scratch //skip// like an old 78 with a scratch //skip// like an old 78 with a scratch //skip// like an old 78 with a scratch //skip// like an old 78 with a scratch //skip// like an old 78 with a scratch //skip// like an old 78 with a scratch //skip// like an old 78 with a scratch //skip// like an old 78 with a scratch //skip// like an old 78 with a scratch //skip// like an old 78 with a scratch //skip// like an old 78 with a scratch //skip// like an old 78 with a scratch //skip// like an old 78 with a scratch //skip// like an old 78 with a scratch //skip// like an old 78 with a scratch //skip// like an old 78 with a scratch //skip// like an old 78 with a scratch //skip// like an old 78 with a scratch //skip// like an old 78 with a scratch //skip// like an old 78 with a scratch //skip// like an old 78 with a scratch //skip// like an old 78 with a scratch //skip// like an old 78 with a scratch //skip// like an old 78 with a scratch //skip// like an old 78 with a
I’m starting to think it’s a bot.
So. You got nothin’?
How’d I guess that once someone tracked down a book based on purposefully vague hints, they’d be told to go to another book.
Well, here is a pdf copy of Life is Real Only Then, when “I Am”
Page 170 should be short enough to quote for fair use purposes. If not, mods please feel free to truncate my quote:
That’s it, the secret revealed. That proves that Cthulu is “BoB’s” daddy, Eris is Lord, I’m an Illuminatus, and y’all aint.
QED, bitches!
Gurdjieff’s explanation is in paragraph 1 on page 80 of the link given in post 129.
The printing shown has different pagination to others.
<Life Is Real Only Then, When “I Am”>
Must the line also be given?
This is your big proof?
Gasp!
Who are we to demand such a boon from one so mighty and wise as thee, oh great teacher? Surely you are a Perfected Being, but we cannot find any proof or refutation for that because, as you tell us, all you can prove is that a myth exists. And of course if the myth of ‘human perfectability’ is true, one must first become a Perfected human, like Jesus in order to know it’s true, they have to do it themselves.
Which means, of course, that you are telling us it is true, that you know this because you are an Ascended Master, and you are like Jesus in your mighty wisdom.
Speaking of which, I have decided that you are at least a mid-grade troll, and can be quite amusing as you strut and preen. We shall keep you as our pet troll, and name you Harvey. You can live in a box and spew liquid crazysauce to amuse us.
Surely, though, Your Eminence has realized that Gurdjieff is talking about a human’s “mental world”, which grows by a process of inclinations for or against stimuli, both internal and external in origin, as people’s personalities and thoughts evolve? Or, that we decide what is “good” or “evil”, and so build up layers of habit and create our nature as individual people who are still mostly mechanical in terms of the actions of their minds and bodies? When he talks about the soul he means one’s nature, personality, mind, etc… When he talks about the third world, he’s talking about the ego, with its ability to look at itself and produce a meta-level?
That he’s describing the creation of a ‘mental body’, that is what science calls the ‘mind and personality’ and Gurdjieff calls the ‘soul’? That when someone follows certain habits and practices, in thought and action, that becomes a second level abstraction that defines them as a person? That, then, there is a third level of abstraction, even, a third “world”. where there are meta-significances to the patterns of beliefs and actions, and you can apply thought to thought and analyze yourself through introspection?
You’ve realized that Gurdjieff points out that the "soul " is physical, as its formed of ‘finer stuff’, that is the in the structure of our nervous system that make up our reactions, emotions and cognitive abilities?
So, it’s not about astral projection or bad juju or whatever is currently making you feel special, it’s Gurdjieff talking about how the people craft their own personalities over time, and that through introspection and trying to obtain authentic perception of yourself and reality around you, you can direct your own life path towards a longer, happier life?
~sigh~
For those who want to check my work, read pages 78 to 81, I think, where the context of Gurdjieff’s claims should become quite clear.
Actually, I have another question about Gurdjieff- why should we care what he says? Convince me that the man actually had wisdom.
He was expressing a rather common theme, common to folks like Neitzche and Crowley at least. Neitzche put it best:
“Man is a rope, tied between beast and overman–a rope over an abyss. A dangerous across, a dangerous on-the-way, a dangerous looking-back, a dangerous shuddering and stopping. What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not an end: what can be loved in man is that he is an overture and a going under. I love those who do not know how to live, for they are those who cross over.”
So I guess whether or not you think that’s wise… depends on whether or not you’d agree with Neitzche.
We’ve all got our favorite philosophers, I suppose.
Well, yes, exactly. I mean, it sounds reasonable stuff, but I remember discussing this kind of things with a couple of mates at the age of, say, 16.
Our dear little troll and his philosophy have been thoroughly explained by a cockroach (who also was a victim of transmigration) throwing himself headfirst down on typewriter keys:
(Excepted from “warty bliggens, the toad” by Don Marquis, in archy and mehitabel, 1927.)
Proof go poof!
Cleverer men than I have explained the relevance of Gurdjieff’s teachings, so I can only point you in their direction. But I ask you, could a man without at least a little wisdom reallly have fooled so many intelligent people for so long?
Some folks like sniffing brain farts. For every mystic philosopher, there will be followers. Wisdom has nothing to do with it.
From the opening paragraph of my above link:
I’d rather sniff Frank Lloyd Wright’s dead farts, than read your thoughts.
Now that’s a truly great proof, or poof, or pffttt, or . . . well . . . I don’t quite know what it is [Muffin pats ivan astikov on the head].
And if Gurdjieff were an architect, I’d be impressed.
Historically speaking, lots of very smart people have believed some very stupid shit. Are you interested in reading about Isaac Newton’s views on alchemy?
Are you saying Gurdjieff’s thoughts on the human condition are about as relevant as Newton’s post-medieval musings on The Philosopher’s Stone, and such?
When it comes to “bringing Philosophy home,” ivan astikov takes a certain Bacon citing treatise by philosopher-scientist Benjamin Franklin as gospel.
No, I’m saying that Wright’s thoughts on Gurdjieff are as relevant as Newton’s thoughts on alchemy. Meaning, not at all.