whatsoever in posting to this
blog even only on rare occasions, don't hesitate to contact me,
bob@kesdjan.com. I promise i won't bite.

As for me, i will continue with my readings of "Views From The Real
World" at any old pace i feel like. If by the time i come to the end of
the book and nothing has changed with this blog, i will probably
introduce it to it's maker.

Reading: "Views from the real World" -- Ch. 5

"Every man wants something, but first he must find out and verify all that is wrong or lacking in himself, and he must bear in mind that a man can never be a man if he has no right rhythms in himself."

I am considering a new career, ideally going into business for myself, and that requires some schooling. It has occurred to me that to do it right i need to look at myself objectively, know my weaknesses, so that i am able to take precautions. What i would be doing would be huge stretch for my personality, and i can't pretend i can just go with the flow and everything will work out for me - as it has so far in my life. It becomes obvious that to have right rhythms in life a man must do only "what is necessary". Doing the unnecessary (and there are many unnecessary aspects to my life as it is currently) throws off that rhythm. In the movements, for example, formatory apparatus is given the task of "counting" - if it begins to perform another task instead of the one designated to it, the entire movement falls apart - the internal rhythm is destroyed.

I'm still trying to get into the right rhythm for this blog 'book reading' thing, and i have to say i'm not very satisfied with my results so far.

---

Next Sunday I'll be writing from ideas covered in Chapter 6, "What is the method of the Institute?" from pages 84-87

Update: will have a post up for Ch. 6 by the Sunday the 27th

Reading: "Views from the real World" -- Ch. 4

I never noticed before just how “god” is mentioned, not by name but by function, a few times in this chapter.

Again I’m late with this entry, there has been a lot for me digest here about myself. A lot of remorse in recognizing the extent of my own mechanical-ness, lack of what’s called progress in certain notable areas of my life. Chief among them is my ‘night owl’ nature which has undesirable consequences in my life. This is certainly an issue of plurality of being: Wishing to be an “early bird” but having to recon with a host of ‘I’s’ that have developed since early childhood that wish otherwise.

This chapter of course addresses much about what’s necessary to correct such disharmony. Below are a few quotes that speak to me.

“I do not say nobody can control his actions. I say you can’t, because you are divided. There are two parts to you, a strong and a weak part. If your strength grows, your weakness will also grow, and will become negative strength unless you learn to stop it.” –p. 76

“The chief cause of our weakness is our inability to apply our will to all three of our centers simultaneously.” –p. 77

“We cannot change ourselves. We can only modify ourselves a little. But we can be changed with help from the outside. The theory of esotericism is that mankind consists of two circles: a large, outer circle, embracing all human beings, and a small circle of instructed and understanding people at the center. Real instruction, which alone can change us, can only come from this center, and the aim of this teaching is to help us to prepare ourselves to receive such instruction. By ourselves we cannot change ourselves—that can come only from outside. Every religion points to the existence of a common center of knowledge. In every sacred book knowledge is there, but people do not wish to know it.” –p. 78

---

Next Sunday I'll be writing from ideas covered in Chapter 5, "One-sided development" from pages 82-83

Reading: "Views from the real World" -- Ch. 3

My comments are shorter here than the others have been. I'm going to try a little something different from what i have been doing: focus on one or two thoughts from the reading instead of trying to cover as many of the ideas in the chapter that i can. Still, questions and comments about the chapter or even on what I've written are always welcome.

---

“Our wrong use of words and the qualities of the words themselves have made them unreliable instruments of an exact speech and an exact knowledge, not to mention the fact that for many notions accessible to our reason we have neither words nor expressions.” – p. 62

What is needed to speak in an exact way about the work?

I often err when speaking about the work. Sometimes what I mean to say does not come across and I end up having to correct myself. Usually it is because I am speaking from a vague idea that I haven’t bothered to clarify for myself. This often happens under ‘rushed’ circumstances, whatever the cause of being so rushed may be. Speaking is definitely a worse situation for me than writing.

Remembering oneself is certainly the answer to all of the above as it renders the ordinary march of ‘time’ irrelevant in many regards – there is no being rushed when one remembers themselves. But ‘remembering oneself’ in certain situations is easier said than done. What it comes down to for me again and again, is attitude. It’s necessary to have the right attitude when speaking about the work. Language, in this case should be treated as sacred. Ideally it should always be treated as a sacred act – but ordinary life situations often force us to vulgarize speech. But with the teaching things should be entirely different. One should not allow oneself to be one’s ordinary vulgar self when approaching work ideas. It is like with the movements.

Once, I remember when only just watching the movements, not even 'doing' them, I was corrected for inappropriate posture that reflected the wrong internal attitude. In the same way we need to adjust our posture when we begin speaking on greater concerns beyond the ordinary. Even a physical adjustment is in order. Words are sacred. Perhaps it is best not to speak at all in these matters until we are sure we have this attitude.

---

Next Sunday I'll be writing from ideas covered in Chapter 4, "Man is a plural being" from pages 75-81

The Domestication of Species

In a recent newsletter that Kevin Roberts (a.k.a. "Philmore") sends out, updating customers and otherwise interested people on the conditions of his farm, he wrote a little something about the pre-historic (i.e. prior to recorded history), conscious being/s necessarily behind one of the major aspects of civilization that we so often take for granted today. I thought this would be a good place to share this meditation.

"...[S]ince the 'dawn of history' there has not been a single species domesticated. That means whoever did this must have been more 'developed' than anyone since. By this I mean more 'intelligent' not only in mind but body and heart as well. This person or persons would have a high degree of spiritual development, and they would have known the full implications, both positive and negative, of their experiment.

"On one side, man could have more time to observe, and work in concert with, Great Nature, as he would not be passively waiting (hunting and gathering) but instead providing his own food near home. He would be supplied with an unending learning experience, keeping him young at heart and functioning at optional ability, which he would continually test.

"On the bad end of the stick, man himself could become domesticated, limiting his natural impressions and replacing them with pseudo impressions, which we call 'entertainment.' He would eat food that was no longer natural (meaning 'alive') or near his home. He would lose all ability to fend for himself in Great Nature; in fact, he would lose his connection to the Creation itself. He would become so enamored with his new pseudo creation that he would enter into denial about his own abilities, physical, mental, emotional, and now even reproductive, and he would become diseased.

"Perhaps this experiment was deemed a failure, and all records of how to do it were destroyed. Or as man became domesticated, he simply forgot as it had no importance to him anymore.

"Either way, the domestication of species remains as a possible source of teaching, a spiritual path, so to speak."

Reading: "Views from the Real World" -- Ch. 2

When speaking on different subjects...

Sorry for being a day late.

“Later I found that this lack of understanding between one man and another is a mathematically ordered phenomenon as precise as the multiplication table. It depends in general on the so-called “psyche” of the people concerned, and in particular on the state of their psyche at any given moment.” – p. 41

Here's a 'multiplication table' i thought of while reading this.

7
6
5
4
(1-3)
	(1-3)	4	5	6	7

(Not sure what numbers to plug in there - perhaps something representing hydrogens).

“…If I were to speak in a way I consider exact, everybody here, with very few exceptions, would think I was crazy. But since at present I have to speak to my audience as it is, and my audience will have to listen to me, we must first establish the possibility of a common understanding.” – p. 41

So was Beelzebub’s Tales, Gurdjieff’s break from attempts at establishing “common understanding” for the sake of speaking exactly? It seems obvious to me that anyone who is not familiar with the “common understanding” laid out in this book, for example, or other texts written by his followers, may actually see the writings in Beelzebub’s Tales as being authored by a crazy person. Gurdjieff proved to himself that those writings are inaccessible to those not already familiar with his teachings. If it were not for his objective status as a “master” – having garnered the respect and credibility of everyone around him – such a book would not be readable, I would venture to say. Who would waste their time reading the cryptic script of some “nobody” that is not immediately accessible?

“But the most interesting thing is not that people clothe others in this mirage [of man as the “crown of creation”] but that, owing to a peculiar feature of their own psyche, they transfer it to themselves, if not in its entirety, at least in part as a reflection. And so, although they are almost nonentities, they imagine themselves to be that collective type or not far removed from it.” – p.42

Taking this discussion on a different scale than just a general conversation about mankind, can this collective “ideal” be applied to people individually? If all a person’s I’s were unified – or in active communication with each other – buffer-less. Such a person individually would certainly be able to act ideally, but of course there could be no illusions for that person that they are the composite ‘best’ of all their “I’s” as they’d have to be just as aware of being the composite ‘worst’ of their “I’s” as well (full of both God and the Devil). The only difference between a whole person and one ruled by their own unknown multiplicity is that the former would have an ability to choose their behavior in life.

“Education, the formation of morals, information we call knowledge—all feelings of duty, honor, conscience and so on—enter here. And they all claim that the methods adopted for grafting these shoots known as man’s “personality” to the trunk are immutable and infallible.” – p. 44

“Gradually the sheet is dirtied, and the dirtier with so-called “knowledge” the sheet becomes, the cleverer the man is considered to be. The more writing there is in the place called “duty,” the more honest the possessor is said to be; and so it is with everything.” – p. 44

“‘Man’—this is a proud term, but we must ask ourselves what kind of man? Not the man, surely, who is irritated at trifles, who gives his attention to petty matters and gets involved in everything around him. To have the right to call himself a man, he must be a man; and this “being” comes only through self-knowledge and work on oneself in the directions that become clear through self-knowledge.” – p. 44

“But I ask you, if for some reason each of you was unable to put your knowledge to practical use for several years, how much would remain? Would this not be like having materials which in time dry up and evaporate?” – p 48

Here we have a measure as to whether we have acquired understood knowledge or merely informational knowledge. Is it like riding a bike or cramming for an exam? Interesting though that, in the examples I use, what we learn through our body has less of a chance of evaporating than what we learn though ‘thought’ alone. Knowledge has to touch our essence if we have any chance of retaining it. (Certainly, my essence would much rather ride a bike than cram for an exam).

“For a man “knows” only when he himself “is” that knowledge.” – p. 49

“Every one of you is a rather uninteresting example of an animated automaton. You think that a “soul,” and even a “spirit,” is necessary to do what you do and live as you live. But perhaps it is enough to have a key for winding up the spring of your mechanism.” – p. 49

This analogy of a key winding up a toy is especially descriptive of the process of ‘identifying’. It can be seen everywhere in almost all interactions with people, but worse, still, in people who have come to the work and stopped working. It’s worse for us, in my opinion, because there is a bigger hole to fill, more winding to do with fewer keys – greater meaninglessness (having lost that taste for what was previously believed to be meaningful), if our aim is no longer in front of us. Those wind up toys who never tried to stop being wound up by outside influences are far better off to be sure than those who have entered the work and had the spiritual equivalent of an abortion.

Most of this chapter in Views is geared toward pointing to our objective ‘nothingness’. How does it serve our aim to see this about ourselves? It is neither pleasant nor rewarding to come to this knowledge in and of itself. For someone outside the work, it would be utterly devastating – and it’s of course nothing to try to show people about themselves in ordinary life. For those outside the work or for those who have stopped working, it can only lead to cynicism and depression. But the work is geared toward ‘freedom’ as Gurdjieff says, from all attachments. This is about going from one river into the other – and in that other river our ‘worth’ is inconsequential to our aim. The reality of our nothingness offers us the value of inarguable contradiction to which-ever ‘identity’ or ‘I’ may try to assert itself as ‘king for a day’. It can’t last long in the face of our nothingness.

For those in the work striving towards a definite aim – the reality of our nothingness will, on the contrary, save us a lot of time and energy.

---

Next Sunday I'll be discussing Chapter 3, "For exact study, exact language is needed," from pages 60-74

Reading: "Views from the Real World" -- Ch. 1

Glimpses of Truth

This is a good beginning chapter as it is the chapter for beginners. Even those who've been in the work for years and years can find value in this, as only a "beginner's mind" is capable of learning anything - or capable of real work.

In more than one way, this is a story of contact with Master, aided with the direction and planing of Steward (represented in the story by the friend known as "A"). It could not have happened without our author approaching him with the proper attitude which 'A' helped to promote.

I can relate to this author in particular as i was drawn to Gurdjieff's teachings from my previous "studies" of the occult. I met a self-proclaimed "witch" at a local coffee shop and she was reading a book called "In Search of the Miraculous". She told me about some of the ideas in this book and opined that she didn't like them. I was interested however and sought out the book. It would be a while, however, until i met someone "in the work" who seemed to know what he was talking about.

It almost blew my mind when i realized that not everyone in "the work" found interest in Gurdjieff's teachings because of a previous fascination with the occult - in fact very few people that I've met in the work came to it via this particular "B" influence.

In their dialog, it became clearer to me, reading it this time around, just how Gurdjieff spoke about the work to the author and why he chose the topics he did. To someone else, the ray of creation, law of octaves, and study of digestion may not have been the most appropriate ideas to bring up initially.

I've compiled quotes from the reading that were of interest to me. I'll list a few of them here:

"Mr. Gurdjieff, having taken some main idea, and after having broadened it and given it depth, completed the cycle of his reasoning by a return to the starting point, which I saw, as it were, below me, more broadly and in greater detail."
-- by one from Gurdjieff's circle in Moscow, "Views from the Real World", p. 14

"I know you understand about the unity of the laws governing the universe, but this understanding is speculative--or rather, theoretical. It is not enough to understand with the mind, it is necessary to feel with your being the absolute truth and immutability of this fact; only then will you be able, consciously and with conviction, to say, 'I know.'"
-- Gurdjieff, "Views from the Real World", p. 15

"We have come to the brink of the abyss which can never be bridged by ordinary human reason. Do you feel how superfluous and useless words have become? Do you feel how powerless reason by itself is here? We have approached the principle behind all principles."
-- Gurdjeiff, "Views from the Real World", p. 16

"As everything in the Universe is one, so, consequently, everything has equal rights, therefore from this point of view knowledge can be acquired by a suitable and complete study, no matter what the starting point is. Only one must know how to 'learn'. What is nearest to us is man; and you are the nearest of all men to yourself. Begin with the study of yourself; remember the saying 'Know thyself.'"
-- Gurdjieff, "Views from the Real World", p. 25

"In a year's time we may say the same things, but you will not wait during this year in the hope that roast pigeons will fly into your mouth. You will work, and your understanding will change--you will be more 'initiated'. It is impossible to give a man anything that could become his inalienable property without work on his part. Such an initiation cannot exist, but unfortunately people often think so. There is only 'self-initiation.' One can show and direct, but not 'initiate.'"
-- Gurdjieff, "Views from the Real World", p. 28

"So what you call 'concealment' is in fact the impossibility of giving, otherwise everything would be quite different. If in spite of this, those who know begin to speak, it is useless and quite unproductive. They speak only when they know that the listener understands."
-- Gurdjieff, "Views from the Real World", p. 29

Also Gurdjieff says a little bit about the movements which peaked the author's interest in him to begin with, known publicly at this time by the performance of "The Struggle of the Magicians". Here are a few good quotes about them:

"My ballet is not a mystery...The purpose of it is to present an interesting and beautiful spectacle. Of course, under the visible forms a certain sense is hidden, but i did not aim at demonstrating or emphasizing it."
-- Gurdjieff, "Views from the Real World", p. 31

"Imagine that in studying the laws of movement of the celestial bodies, let us say the planets of the solar system, you have constructed a special mechanism for the representation and recording of these laws. In this mechanism every planet is represented by a sphere of appropriate size and is placed at a strictly determined distance from the central sphere, which stands for the sun. You set the mechanism in motion, and all the spheres begin to turn and move in definite paths, reproducing in a lifelike way the laws which govern their movements. This mechanism reminds you of your knowledge.

"In the same way, in the rhythm of certain dances, in the precise movements and combinations of the dancers, certain laws are vividly recalled. Such dances are called sacred."
-- Gurdjieff, "Views from the Real World", p. 31

"Further, I may tell you that at the basis of The Struggle of the Magicians lie three thoughts; but, as I have no hope that they will be understood by the public if I present the ballet alone, I call it simply a spectacle."
-- Gurdjieff, "Views from the Real World", p. 31

Gurdjieff's general talk about "art" was particularly interesting to me as i realized that he was addressing more than what it appeared he was talking about. I had not noticed this before. I had not bothered to ask, "what's this got to do with me?" until now.

Here's a few more quotes:

"Contemporary art as a whole has nothing in common with the ancient sacred art."
-- Gurdjieff, "Views from the Real World", p. 32

"Where truth is, there cannot be many different opinions."
-- Gurdjieff, "Views from the Real World", p. 32

"In antiquity that which is now called art served the aim of objective knowledge. And as we said a moment ago, speaking of dances, works of art represented an exposition and a record of the eternal laws of the structure of the universe. Those who devoted themselves to research and thus acquired a knowledge of important laws, embodied them in works of art, just as is done in books today."
-- Gurdjieff, "Views from the Real World", p. 32

"Knowing the laws of descent, man also knows the laws of ascent, and consequently not only can pass from principal octaves to subordinate ones, but also vice versa. Not only can the nose be reconstructed from the face alone, but also from the nose the entire face and body of a man can be reconstructed inexorably and exactly. There is no search for beauty or resemblance. A creation can be nothing other than what it is..."
-- Gurdjieff, "Views from the Real World", p.35

"Either the shoemaker's craft must be called art, or all contemporary art must be called craft. In what way is a shoemaker sewing fashionable custom shoes of beautiful design inferior to an artist who pursues the aim of imitation or originality? With knowledge, the sewing of shoes may be sacred art too, but without it, a priest of contemporary art is worse than a cobbler."
-- Gurdjieff, "Views from the Real World", p. 36

This last quote from above, i realized for instance, could be a criticism of contemporary artists, and indeed on one level it speaks to what Gurdjieff discusses in other places as the "tramp" personality which runs contrary to working on oneself. But it can also be said that he is, here, pointing to a possibility within the more humble professions of this world.

And the last line i will quote speaks volumes about this experience our author "the beginner" has come to in his contact with Master:

"As you observe, time does not exist here." -- by one from Gurdjieff's circle in Moscow, "Views from the Real World", p. 37

That's it for "Glimpses of Truth". So much of course could be discussed about, or quoted from this chapter. As always, I welcome any comments or questions about this or future chapters.

peace.

---

Next Sunday I'll be discussing Chapter 2, "When Speaking On different subjects..." as it is called in the book, from pages 40-59

Views From The Real World

Next Sunday, I'll be commenting on the first chapter of "Views from the Real World".

I'm taking a "back to basics" approach for a while to writing about the work. Rather than attempting to tackle, like i have many times in the past, commentary projects on some pretty megalithic texts such as Beelzebub's Tales and the Gospels of Jesus, both also being very inaccessible to those "outside the work", I've decided it would be helpful to reacquaint myself with what "work personality" already thinks it knows all too well to be doing something like this.

If anyone wishes to follow along with these readings, the first of which being "Views", i'll be doing a chapter per week with commentaries every Sunday, feel free to comment, ask questions, or e-mail me at info@kesdjan.com if you wish to post something of your own for any of these chapters.

Again, Next Sunday will regard the very first chapter in the book, "Glimpses of Truth".

"Dushka's Corner"

The Gurdjieff Heritage Society website has added a new page with a lot of funny cartoons - some illustrating the progress of Dushka with her book. It's all very entertaining.

It's called "Dushka's Corner"

---

One of my favorites from this page is this one:

Click on the photo to see the original from Dushka's site.

Is this for real? Is it a photo-shopped sign? Or is there really a sign out there that says this somewhere? If it's real, it says so much about human consciousness doesn't it?

When G explained that his teachings were nothing more than what should be plainly obvious to human beings by using the example "when it rains the streets are wet" apparently he overestimated people's ability comprehend of even this law.

(i.e., if, in fact, this sign really exists).

Upon further reflection: maybe the sign is intending to caution people about standing water.

Maybe some things aren't immediately obvious to me.

Perhaps i'd end up stranded in a deep pond somewhere if i saw this sign during a thunderstorm because i'd be too hung up on my own ideas of life's absurdities.

Oh well, it'd still be worth the laugh.

Fragments

I am reading five pages a day of “In Search of the Miraculous” sometimes referred to as “Fragments.” Today is 1/21/07 and I am 10 pages into Chapter 3. Just so you know, I’m not reading ahead but will review what I’ve already read. “to ‘superwiseacre’ so thoroughly that there reached the beings of the third and fourth generations nothing else but …” occurs on pg 240 of the version of Beezlebub’s that I have, but might be different in the version you have. Please also use chapters to refer to quotes.

My aim is pose questions or extend discussions that were impractical to continue elsewhere. One line that interests me is where in Beezlebub’s can be found what Ouspensky reports in Fragments.

Some questions that interest me at this time:

1) In Frags in Chapt 2 about 4 pgs in (pg 32), “But the systems with which you are acquainted … state that all men have an ‘astral body.’ This is quite wrong…[It] is obtained by means of fusion, that is, by means of terribly hard inner work.” In Beezlebub’s, Chapt 21 it seems there is a first seed, before any fusion can take place “This quite definite explanation of Saint Buddha was well understood by his contemporaries and many of them began … to strive …to ABSORB … and to coat in their presences the particle of this Most Great Greatness and afterwards to ‘make inherent’ to it Divine Objective Reason.” Question: What is this particle to be absorbed?

2) As far as I can see (not far enough), Tibetan Buddhism does not believe in reincarnation as a “transmigration of souls,” but instead talks about a complicated system of “aggregates” with some aggregates dying with the death of the physical body, others flying off in different directions. This seems much more in line with Mr. G’s system. Anyone?

3) Thought forms seem to have independence from the physical. You can walk into a room and “read” thoughts. What’s that about?

4) Is there a way a teacher can bring you along that is apart from the physical? (Related to this question of what survives or exists after the physical dies?)

About the non-existent energy crisis

I live in Argentina, in a small city called Tucumán. Recently somebody gave me as a gift a bottle of home made saffron liquor. This liquor came with a brochure from the german immigrant that makes it in his farm in nearby mountains. This brochure said this guy also worked with alternative energy sources like solar and eolic power. Since the liquor tasted very good and went right down to my knees, I thought I would pay him a visit. I am interested in alternative energy sources as a part of my project to live in nature and off the grid.

When i went there, this guy (Ulli) showed me some of the things he´s working on, he has a solar water heather and kitchen, an eolic pump, some solar cells. He told me it is better to apply the energy from the sun and the wind directly to some type of work, rather than trying to convert it into electricity. Electricity means a lot of leaks, and also it needs to be stored which means more leaks and more hardware. I was surprised by the solar kitchen, it could boil half a gallon of water in under 10 minutes.

Ulli told me he and his wife are both from germany, they are both biologists, and they came to argentina lots of years ago because of Chernobyl. Apparently they were both assigned to investigate the biological consequences of the disaster, the government didn´t want them to publish their findings, and the pressure got so big they decided to come here to a sister´s house.

I was interested in his opinion about the future of modern society from the point of view of energy. We discussed the different energy sources known, both traditional and alternative, and I saw he obviously keeps himself updated and well connected with his motherland. As we talked, he told me the history of modern energy research, how when nuclear power was discovered everyone was excited about it, but practice showed it was not viable. The same thing happened with other sources, as solar power, cold fusion, hydrogen fueled engines, wind powered generators. Some of these are viable energy sources, but not capable of fulfilling the needs of a modern world. I asked him what was, in his opinion, the best source of energy to fuel our current society. That is when Ulli gave me his first pearl of wisdom, that changed our conversation. I will try to quote as literally as possible:

“It is not just a matter of increasing energy production, but of decreasing society´s expenditure. This can be done by removing the `desire` of modern man for artificial things”

He then mentioned how people chase false interests that lead nowhere real, expending more and more energy for the sake of a comfort he doesn´t need. He hinted that this desire is there for a reason and has good uses, but it´s misdirected in today´s society. This idea runs perfectly parallel to G´s idea that man has more than enough energy in him, and the work should be on stopping leaks and increasing right expenditure.

I took this answer as a hint that the conversation was about to get esoteric so I got esoteric too. I told him more about my life and how I wanted to live it, why I was interested in this whole thing, and a little about my work on myself.

Then he did something very interesting. He stopped drinking his pop soda, and got a bottle of beer and a couple of glasses. It was german beer.

We kept talking, and we got to the idea of perpetual motion. I asked him if he thought it was possible. His answer went kinda like this:

“To talk about this we need to change the paradigm of energy. We need to understand that energy exists in infinite amounts on a different dimension, and that each atom is a pore through which this energy manifests itself on our dimension”

This other idea reminded me of G´s idea of the “big accumulator” that exists in each of us, it is just a matter of connecting to it.

Then, he said, it was not about how to scrounge energy from this dimension but about how to get the energy directly from another dimension. This idea deeply resonated within me. He then showed me all sorts of plans, articles, paper clipping, printings from the web, of different machines that performed well over 100% efficiency. This of course means that the basic principle of thermodynamics, that energy is never created nor destroyed only transformed, has to be reconsidered. Being a scientist, I guess he couldn´t resist the urge and had already rewritten the laws of thermodynamics. Some of these machines, like the water explosion engine, the stirling engine, or the vortex generator, are already being worked on, some of them are already in production. There are two things in common about these special machines: the people that worked on them seem to have a tendency to die, disappear, or inexplicably stop working on them. And, even though they work, people can´t really formulate the theory for how or why they work. Something else I noticed from these plans is that a lot of magnetism is involved, apparently it has to do with rearranging the inner structure of a substance to make it usable as fuel.

I got a wealth of information from Ulli, from construction advice on how to build more efficient and healthy houses to advice on food and how to distinguish between dead and living food. I was also interested to see how practical he is, since he is in a sort of touristy area he has a minigolf course, ping pong tables, a tiny general store, a green house from which he sells plants, his wife makes traditional german cakes, jams, pickled everything, and the liquors that got me there. I will definitely come back.

Wrong Way

Hello Kesdjan Bloggers!
Had something spinning around my madcap brain and thought while I am
waiting for my farm to flood, I might share some of it.
A while back I went, with several k folks, to the A&E conference in
Portland, Maine. During this gathering, we were reading and trying to
'grasp the gist' of the first chapter in Tales (about 45 people).
Suddenly I got the impression that each person was getting a
different, but appropriate, meaning from the various weird stories we
were discussing. G had written a book that produced a 'subjective
shock' to each person.
From this I jumped to Tales being a 'C' influence.
This created quite a stir, which was amusing at the very least.
So, was this thing that G worked on for so many years, watching
scores of people reacting to it, an attempt to disprove his own
pronouncement: "Influences of the third kind can proceed only from
one person to another, directly, by means of oral transmission."
(search, p201)? His constant revisions, even his last statement,
could be tied to this effort. This quote comes from early in his
teaching, and may explain his new direction when he 'dissolved' the
institute.
And his later work on the 39 could also be seen as an indication that
the book was too far away.
Let me know what you think . . .
k

Gurdjieff Heritage Society

Dushka Howarth's website for an organization founded by her, geared toward faithfully preserving Gurdjieff's legacy, and known by the name of the "Gurdjieff Heritage Society", is now up and running.

link (also can be found on sidebar):

“May reconciliation, hope, diligence and justice be ever with you all...Amen.””

Amen.

In the Dead of Winter...The Birth of the Soul

Today is celebrated the metaphysical phenomenon known as parthenogenesis, a word adapted to mean different things to different people, but which literally translates into "virgin birth". Reflecting a little on the meaning of the story of the birth of Jesus, i see how oportune it is to our discussion on the kesdjan body, and the nature of the soul.

Gurdjieff teaches that the soul (to use a generic term) is not inherent to us, but must instead be created. In the new testament Jesus also talks about the soul, especially in his talk with Nicodemus, that one must be born "again" or "from above". But the story of the virgin birth is also speaking of this phenomenon: the male child (soul) being born from the female (physical body) with no cause from the outside world (and therefore no relation to that world).

To empiricists like myself who've always remained skeptical of talk of God, souls, and any sort of afterlife, I've had to take these ideas in a much different way than how i was raised to believe (and consequently disbelieve) in them.

To our senses, formed only to receive information from the substance of physicality, a soul cannot be perceived - to our senses, a soul does not exist. It is created from another substance - a finer substance - hydrogens of a higher order, existing in a world of a corresponding higher order as well. The formation of the kesdjan body arises from the conglomeration of a substance finer than that of the physical while the mental body is of still more rarefied matter.

A few months ago Kevin Roberts, in a private e-mail, said about this very question of evidence for the existence of Kesdjan body:

"[O]ne thing to remember is that things that cannot be measured or 'seen' ...can be verified by function. [F]unctioning of kesdjan body and soul is a definite thing, separate from the physical body."

In this way we can see that "body" is itself a type of metaphor - The physical body is of a physical substance and it serves our being in a distinct way. Likewise the kesdjan body, if it exists, is made up of a substance of a higher order - some call it spirit or breath (some might also say emotion or feeling) - and would therefor function like our physical body would but for a different world than what we call the physical world (the world of the senses).

Such a body would navigate it's own world. It would consume the substance of it's world and it would also defecate. It would have it's own means of communicating, and would also have it's own particular life and lifespan.

Gurdjieff said about the virgin birth or "rebirth", that to be "reborn" we must die to ourselves, and in order to die we must first awaken.

Real work on oneself i would argue cannot happen without kesdjan body. The fourth way is really preparation for the "way" it is preparatory work.

The story of the Virgin birth and the celebration of Christmas then is really about the beginning of the way and of the Work.

Time to read "Purgatory" again

Merry Christmas Everyone.

Foothills of Understanding

Our friend "johnrobbo", of comments fame, sent me a link to a Gurdjieff related webpage he created a while back. You can visit it here.

I've also added a link to it on the sidebar.

From Zero To Infinity

Here's a really good video illustrating the great range of magnitudes within cosmic scales.



In Gurdjieff's explanations of worlds one could say that the world of a sun includes the whole system. Every planet, asteroid, comet, dust particle, photon, etc., is all, originally, solar material - extentions of its organism - components of it's greater body.

If a person really inspects the ray of creation, we can see that there are no real defining boundaries between one world and the next. Just as planets have atmospheres which interact with other planet's atmospheres, so do suns have their own type of 'atmospheres', extending far beyond their planets and intermingling with the 'atmospheres' of other stars. Galaxies, in time-frames we cannot even comprehend, interact with other galaxies. Existence occurs between the stopinders.

The teaching of scale is an important aspect of G's teachings to grasp. Without an understanding of what "zero to infinity" means everything about the teaching contradicts itself. On one scale a man cannot help but lie constantly, on another scale he may speak the truth. On one scale he is a helpless automaton, on another he may actually have real help. But we're always speaking of different worlds when we talk of different scales. It's difficult for some people to imagine it possible for man to exist in different worlds. Perhaps it is even more difficult to imagine a man requiring respective bodies to exist within these worlds.

The fourth way can serve to crystallize such a body in the student whereby it is possible to navigate a world far more expansive than the one in which we were physically born. This is the high-ground in our war against ourselves. And whichever of our parts makes it there has the advantage. This is what Gurdjieff calls crystallizing Kesdjan Body or as Jesus would say, "being born from above". Furthermore, such a birth is technically only the beginning of the journey for the world traveler.

Muscle Movement of the Face

Here is an interesting article on the study of facial expressions that reminds me of Gurdjieff's memory of Ekim Bey in Meetings With Remarkable Men. Of course this remarkable man studied the expression of people's entire body, not just the face.

On Mysticism

The following was taken from a comment posted recently by a friend of the Kesdjan Blog:

Hi Bob,

That someone who once said to you that, for them, "the experience of the Work could not be put into words" is absolutely right. You take it as an idea, but in my experience it's not an idea - it's a Truth.


Hello John,

I'm glad you brought up this subject. I hope you do not mind that i have used your comment for the topic of this post. I believe it is an important point to discuss.

What i wrote was that there was great truth to the idea that work experience cannot be put into words. (the preceding link is to the exact text and follow up comment). I do not agree that this is absolutely truthful however. One can find truth in everything people say even in the most psychotic - so can one also find falsehoods. Beelzebub's tales, i believe, is composed of an exact language describing the work experience. I am not making Gurdjieff out to be more than he is by saying this. I believe he was just a man.

But because he was just a man, and not a god, (or a devil) what was possible for him is possible for any human being. Most of us may be far from realizing these possibilities, but that is a subjective dilemma not a ubiquitous one. So to say the work experience cannot be put into words is, in my opinion, to reject the value of Beelzebub's Tales in one fell swoop. But we can certainly say, for instance, "I am presently unable to put my experience into words"

I am not saying the map is the territory by any means.

But what i am saying is that our experiences, from the most vile to the most sublime do not in any way make us unique. Countless people have experienced all the same things we are capable of experiencing. To believe we cannot communicate with others, our experiences, is to hold a false image of our individual uniqueness in the universe. Nobody's experience in the world is so great or so despicable that they do not share it with others - not even George Gurdjieff's.

This is essentially the prominent difference between mysticism and the esoteric disciplines as i see it. The former values the "spiritual" experience for the sake of the experience alone and places little value on one's ability to communicate that experience. The later places more emphasis on being able to establish relationships founded on these "higher" or "spiritual" experiences which subsequently necessitates a language, a means of communicating with "spiritual" brothers and sisters. (hence the word "esoteric" - because people outside that family will not comprehend it). I've met many mystics in the work and i have no problem with it or them. It's just not in step with my aim, and i know it was not in step with Gurdjieff's.

I should say that in most ordinary life situations it's not prudent to speak exactly about our experiences, but where it is emotionally safe, among trusted brothers or sisters in the work it may be absolutely necessary to put our experiences into words.


"And he added in a half-sarcastic tone: 'Soon we shall be absolutely isolated from everything existing and functioning in the whole of the Universe; but, on the other hand, owing firstly to my new invention, and secondly to the knowledge we have already attained for ourselves, we have not only now the possibility of returning to the said world, to become again a particle of all that exists, but also we shall soon be worthy to become nonparticipating eyewitnesses of certain of these World-laws, which for ordinary uninitiated three-centered beings are what they call "great-inscrutable-mysteries-of-Nature" but which in reality are only natural and very simple results "automatically-flowing-one-from-the-other."

--G.I.Gurdjieff, Beelzebub's Tales to his Grandson p. 162 (from the chapter entitled, "The Arch-Preposterous")

Gratitude Day

I hope you all enjoyed your Thanksgiving Day. I had my most energetic thanksgiving meal at the break of dawn that day! Here's a photo of that satisfying sunrise taken over Mille Lacs Lake in Minnesota. Of course a picture like this just doesn't do it any justice, but you get the idea.













(don't look directly at the black spot!)