|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 1, 2024 10:44:30 GMT -5
And here is another way to look at the difference. I would say SR is a glimpse. It, ideally, should be a kind of bait to wish to experience. But somehow (modern) ND turns it into ~enough~. I find that sad. IOW, I find nothing attractive in how you (plural) describe SR.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 1, 2024 11:11:28 GMT -5
I will give another analogy. Richard Rose got Jacob's Ladder from Gurdjieff, I could give a quote to show it. OK, there are two flows, Gurdjieff called it 2 rivers. There is a flow outward and downward (the Worlds down, from One), and the flow back upward doesn't just happen, it never just happens. It occurs only consciously, it can't occur by chance or unconsciously. Back up, the return flow upward, is Rose's Jacob's Ladder. The journey is inward. All the rungs do not exist, in an (ascending) octave, 2 of the 8 steps are missing. And the higher one goes the more energy is necessary, it's as if gravity gets stronger. So you end up on a rung, and you can't-reach the next rung. So you have to construct the next rung. This ~void~ is called an interval, or stopinder. If you don't build the rung, progress stops. Now, see how the Gurdjieff teaching is different?
And there being two flows accounts for all the nastiness in life, wars, murder, rape, terrorism, these are at the downward arc of the downward-outward flow, World #96 as described previously.
|
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jun 1, 2024 11:55:26 GMT -5
I thought it might help to just put this back into a thread focused on Gurdjieff. First of all, thanks for spelling out the G system. I do not know much about it, but overall, it does seem to follow a general neo-platonic framework, which is not uncommon for most metaphysical systems since that time (and before). I mean, it has the same general structure as the Plotinus model we poked around on, yeah? Christianity an obvious one, too. So, if by 'more/further' you mean to suggest that there's always more to transcend and include, I'm with you, until of course one's realized they're done. That would negate the 'en summum'. The 'ipsum esse' can be apprehended, which is what the G system is attempting to describe and/or map out, it seems. You mention here that G was 'fuzzy' on man's Origin, which would be something of a 'conclusion'. That argument starts to devolve into a worldly-existential context mix, kind of exemplifying where the limitations of mind come onto play. An alpha 'and' omega dealio. I haven't read on Plotinus in a while, but it seems like this is that 'fuzzy' area in that model referred to as Nous (i.e., it seems to align purddy well with the Worlds #6 and #3). In conclusion, I think your general synopsis is, based on the G system, basically that everything talked about here pertaining to ND/SR/TR or whatever is more like an 'experiential insight' (ND of "World #24, World #12, World #6, possibly World #3") along the way and that no 'person/non-person' can actually realize Wholeness or whatever is pointed to? Is that right? FWIW, I do not really think of ND in '-ists' or '-ism' ways, but more as a varied set of pointers which I guess one might say constitutes an '-ality' of sorts with respect to how a convo might need an organizational set of ideas to ward off the chaos. Off the cuff, I'd suggest communicating in such terms attempts to express the ineffable in a way that points to "World #1 [One], The Absolute, the highest vibration, so fine it's almost a line ________". That line basically points to someNOTHING, so I'm good with it.  Considering that I think I understand most everything you've provided here, maybe you can express what you see as shortcomings to how ND/SR/TR are expressed. Perhaps it will elucidate why I even brought up the Plotinus model as a way to minimize the 'talking past' one another. Read, just now, once. Yes, Gurdjieff's paradigm is very Plotinus-like. He also called his teaching Esoteric Christianity. One other think I've just briefly mentioned. We have a higher emotional center and a higher intellectual center. This completes seven centers in a human being. So Nous would be equated to these higher centers. The functioning of the higher emotional center would be equated to conscience, already mentioned, feeling everything, all at once, one can feel. And the higher intellectual center, contacting it, would be knowing all at once, everything knowable about oneself. The higher centers are always functioning, the ordinary human being is not aware of them. Man's being goes way deeper than Nous. Gurdjieff was ambiguous about man's origin, World 6 or World 3. This doesn't mean he didn't know. Other than that, I'll have to consider how to say, no. ........I'll ask this, can a human being know infinity? Edit: Gurdjieff-practice-results are experiential, not realizational, if that helps, if that makes sense. (I've said numerous times, I don't ~speak~ realization). Yes, most maps are neo-platonic in structure, but they're only maps. Without penetrating the actuality of the words, events, and/or concepts they entail, one rarely FAILS and ultimately realizes What Is is actually looking at them. Anyways... We touched on it once before, so how do you approach or to what extent have you penetrated this 'emotional center'. I have always sensed this is a key block, probably due to an experiential aspect of your upbringing and how the mind coped with it. Not sure, really, as I don't know you that well. That said, it is likely that the 'intellectual center' is part of that coping mechanism. On that note, and since you're into the Gurdjieff, I assume you have spent time with the Enneagram stuff (I assume that is where he gave a little nod to the triads and whatnot). What is your number? What is your conception of the human being before and after whatever you think Gurdjieff's teaching points to? |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jun 1, 2024 12:49:38 GMT -5
I thought it might help to just put this back into a thread focused on Gurdjieff. First of all, thanks for spelling out the G system. I do not know much about it, but overall, it does seem to follow a general neo-platonic framework, which is not uncommon for most metaphysical systems since that time (and before). I mean, it has the same general structure as the Plotinus model we poked around on, yeah? Christianity an obvious one, too. So, if by 'more/further' you mean to suggest that there's always more to transcend and include, I'm with you, until of course one's realized they're done. That would negate the 'en summum'. The 'ipsum esse' can be apprehended, which is what the G system is attempting to describe and/or map out, it seems. You mention here that G was 'fuzzy' on man's Origin, which would be something of a 'conclusion'. That argument starts to devolve into a worldly-existential context mix, kind of exemplifying where the limitations of mind come onto play. An alpha 'and' omega dealio. I haven't read on Plotinus in a while, but it seems like this is that 'fuzzy' area in that model referred to as Nous (i.e., it seems to align purddy well with the Worlds #6 and #3). In conclusion, I think your general synopsis is, based on the G system, basically that everything talked about here pertaining to ND/SR/TR or whatever is more like an 'experiential insight' (ND of "World #24, World #12, World #6, possibly World #3") along the way and that no 'person/non-person' can actually realize Wholeness or whatever is pointed to? Is that right? FWIW, I do not really think of ND in '-ists' or '-ism' ways, but more as a varied set of pointers which I guess one might say constitutes an '-ality' of sorts with respect to how a convo might need an organizational set of ideas to ward off the chaos. Off the cuff, I'd suggest communicating in such terms attempts to express the ineffable in a way that points to "World #1 [One], The Absolute, the highest vibration, so fine it's almost a line ________". That line basically points to someNOTHING, so I'm good with it. Considering that I think I understand most everything you've provided here, maybe you can express what you see as shortcomings to how ND/SR/TR are expressed. Perhaps it will elucidate why I even brought up the Plotinus model as a way to minimize the 'talking past' one another. I thought of maybe an analogy, for what Gurdjieff taught (the no, don't agree). Take the Sun to be Source (in the same way you mean it). You and I live on earth. The Sun radiates photons. Photons ARE the Sun. They arrive here, the Sun arrives HERE. We could not live without photons, this is true, just as we cannot live without Source. But we are not the Sun. See? Now, what's unique (in a today-modern sense, not unique over history) about Gurdjieff's teaching, he said we can collect these photons, this is the purpose of interior practice. And, by doing so we can eventually become a Sun also. But we are not-that-now, it is only a possibility. See the difference? ...If one is-a-Sun, it's experiential, not realizational. This is a most excellent analogy. Please don't turn it into ~nonduality~. + Sun = source made up of photons + Earth = vehicle upon which we (life) is finitely preserved + Your conclusion: vehicle/life are not Source/photons Gurdjieff teaching+ Practice is about collecting ‘enough’ photons to become a Sun (explicitly ‘summative’) + Your conclusion: We are not that now. It is only a possibility (via such practices?). + If it 'happens', it is not realizational, but experiential. My interpretation of what you've provided:There is a split that you are grappling with. Your experience has conditioned your thinking which tells you that the split cannot be healed. The emotional appeal of the Gurdjieff teaching, because it is so well structured and (seemingly) logical (like an electrician’s schematic or an arborist’s knowledge of knots, techniques, and skill), allows you to believe in the potential for healing. Your analytical mind is not sure if the stories about “becoming a Sun” are true. There have been experiences and insights that have provided varying degrees of freedom, like the fix for a problem or the loosening of a knot, but no clear break. As such, the mind remains skeptical of such claims that align with such stories. That continues to be the mind’s experience without the realization that would tell it otherwise. I don’t know to what degree you trust me when I say, the realization will emanate in the quality of one’s subsequent experience. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. The carrying brush was a massive ‘letting go’ event. Did the mind do it or was it Done? Knock knock. Pay attention to what the intuition is telling you here. Every peep engages with life via a powerful mind, which is experientially conditioned and often/usually acts as a divisive master. The mind is usually conditioned to think it needs to understand more to become WHOLE, or more WHOLE. Most will engage that mind to find THAT which is prior to it —- Ipsum Esse Subsistens. I do like how folks have mentioned that meditation is loosening the mind-as-master grip. It allows for more space for being informed. I have also noticed that every morning, when the mind awakes from the nightly dream, there's a placid calm in the waking state. It is a precious and delightful time to intimately observe and contemplate the world coming into being that very much aligns with the Gurdjieffian model you've provided. There's an informed poetic experience of the realization. I-I AM. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 1, 2024 13:05:56 GMT -5
And here is another way to look at the difference. I would say SR is a glimpse. It, ideally, should be a kind of bait to wish to experience. But somehow (modern) ND turns it into ~enough~. I find that sad. IOW, I find nothing attractive in how you (plural) describe SR. By its nature, I'm not sure there is anything that could be attractive about it. It's just what happens when interest/energy burns itself out, and evolving happens. A butterfly wouldn't say that being a butterfly is better than being a caterpillar. And a caterpillar wouldn't be attracted to being a butterfly. It's just nature doing its thing. (To be clear, I make no claim to 'SR' here. I have no love for the concept/idea, I'm just joining in the conversation) |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 1, 2024 15:41:58 GMT -5
Read, just now, once. Yes, Gurdjieff's paradigm is very Plotinus-like. He also called his teaching Esoteric Christianity. One other think I've just briefly mentioned. We have a higher emotional center and a higher intellectual center. This completes seven centers in a human being. So Nous would be equated to these higher centers. The functioning of the higher emotional center would be equated to conscience, already mentioned, feeling everything, all at once, one can feel. And the higher intellectual center, contacting it, would be knowing all at once, everything knowable about oneself. The higher centers are always functioning, the ordinary human being is not aware of them. Man's being goes way deeper than Nous. Gurdjieff was ambiguous about man's origin, World 6 or World 3. This doesn't mean he didn't know. Other than that, I'll have to consider how to say, no. ........I'll ask this, can a human being know infinity? Edit: Gurdjieff-practice-results are experiential, not realizational, if that helps, if that makes sense. (I've said numerous times, I don't ~speak~ realization). Yes, most maps are neo-platonic in structure, but they're only maps. Without penetrating the actuality of the words, events, and/or concepts they entail, one rarely FAILS and ultimately realizes What Is is actually looking at them. Anyways... We touched on it once before, so how do you approach or to what extent have you penetrated this 'emotional center'. I have always sensed this is a key block, probably due to an experiential aspect of your upbringing and how the mind coped with it. Not sure, really, as I don't know you that well. That said, it is likely that the 'intellectual center' is part of that coping mechanism. On that note, and since you're into the Gurdjieff, I assume you have spent time with the Enneagram stuff (I assume that is where he gave a little nod to the triads and whatnot). What is your number? What is your conception of the human being before and after whatever you think Gurdjieff's teaching points to? The last first. Essence is a seed, an embryo. For most people it's small and weak and fragile (I've come to roughly equate it to the inner child [in some psychological theories], that's just from sdp). Essence is ~Sourced from~ the One, but is not the One. In a nutshell, Gurdjieff said we have to ~earn the right~ to become a particle of the *Most Holy Sun Absolute*. That's to traverse the ladder back upwards (the Worlds, described somewhat). Essence is defined as what we are born with or born as. It's up to us to discover our essence, through the practices. I was never told what essence is, it took me 15 years to *figure it out*-discover. First, all the centers, except the emotional, has a natural positive and negative side. But we are not born with negative emotions. Negative emotions are ~learned~ (acquired via conditioning). Negative emotions block our access to the higher emotional center. However, to get into the weeds somewhat, negative emotions are necessary, as they contain an enormous amount of stored energy. And we need to transform that stored energy in order for essence to grow, in order to feed essence. Just consider that an aside. But a big yes, emotions are a big central factor. The ~mind~, the intellectual center itself, belongs to essence. The contents of the centers (conditioning) belongs to and form the self-avatar (small s self, or just self). Again, the higher mind is Nous. So yes, the contents of the intellectual center forms in part everyone's coping mechanism. Personally, I have a particularly nasty emotional center, the contents. The emotional center is really where all real work lies. ....It would take a book to slightly go into, 'me'. I've written a good bit about my past, the 1970's. I will stick with my general rule, I don't write about practices, I don't write about experiences. But the more I know myself, the more my past makes sense. Without self-study (and self-observation) nobody really knows themselves. ....But, I'm not interested in SR, I'm interested in living what my essence is. It is very true, you are not what you think you are. It's very rare that one's essence corresponds to their self-avatar (small s self, self). The self-avatar becomes the mask that covers essence. Yes, Gurdjieff introduced the enneagram to the world, it is thousands of years old, kept secret until Gurdjieff (nobody has been able to find it in history previous to Gurdjieff's introduction, close-to, but no cigar). It combines the law of 3 and the law of 7 (or the law of octaves). Divide a circle into 9 equal parts. At 1:00, number that one, then in sequence. Divide 1 by 7. You get a repeating number 1,4,2,8,5,7,(1, repeat). Connect the sequence (connect the equidistant dots on your circle). Then connect the remaining numbers, 3,6,9, which represents the triads, they form the triangle. But the popular enneagram numbered personalities did not come from Gurdjieff. They were formulated by Oscar Ichazo and Claudio Naranjo in the 1970s from Oscar's Arica Institute in Chile, SA. There is no such thing as personality types (or self-avatar types, or just people types). People are subjective. But there are essence types (probably 28, 27?). I know a slight little about the enneagram personality types. Personality could be just a wrong word used (personality = self-avatar, or just small s self). But I clearly recognize myself as a nine. And they talk about 'wings', you could be a 1- 9-8, for example. Maps are useful. Maps are made-by people who have been to the territory. I would challenge you to travel from Charlotte, NC to Ojai, California, without map or GPS. andrew, do you use maps and/or GPS to travel? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 1, 2024 15:47:54 GMT -5
And here is another way to look at the difference. I would say SR is a glimpse. It, ideally, should be a kind of bait to wish to experience. But somehow (modern) ND turns it into ~enough~. I find that sad. IOW, I find nothing attractive in how you (plural) describe SR. By its nature, I'm not sure there is anything that could be attractive about it. It's just what happens when interest/energy burns itself out, and evolving happens. A butterfly wouldn't say that being a butterfly is better than being a caterpillar. And a caterpillar wouldn't be attracted to being a butterfly. It's just nature doing its thing. (To be clear, I make no claim to 'SR' here. I have no love for the concept/idea, I'm just joining in the conversation) Well, I'm open to it, have said so many times here. As they say it's uncaused and you can't cause it. But I really think I'm immune. C Daly King wrote one of the first books about the Gurdjieff Work. I don't recall the original name, but it's named now The Butterfly. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 1, 2024 16:16:09 GMT -5
I thought of maybe an analogy, for what Gurdjieff taught (the no, don't agree). Take the Sun to be Source (in the same way you mean it). You and I live on earth. The Sun radiates photons. Photons ARE the Sun. They arrive here, the Sun arrives HERE. We could not live without photons, this is true, just as we cannot live without Source. But we are not the Sun. See? Now, what's unique (in a today-modern sense, not unique over history) about Gurdjieff's teaching, he said we can collect these photons, this is the purpose of interior practice. And, by doing so we can eventually become a Sun also. But we are not-that-now, it is only a possibility. See the difference? ...If one is-a-Sun, it's experiential, not realizational. This is a most excellent analogy. Please don't turn it into ~nonduality~. + Sun = source made up of photons + Earth = vehicle upon which we (life) is finitely preserved + Your conclusion: vehicle/life are not Source/photons Gurdjieff teaching+ Practice is about collecting ‘enough’ photons to become a Sun (explicitly ‘summative’) + Your conclusion: We are not that now. It is only a possibility (via such practices?). + If it 'happens', it is not realizational, but experiential. My interpretation of what you've provided:There is a split that you are grappling with. Your experience has conditioned your thinking which tells you that the split cannot be healed. The emotional appeal of the Gurdjieff teaching, because it is so well structured and (seemingly) logical (like an electrician’s schematic or an arborist’s knowledge of knots, techniques, and skill), allows you to believe in the potential for healing. Your analytical mind is not sure if the stories about “becoming a Sun” are true. There have been experiences and insights that have provided varying degrees of freedom, like the fix for a problem or the loosening of a knot, but no clear break. As such, the mind remains skeptical of such claims that align with such stories. That continues to be the mind’s experience without the realization that would tell it otherwise. I don’t know to what degree you trust me when I say, the realization will emanate in the quality of one’s subsequent experience. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. The carrying brush was a massive ‘letting go’ event. Did the mind do it or was it Done? Knock knock. Pay attention to what the intuition is telling you here. Every peep engages with life via a powerful mind, which is experientially conditioned and often/usually acts as a divisive master. The mind is usually conditioned to think it needs to understand more to become WHOLE, or more WHOLE. Most will engage that mind to find THAT which is prior to it —- Ipsum Esse Subsistens. I do like how folks have mentioned that meditation is loosening the mind-as-master grip. It allows for more space for being informed. I have also noticed that every morning, when the mind awakes from the nightly dream, there's a placid calm in the waking state. It is a precious and delightful time to intimately observe and contemplate the world coming into being that very much aligns with the Gurdjieffian model you've provided. There's an informed poetic experience of the realization. I-I AM. When I got to here I got a good little chuckle. Thanks, but I promise you (plural, whoever did English is stupid, we need a plural for you), it does zero good to try to put sdp in the ND ~mold~. What I've shared here on ST's is not 1/10 of 1% of my knowledge + experience + what has been {living} modeled for me. The Gurdjieff teaching does not fit into the ND ~mold~, period. I'm not going to ~flip~ into SR. The dragging the brush was just a first experience of a quiet mind, about ten seconds, from [doing] preparatory work, preparatory practices. Sensing is preparatory work. ATA-T is sensing. Anything you sense with the five senses, is sensing. I was taught sensing about the second meeting. The dragging the brush was just one *experience*, a slight breaking of my no describing experiences rule. I went to a meeting once a week for six months before I was given actual practices, self-remembering and self-observation. You can get pretty close to self-observation on your own (I got very close by reading J Krishnamurti for about five years, just previous to finding out about the Gurdjieff teaching). But nobody can ever guess what the practice self-remembering is, unless you are taught. You couldn't get it in a million years. And self-remembering is EVERYTHING. You save energy via self-observation. You actually transform energy into a finer quality not known within the human organism, via self-remembering.Because of how you ended here, I will tell you one thing I discovered. You are closest to essence upon awakening from sleep. I discovered this over the years. Then the mind gets cranked up, thinking. So, yes, this is something you have discovered through experience IMvhO. The analogy broken down is pretty accurate synopsis. But the Sun is more-than photons. Photons are a byproduct from fusion. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jun 1, 2024 17:24:22 GMT -5
Yes, most maps are neo-platonic in structure, but they're only maps. Without penetrating the actuality of the words, events, and/or concepts they entail, one rarely FAILS and ultimately realizes What Is is actually looking at them. Anyways... We touched on it once before, so how do you approach or to what extent have you penetrated this 'emotional center'. I have always sensed this is a key block, probably due to an experiential aspect of your upbringing and how the mind coped with it. Not sure, really, as I don't know you that well. That said, it is likely that the 'intellectual center' is part of that coping mechanism. On that note, and since you're into the Gurdjieff, I assume you have spent time with the Enneagram stuff (I assume that is where he gave a little nod to the triads and whatnot). What is your number? What is your conception of the human being before and after whatever you think Gurdjieff's teaching points to? The last first. Essence is a seed, an embryo. For most people it's small and weak and fragile (I've come to roughly equate it to the inner child [in some psychological theories], that's just from sdp). Essence is ~Sourced from~ the One, but is not the One. In a nutshell, Gurdjieff said we have to ~earn the right~ to become a particle of the *Most Holy Sun Absolute*. That's to traverse the ladder back upwards (the Worlds, described somewhat). Essence is defined as what we are born with or born as. It's up to us to discover our essence, through the practices. I was never told what essence is, it took me 15 years to *figure it out*-discover. First, all the centers, except the emotional, has a natural positive and negative side. But we are not born with negative emotions. Negative emotions are ~learned~ (acquired via conditioning). Negative emotions block our access to the higher emotional center. However, to get into the weeds somewhat, negative emotions are necessary, as they contain an enormous amount of stored energy. And we need to transform that stored energy in order for essence to grow, in order to feed essence. Just consider that an aside. But a big yes, emotions are a big central factor. The ~mind~, the intellectual center itself, belongs to essence. The contents of the centers (conditioning) belongs to and form the self-avatar (small s self, or just self). Again, the higher mind is Nous. So yes, the contents of the intellectual center forms in part everyone's coping mechanism. Personally, I have a particularly nasty emotional center, the contents. The emotional center is really where all real work lies. ....It would take a book to slightly go into, 'me'. I've written a good bit about my past, the 1970's. I will stick with my general rule, I don't write about practices, I don't write about experiences. But the more I know myself, the more my past makes sense. Without self-study (and self-observation) nobody really knows themselves. ....But, I'm not interested in SR, I'm interested in living what my essence is. It is very true, you are not what you think you are. It's very rare that one's essence corresponds to their self-avatar (small s self, self). The self-avatar becomes the mask that covers essence. Yes, Gurdjieff introduced the enneagram to the world, it is thousands of years old, kept secret until Gurdjieff (nobody has been able to find it in history previous to Gurdjieff's introduction, close-to, but no cigar). It combines the law of 3 and the law of 7 (or the law of octaves). Divide a circle into 9 equal parts. At 1:00, number that one, then in sequence. Divide 1 by 7. You get a repeating number 1,4,2,8,5,7,(1, repeat). Connect the sequence (connect the equidistant dots on your circle). Then connect the remaining numbers, 3,6,9, which represents the triads, they form the triangle. But the popular enneagram numbered personalities did not come from Gurdjieff. They were formulated by Oscar Ichazo and Claudio Naranjo in the 1970s from Oscar's Arica Institute in Chile, SA. There is no such thing as personality types (or self-avatar types, or just people types). People are subjective. But there are essence types (probably 28, 27?). I know a slight little about the enneagram personality types. Personality could be just a wrong word used (personality = self-avatar, or just small s self). But I clearly recognize myself as a nine. And they talk about 'wings', you could be a 1- 9-8, for example. Maps are useful. Maps are made-by people who have been to the territory. I would challenge you to travel from Charlotte, NC to Ojai, California, without map or GPS. andrew, do you use maps and/or GPS to travel? Thanks for sharing the Enneagram-Gurdjieff connection. The study does have a Pythagorean I do think I had heard some of it before via one of the 'freak pastors' (friend of Sora's family) in Korea who used the study as a platform for discussions on occasion. I remember talking about how it wasn't so much about personalities, but about 'passions/spirits' in the Christian sense, which I sensed was more aligned with some of the foundational myths and principles found in the ancient pre-Greek and Ancient Greek that it drew inspiration (or direct translations from, as the case may be, considering what I'm perusing on occasion these days). Anyway, yes, the Enneagram stuff has some good insights for self-observation and being aware of hidden/unconscious propensities. One of the unfortunate things I observed was how people might use them to 'box themselves' in to a particular construct and not really use it as a tool for transcendence, but perhaps even strengthening the bars of the prison. The same could go with maps. Don't get me wrong; I love maps in general as a traveler and trekker. That's especially so when one gets into the weeds of a city that I've never been to. While trekking, I tended to draw up a general plan with some pretty crappy ones (rarely proper topographical maps) and then rely on instinct and convos with village folks (if there were any) or with sheep herders when I met them. I wasn't the conquering type of trekker, seeking ever greater heights and ego trophies. I was more of the adventurous type who loved nature, observing it, taking it all in, and simplifying my ways. The exploration of minimalism and flow have stuck with me. However, on the contrary, with respect to most things spiritual, I've never really been beholden to any particular 'map' per se, and was more of the "no path", go-by-the-seat-of-your-pants type. I typically dug the esoteric type of stuff, but was more keen on how they were typically saying similar things, but with different words. So, in general, I was keen on reading between the lines ad nauseum, trying to clue in on the trans-rationality of it. As I've stated before, I never really 'knew' what ND/SR/TR were until years later after realizing what they basically point to. I consider that a something of a blessing and am grateful, but that's just how it unfolds here. Oh, almost forgot; according to the Enneagram, this mind's blind spots/passion/spirit are also aligned with 9. It had a stronger 1w (probably due to my mother's hoarding  and my dad being an Aspey), but being in education and traveling strengthened the 8w, from what I observed. The travels exposed a lot of blind spots, strongly conditioned guilt, well-honed, unhealthy coping strategies, etc etc, and the weight of it all brought me to my knees. Perfectly so. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jun 1, 2024 18:26:19 GMT -5
Analogy broken down+ Sun = source made up of photons + Earth = vehicle upon which we (life) is finitely preserved + Your conclusion: vehicle/life are not Source/photons Gurdjieff teaching+ Practice is about collecting ‘enough’ photons to become a Sun (explicitly ‘summative’) + Your conclusion: We are not that now. It is only a possibility (via such practices?). + If it 'happens', it is not realizational, but experiential. My interpretation of what you've provided:There is a split that you are grappling with. Your experience has conditioned your thinking which tells you that the split cannot be healed. The emotional appeal of the Gurdjieff teaching, because it is so well structured and (seemingly) logical (like an electrician’s schematic or an arborist’s knowledge of knots, techniques, and skill), allows you to believe in the potential for healing. Your analytical mind is not sure if the stories about “becoming a Sun” are true. There have been experiences and insights that have provided varying degrees of freedom, like the fix for a problem or the loosening of a knot, but no clear break. As such, the mind remains skeptical of such claims that align with such stories. That continues to be the mind’s experience without the realization that would tell it otherwise. I don’t know to what degree you trust me when I say, the realization will emanate in the quality of one’s subsequent experience. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. The carrying brush was a massive ‘letting go’ event. Did the mind do it or was it Done? Knock knock. Pay attention to what the intuition is telling you here. Every peep engages with life via a powerful mind, which is experientially conditioned and often/usually acts as a divisive master. The mind is usually conditioned to think it needs to understand more to become WHOLE, or more WHOLE. Most will engage that mind to find THAT which is prior to it —- Ipsum Esse Subsistens. I do like how folks have mentioned that meditation is loosening the mind-as-master grip. It allows for more space for being informed. I have also noticed that every morning, when the mind awakes from the nightly dream, there's a placid calm in the waking state. It is a precious and delightful time to intimately observe and contemplate the world coming into being that very much aligns with the Gurdjieffian model you've provided. There's an informed poetic experience of the realization. I-I AM. When I got to here I got a good little chuckle. Thanks, but I promise you (plural, whoever did English is stupid, we need a plural for you), it does zero good to try to put sdp in the ND ~mold~. What I've shared here on ST's is not 1/10 of 1% of my knowledge + experience + what has been {living} modeled for me. The Gurdjieff teaching does not fit into the ND ~mold~, period. I'm not going to ~flip~ into SR. The dragging the brush was just a first experience of a quiet mind, about ten seconds, from [doing] preparatory work, preparatory practices. Sensing is preparatory work. ATA-T is sensing. Anything you sense with the five senses, is sensing. I was taught sensing about the second meeting. The dragging the brush was just one *experience*, a slight breaking of my no describing experiences rule. I went to a meeting once a week for six months before I was given actual practices, self-remembering and self-observation. You can get pretty close to self-observation on your own (I got very close by reading J Krishnamurti for about five years, just previous to finding out about the Gurdjieff teaching). But nobody can ever guess what the practice self-remembering is, unless you are taught. You couldn't get it in a million years. And self-remembering is EVERYTHING. You save energy via self-observation. You actually transform energy into a finer quality not known within the human organism, via self-remembering.Because of how you ended here, I will tell you one thing I discovered. You are closest to essence upon awakening from sleep. I discovered this over the years. Then the mind gets cranked up, thinking. So, yes, this is something you have discovered through experience IMvhO. The analogy broken down is pretty accurate synopsis. But the Sun is more-than photons. Photons are a byproduct from fusion. Well, I'm open to it, have said so many times here. As they say it's uncaused and you can't cause it. But I really think I'm immune. C Daly King wrote one of the first books about the Gurdjieff Work. I don't recall the original name, but it's named now The Butterfly. Welp, to be clear, the fusion process of making up the photons/Sun was NOT in your post, so it wasn't addressed. Plus, you'll have to go further down the cause-effect stack of turtles to get to the bottom of it all, but that's only about World #48, right? Yeah, English does have its drawbacks, but it has its strengths, too. As a Germanic language that evolved by absorbing the Latin-based languages throughout history and during the rise of Western civilization with its focus on codified law and the sciences piggy-backing on the spread of the Roman Empire (all in a nutshell), it has a pretty unique make up. With respect to Gurdjieff's cosmological model of Worlds, where do you see your mind's chill state and/or progress in using the map of that schema? Nah, I don't see you really open to anything being shared, but that's OK. It's not like I can blame you or shame you. Are you open to the idea that Gurdjieff's map and the Plotinus model are basically the same conceptually, and point to what is transcended in order to Realize the non-dual nature of 'reality'? I get the idea that there might be plateaus, minor peaks, false peaks, false claims, repetitive and conditioned ignorance, forgetting, and all the rest BOTH during the transcendence/caterpillar phases and coming to terms with the present emanation/butterfly. The mind is a strange master or tool to be using, and things can get back asswards at times. So be it. But it's all right there in the map/models. For some reason, there's a re-occurring theme of putting realization out of reach, needing millions of years and a thorough mental knowledge of every single thing (summative argument). It's not like you're going to be stuck in some completely detached void, and there's nothing to flip into ND. If actually realized, emanating experience continues, but with less baggage and Knowing informing the observation. The emanation being perceived sounds like a concern about you or the Gurdjieff Worlds map/model being put into some ~ND mold~ and seems to have an emotional charge to it. I could be dead wrong, but just to be clear, I ain't trying to muscle you or anything into some weird ~ND-mold~. Would such an emotion be self-observable at about World #24 or #48, perhaps a combo? Just trying to get a knack for the model. I dunno enough about it. The waking/early morning routine is observable and discoverable, but is also analogous to the Dream metaphor that Tenka hates with every bone in his body.  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 1, 2024 19:35:39 GMT -5
When I got to here I got a good little chuckle. Thanks, but I promise you (plural, whoever did English is stupid, we need a plural for you), it does zero good to try to put sdp in the ND ~mold~. What I've shared here on ST's is not 1/10 of 1% of my knowledge + experience + what has been {living} modeled for me. The Gurdjieff teaching does not fit into the ND ~mold~, period. I'm not going to ~flip~ into SR. The dragging the brush was just a first experience of a quiet mind, about ten seconds, from [doing] preparatory work, preparatory practices. Sensing is preparatory work. ATA-T is sensing. Anything you sense with the five senses, is sensing. I was taught sensing about the second meeting. The dragging the brush was just one *experience*, a slight breaking of my no describing experiences rule. I went to a meeting once a week for six months before I was given actual practices, self-remembering and self-observation. You can get pretty close to self-observation on your own (I got very close by reading J Krishnamurti for about five years, just previous to finding out about the Gurdjieff teaching). But nobody can ever guess what the practice self-remembering is, unless you are taught. You couldn't get it in a million years. And self-remembering is EVERYTHING. You save energy via self-observation. You actually transform energy into a finer quality not known within the human organism, via self-remembering.Because of how you ended here, I will tell you one thing I discovered. You are closest to essence upon awakening from sleep. I discovered this over the years. Then the mind gets cranked up, thinking. So, yes, this is something you have discovered through experience IMvhO. The analogy broken down is pretty accurate synopsis. But the Sun is more-than photons. Photons are a byproduct from fusion. someNOTHING! wrote: Welp, to be clear, the fusion process of making up the photons/Sun was NOT in your post, so it wasn't addressed. Plus, you'll have to go further down the cause-effect stack of turtles to get to the bottom of it all, but that's only about World #48, right? Yeah, English does have its drawbacks, but it has its strengths, too. As a Germanic language that evolved by absorbing the Latin-based languages throughout history and during the rise of Western civilization with its focus on codified law and the sciences piggy-backing on the spread of the Roman Empire (all in a nutshell), it has a pretty unique make up. With respect to Gurdjieff's cosmological model of Worlds, where do you see your mind's chill state and/or progress in using the map of that schema? Are you open to the idea that Gurdjieff's map and the Plotinus model are basically the same conceptually, and point to what is transcended in order to Realize the non-dual nature of 'reality'? I get the idea that there might be plateaus, minor peaks, false peaks, false claims, repetitive and conditioned ignorance, forgetting, and all the rest BOTH during the transcendence/caterpillar phases and coming to terms with the present emanation/butterfly. The mind is a strange master or tool to be using, and things can get back asswards at times. So be it. But it's all right there in the map/models. For some reason, there's a re-occurring theme of putting realization out of reach, needing millions of years and a thorough mental knowledge of every single thing (summative argument). It's not like you're going to be stuck in some completely detached void, and there's nothing to flip into ND. If actually realized, emanating experience continues, but with less baggage and Knowing informing the observation. The emanation being perceived sounds like a concern about you or the Gurdjieff Worlds map/model being put into some ~ND mold~ and seems to have an emotional charge to it. I could be dead wrong, but just to be clear, I ain't trying to muscle you or anything into some weird ~ND-mold~. Would such an emotion be self-observable at about World #24 or #48, perhaps a combo? Just trying to get a knack for the model. I dunno enough about it. sdp wrote: The attributions got messed up in the second part, I'll start at the bottom. It's not a problem, trying to compare-combine (conceptual) ND and the Gurdjieff teaching, I just don't...just concerning about you (plural) wasting time. I said a while back, ND is like Relativity, Gurdjieff is like quantum mechanics, one can't be understood in terms of the other. Otherwise, I don't mind (if you don't mind). Basically, everything for a long time only-concerns World #48. #24 and above, is in a very real sense, hidden. All we mostly know are negative emotions, again, these come from conditioning. We don't really know positive emotions, they are sublime. So, most of the work is transforming negative emotions, this is what (interior) practice is about. Each center has a center of gravity. The intellectual center is easy, the head. The center of gravity of the emotional center is the solar plexus. People usually say the heart, but the solar plexus is right-at the bottom of the center of the rib cage, the sternum. Gurdjieff said it's actually spread throughout the body, but centered on the solar plexus. The center of gravity of the moving center is the brain stem and the spinal column. Interesting, not really talked about/written about specifically, is the Vagus nerve. But I figure the Vagus nerve plays a major role in body-communication, transferring info throughout the body. And one thing I've never read anywhere, is where the center of gravity of the instinctive center is, in the organism. The instinctive center is everything the body does, from birth, nothing has to be learned, the heart just beats and pumps blood, etc. But I've surmised the center of gravity of the instinctive center is the Hara, just below the navel, about 4 inches below the navel. If you know anything about the martial arts, or Eastern philosophy, makes sense. So all of this comes from the earth, your physical body is composed of the elements of the Periodic Table. So, basically World #24 does not exist for most of humanity, anyone can get along quite normally without knowing anything about World 24. But self-observation is done with voluntary attention, self-remembering is done with awareness. I can't say/write about much more. We were just given instructions (how to do the practices), I had to figure out a lot of stuff, through practice. But, from all this, stuff can be surmised. Back to the top. The Sun-photon was just an analogy, created on the spot (today). But World 12 does correspond to the Sun. World 24 corresponds to all (the) planets, combined. There is an outer representation/correspondence of the inner planes of existence. So World 24 is made-from energy/vibrations of a finer nature than can be measured with instruments or sensed with the 5 senses. The main purpose of the practices is to ~refine~ energy, you can actually transform energy and collect it within the human organism. Eventually you can ~crystallize~ the energy of World 24 to form another body. In Beelzebub's Tales it's called the body Kesdjan, or it's simply referred to as the second body (also). It's also called a higher being-body. And the soul, or soul-body is formed from the vibratory level of the Sun, World 12. Nobody ever talks about or writes about these bodies, these energies. But people with these bodies have certain attributes, Siddhis. The body Kesdjan is necessary for the higher emotional center to manifest, to be able to connect to the higher emotional center. Likewise, the soul (or soul-body) is necessary to connect with the higher emotional center. If you get that, then you get the Sun-photon analogy. Elsewhere they are (one or the other) called the Light body. In Tibetan Buddhism, in Dzogchen, there is a phenomenon called the Rainbow Body, a certain attainment. Very nearly the same if not the same. OK, there is a practice self-remembering, and there is a state self-remembering, the practice brings the state. The chill state is this finer energy, it's a tangible energy (Ki, Chi Qi, prana, called mi12 in the Gurdjieff teaching). A quiet silent mind is good, this finer energy is ~further~. the body Kesdjan is way-"further". The soul-body is way-way-"further". For me, nondual means simultaneous. Dual means the wake of a boat, it's *after* in time. Thought is duality, because thought always occurs in time. Now, is the boat. self-observation or self-remembering, means present moment. If they are not simultaneous, memory is involved. I've mentioned this several times, nobody has responded. But does it make sense? This is the way I consider nonduality, simultaneous attending or awareness, it's very fleeting. Thought-bound mind can never do it, I've tried to convey this previously. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 1, 2024 20:18:42 GMT -5
The last first. Essence is a seed, an embryo. For most people it's small and weak and fragile (I've come to roughly equate it to the inner child [in some psychological theories], that's just from sdp). Essence is ~Sourced from~ the One, but is not the One. In a nutshell, Gurdjieff said we have to ~earn the right~ to become a particle of the *Most Holy Sun Absolute*. That's to traverse the ladder back upwards (the Worlds, described somewhat). Essence is defined as what we are born with or born as. It's up to us to discover our essence, through the practices. I was never told what essence is, it took me 15 years to *figure it out*-discover. First, all the centers, except the emotional, has a natural positive and negative side. But we are not born with negative emotions. Negative emotions are ~learned~ (acquired via conditioning). Negative emotions block our access to the higher emotional center. However, to get into the weeds somewhat, negative emotions are necessary, as they contain an enormous amount of stored energy. And we need to transform that stored energy in order for essence to grow, in order to feed essence. Just consider that an aside. But a big yes, emotions are a big central factor. The ~mind~, the intellectual center itself, belongs to essence. The contents of the centers (conditioning) belongs to and form the self-avatar (small s self, or just self). Again, the higher mind is Nous. So yes, the contents of the intellectual center forms in part everyone's coping mechanism. Personally, I have a particularly nasty emotional center, the contents. The emotional center is really where all real work lies. ....It would take a book to slightly go into, 'me'. I've written a good bit about my past, the 1970's. I will stick with my general rule, I don't write about practices, I don't write about experiences. But the more I know myself, the more my past makes sense. Without self-study (and self-observation) nobody really knows themselves. ....But, I'm not interested in SR, I'm interested in living what my essence is. It is very true, you are not what you think you are. It's very rare that one's essence corresponds to their self-avatar (small s self, self). The self-avatar becomes the mask that covers essence. Yes, Gurdjieff introduced the enneagram to the world, it is thousands of years old, kept secret until Gurdjieff (nobody has been able to find it in history previous to Gurdjieff's introduction, close-to, but no cigar). It combines the law of 3 and the law of 7 (or the law of octaves). Divide a circle into 9 equal parts. At 1:00, number that one, then in sequence. Divide 1 by 7. You get a repeating number 1,4,2,8,5,7,(1, repeat). Connect the sequence (connect the equidistant dots on your circle). Then connect the remaining numbers, 3,6,9, which represents the triads, they form the triangle. But the popular enneagram numbered personalities did not come from Gurdjieff. They were formulated by Oscar Ichazo and Claudio Naranjo in the 1970s from Oscar's Arica Institute in Chile, SA. There is no such thing as personality types (or self-avatar types, or just people types). People are subjective. But there are essence types (probably 28, 27?). I know a slight little about the enneagram personality types. Personality could be just a wrong word used (personality = self-avatar, or just small s self). But I clearly recognize myself as a nine. And they talk about 'wings', you could be a 1- 9-8, for example. Maps are useful. Maps are made-by people who have been to the territory. I would challenge you to travel from Charlotte, NC to Ojai, California, without map or GPS. andrew, do you use maps and/or GPS to travel? Oh, almost forgot; according to the Enneagram, this mind's blind spots/passion/spirit are also aligned with 9. It had a stronger 1w (probably due to my mother's hoarding and my dad being an Aspey), but being in education and traveling strengthened the 8w, from what I observed. The travels exposed a lot of blind spots, strongly conditioned guilt, well-honed, unhealthy coping strategies, etc etc, and the weight of it all brought me to my knees. Perfectly so. Cool. I was basically totally f-ed up. My spiritual search basically began (age 17) to try to figure out my misery index, if it could be fixed. Cool about your Dad, learning that. Don't recall seeing that before (not that that means anything  . Probably about 18 years ago I read a two-page article in (Sunday paper) Parade Magazine, it practically explained my whole life. Went right out, probably that day, found a book, a lady writing about Asperger's, Pretending To Be Normal, even the title was me. And she talked about being invisible, that was me too. I've always said, if I hadn't found my teacher and he introducing me to the Gurdjieff teaching (at age 24), I'd have probably ended up in prison, a mental hospital, living on the street, or dead (my teacher was also a psychologist, MA, that helped). ...That's going to be goodnight. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 2, 2024 23:45:19 GMT -5
By its nature, I'm not sure there is anything that could be attractive about it. It's just what happens when interest/energy burns itself out, and evolving happens. A butterfly wouldn't say that being a butterfly is better than being a caterpillar. And a caterpillar wouldn't be attracted to being a butterfly. It's just nature doing its thing. (To be clear, I make no claim to 'SR' here. I have no love for the concept/idea, I'm just joining in the conversation) Well, I'm open to it, have said so many times here. As they say it's uncaused and you can't cause it. But I really think I'm immune. C Daly King wrote one of the first books about the Gurdjieff Work. I don't recall the original name, but it's named now The Butterfly. The way I see humans, is that they will always do what they feel is working for them, and that usually changes when what they are doing ceases to work well for them. In some cases, something has to stop working entirely, in order for a change to happen. It seems to me that what you do, works for you, and that's cool. Personally, I don't think you are immune to the possibility of unexpected spiritual change. I'm probably in for some more myself at some point. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 3, 2024 6:43:14 GMT -5
Well, I'm open to it, have said so many times here. As they say it's uncaused and you can't cause it. But I really think I'm immune. C Daly King wrote one of the first books about the Gurdjieff Work. I don't recall the original name, but it's named now The Butterfly. The way I see humans, is that they will always do what they feel is working for them, and that usually changes when what they are doing ceases to work well for them. In some cases, something has to stop working entirely, in order for a change to happen. It seems to me that what you do, works for you, and that's cool. Personally, I don't think you are immune to the possibility of unexpected spiritual change. I'm probably in for some more myself at some point. Yes. I didn't say this. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jun 3, 2024 6:52:14 GMT -5
sdp wrote: The attributions got messed up in the second part, I'll start at the bottom. It's not a problem, trying to compare-combine (conceptual) ND and the Gurdjieff teaching, I just don't...just concerning about you (plural) wasting time. I said a while back, ND is like Relativity, Gurdjieff is like quantum mechanics, one can't be understood in terms of the other. Otherwise, I don't mind (if you don't mind). Basically, everything for a long time only-concerns World #48. #24 and above, is in a very real sense, hidden. All we mostly know are negative emotions, again, these come from conditioning. We don't really know positive emotions, they are sublime. So, most of the work is transforming negative emotions, this is what (interior) practice is about. Each center has a center of gravity. The intellectual center is easy, the head. The center of gravity of the emotional center is the solar plexus. People usually say the heart, but the solar plexus is right-at the bottom of the center of the rib cage, the sternum. Gurdjieff said it's actually spread throughout the body, but centered on the solar plexus. The center of gravity of the moving center is the brain stem and the spinal column. Interesting, not really talked about/written about specifically, is the Vagus nerve. But I figure the Vagus nerve plays a major role in body-communication, transferring info throughout the body. And one thing I've never read anywhere, is where the center of gravity of the instinctive center is, in the organism. The instinctive center is everything the body does, from birth, nothing has to be learned, the heart just beats and pumps blood, etc. But I've surmised the center of gravity of the instinctive center is the Hara, just below the navel, about 4 inches below the navel. If you know anything about the martial arts, or Eastern philosophy, makes sense. So all of this comes from the earth, your physical body is composed of the elements of the Periodic Table. So, basically World #24 does not exist for most of humanity, anyone can get along quite normally without knowing anything about World 24. But self-observation is done with voluntary attention, self-remembering is done with awareness. I can't say/write about much more. We were just given instructions (how to do the practices), I had to figure out a lot of stuff, through practice. But, from all this, stuff can be surmised. Back to the top. The Sun-photon was just an analogy, created on the spot (today). But World 12 does correspond to the Sun. World 24 corresponds to all (the) planets, combined. There is an outer representation/correspondence of the inner planes of existence. So World 24 is made-from energy/vibrations of a finer nature than can be measured with instruments or sensed with the 5 senses. The main purpose of the practices is to ~refine~ energy, you can actually transform energy and collect it within the human organism. Eventually you can ~crystallize~ the energy of World 24 to form another body. In Beelzebub's Tales it's called the body Kesdjan, or it's simply referred to as the second body (also). It's also called a higher being-body. And the soul, or soul-body is formed from the vibratory level of the Sun, World 12. Nobody ever talks about or writes about these bodies, these energies. But people with these bodies have certain attributes, Siddhis. The body Kesdjan is necessary for the higher emotional center to manifest, to be able to connect to the higher emotional center. Likewise, the soul (or soul-body) is necessary to connect with the higher emotional center. If you get that, then you get the Sun-photon analogy. Elsewhere they are (one or the other) called the Light body. In Tibetan Buddhism, in Dzogchen, there is a phenomenon called the Rainbow Body, a certain attainment. Very nearly the same if not the same. OK, there is a practice self-remembering, and there is a state self-remembering, the practice brings the state. The chill state is this finer energy, it's a tangible energy (Ki, Chi Qi, prana, called mi12 in the Gurdjieff teaching). A quiet silent mind is good, this finer energy is ~further~. the body Kesdjan is way-"further". The soul-body is way-way-"further". For me, nondual means simultaneous. Dual means the wake of a boat, it's *after* in time. Thought is duality, because thought always occurs in time. Now, is the boat. self-observation or self-remembering, means present moment. If they are not simultaneous, memory is involved. I've mentioned this several times, nobody has responded. But does it make sense? This is the way I consider nonduality, simultaneous attending or awareness, it's very fleeting. Thought-bound mind can never do it, I've tried to convey this previously. Yes, we're describing penetrating the illusions of the mind, good. And thanks for clarifying your take on self-remembrance and self-observation, as the way they're juxtaposed, it gives the intuitive idea of dissolving boundaries, especially the one's that make up the 'self'. I've noticed that often when people start talking about meditation, they approach it from a personal/self stance, in which they are something trying to get somewhere, do something, succeed at some pre-determined ideal; whereas, there might be some value in spinning it, and maybe carrying out a role reversal of sorts. It could turn out to be something of a 'higher-mind experiment' in which some cognitive dissonance might bubble up in peculiar-but-honest way. It would taper well with the 'waking up' dealio we touched on a few posts back, at least as far as exploratory experiences go. After all, it is the root meaning of Buddha. |
|
Considering that I think I understand most everything you've provided here, maybe you can express what you see as shortcomings to how ND/SR/TR are expressed. Perhaps it will elucidate why I even brought up the Plotinus model as a way to minimize the 'talking past' one another.
and my dad being an Aspey), but being in education and traveling strengthened the 8w, from what I observed. The travels exposed a lot of blind spots, strongly conditioned guilt, well-honed, unhealthy coping strategies, etc etc, and the weight of it all brought me to my knees. Perfectly so.
. Probably about 18 years ago I read a two-page article in (Sunday paper) Parade Magazine, it practically explained my whole life. Went right out, probably that day, found a book, a lady writing about Asperger's, Pretending To Be Normal, even the title was me. And she talked about being invisible, that was me too. I've always said, if I hadn't found my teacher and he introducing me to the Gurdjieff teaching (at age 24), I'd have probably ended up in prison, a mental hospital, living on the street, or dead (my teacher was also a psychologist, MA, that helped). ...That's going to be goodnight.