The Center

[maestro]

The goal of self observation is to create a center, a locus that does not get swept in the whirlwind of feedback loops that form a human being.

Perhaps, Gurdjieff refers to this center as the self or soul; we are born without a self and most do not develop it. Development of this locus gives an objective observation of mental/physical phenomenon. This in turn will allow ( at least the suffering inducing) loops to weaken as energy is withdrawn from them.

In reality there is no central controller or self of the body/mind, the locus is one amongst the many phenomenon that comprise the body/mind, initially it starts weak but gains power.

The difference between the locus and the ego is that the locus can observe that the body processes go on in and on of themselves in generally repeating patterns, and the heavy influence of environment upon the body/mind; it can actually observe the seamless unity of everything firsthand. While the ego is a false belief or feeling of being a central figure: controller of the body mind.

[maestro]

Knowledge is the process of establishing relations: causal or otherwise. This requires classification of perceptions into similar groups which are then represented by words.

Analogies (models) work when direct perception is not possible, or is inadequate. This is the sort of knowledge on which science is mostly based. For example atom as a ball, sound as wave. These analogies allow deduction of relationship between phenomenon, using the language and tools of mathematics. However, this deduction is provisional because the analogies are only approximate and may be stretched too far. They have to be confirmed with direct experience.


Final test of knowledge is whether the relations predicted by it actually work. Thus beyond first hand experience there is no way to confirm the truth of knowledge. On the other hand without forming of words and classification it may also happen that relationships escape the perceiver. Thus, direct experience and classification and words go hand in hand to form knowledge (though some of it may be pictorial).

Logic can be used to point inconsistency of definitions, and to rearrange the definitions so that new relations become apparent. Knowledge gained through logic and definitions is not true unless it accords with perception.

[Blair]

My goodness, how profound.. (rolling my eyes)

[Steven Coyle]

Locus is the focus of the Infinity in the microcosm.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The difference between the locus and the ego is that the locus can observe that the body processes go on in and on of themselves in generally repeating patterns, and the heavy influence of environment upon the body/mind; it can actually observe the seamless unity of everything firsthand. While the ego is a false belief or feeling of being a central figure: controller of the body mind.

If the ego would be like a car on a busy highway, the kid in the back behind his toy wheel would be like this 'false belief' but the locus in this case is a moving part of the engine. Which meta-locus observes the locus observing after all?

It's not like I'm saying egotism equals consciousness. It's in this case the strength of the assumption of 'body', of 'processes' , of 'going on in itself' - the degree these identifications form attachments. And they always tend to do, they can even create a whole new belief-system justified by surrounding itself with scientific or sometimes even a mystical, liturgical sounding language!

Car worship in just another form. Honk if you can read this.

[maestro]

If the ego would be like a car on a busy highway, the kid in the back behind his toy wheel would be like this 'false belief' but the locus in this case is a moving part of the engine. Which meta-locus observes the locus observing after all?

That the locus needs to have a meta observer is unjustified. The locus in and of itself is the observer of internal phenomenon, just as the visual system is (one of) the observer(s) of external phenomenon. These observational systems also work in conjunction with the symbolic and intelligent system. To assign a hierarchy of control to various systems is erroneous.

It is an error arsing from extending analogies of how humans act in the external world. For example on the highway the car has a driver, but in this case the car has no driver, only interlocking processes.

Playing with your analogy, the child on the back could be taken as the mind hypnotized by its beliefs that he is in-charge of the car, but feels that a deception has been played upon him. He then fashions devices to probe its surroundings and his position, and discovers the nature of its deception. The locus is its instruments that if developed. The analytical intelligent system is the child and the rest of body/mind is the car.

[bert]

realising of belief comes from 'Thatness'. to assert ourselves wholly 'as if That' we can only know ourselves by conceiving ourselves as outside ourselves. for nothing we can conceive will be beyond self. to see nullity - look within. we imagine that our thinking and reasoning are within, whereas they only manifest through the body, their expressional means.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

If the ego would be like a car on a busy highway, the kid in the back behind his toy wheel would be like this 'false belief' but the locus in this case is a moving part of the engine. Which meta-locus observes the locus observing after all?

That the locus needs to have a meta observer is unjustified. The locus in and of itself is the observer of internal phenomenon, just as the visual system is (one of) the observer(s) of external phenomenon. These observational systems also work in conjunction with the symbolic and intelligent system. To assign a hierarchy of control to various systems is erroneous.

Which is why I didn't suggest such thing. But the moment this locus comes up with something called "internal phenomenon" it becomes just as potentially false and delusional as looking at the sky with your bare eyes. What is named observation is already a conceptual tagging, an objectification that is part of the normal functioning of ego. It's just a more subtle version.

To fold this back onto your original post: Gurdjieff's concept of self and soul is closely related to the Freudian ego. We're not born with it, or not much, and the average person barely develops the construct. Which doesn't prevent that person from developing egotism however. It's like the amount of people who are obsessed by fancy cars compared to the amount who actually drive one.

Which leads me to the claim that there's no essential difference between your concept of locus and how ego functions. This is because naming things, the process of observing and identifying lies at the core or the beginning of control. The name-giver equals the 'central figure' which is the power of the name-giving and its feed-back. Name-giving, identifying and defining is not different from any form of observation you could come up with. No matter if we have sense-words, sense-feelings, sense-impressions, sense-blurry-fleeting-images, sense-of-self, there's no essential difference: ego is at play.

[bert]

we suppose beforehand that our processes of thought and conation are those of Nature, whereas they are a conditioned process with limited technique within our understanding: in no manner are we spontaneous - though other powers in us may simulate such when we are sufficiently automatic.

[maestro]

Which leads me to the claim that there's no essential difference between your concept of locus and how ego functions. This is because naming things, the process of observing and identifying lies at the core or the beginning of control.
The name-giver equals the 'central figure' which is the power of the name-giving and its feed-back. Name-giving, identifying and defining is not different from any form of observation you could come up with. No matter if we have sense-words, sense-feelings, sense-impressions, sense-blurry-fleeting-images, sense-of-self, there's no essential difference: ego is at play.

I have no real disagreement. With discrimination ego arises. Thought itself is the culprit.

To fold this back onto your original post: Gurdjieff's concept of self and soul is closely related to the Freudian ego. We're not born with it, or not much, and the average person barely develops the construct. Which doesn't prevent that person from developing egotism however. It's like the amount of people who are obsessed by fancy cars compared to the amount who actually drive one.

Quite perceptive, egotism without ego. That is a nice way to put it.

[bert]

let me have friendship with plants and know trees - even to see myself in others, all so much alike, the same beast amuck

[maestro]

To fold this back onto your original post: Gurdjieff's concept of self and soul is closely related to the Freudian ego. We're not born with it, or not much, and the average person barely develops the construct. Which doesn't prevent that person from developing egotism however. It's like the amount of people who are obsessed by fancy cars compared to the amount who actually drive one.

One caveat though. Gurdjieffian self is supposedly very powerful and controlling. The locus intellect pair discussed above is not so. The perception of its own power (which is very limited) is all too clear.