GENIUS FORUMS

Kevin Solway wrote:Brokenhead,

When you put EVERYTHING in capitals it does tend to make it more absolute.

In fact, there are just as many things of which we can be certain as there are things of which we can't be certain, so it is simply wrong to say that EVERYTHING is uncertain. And it is even more out of place when it is said in the context of things of which we can be certain.

And when I said that "I am a Christian" I had changed the definition of what it means to be a Christian by then.

So you can change the very definition of what it means to hold a certain faith, yet I can't seem to get you to understand the spirit with which I put a word in capitals?

BTW, point out where you "changed" the definition of Christianity between those two quotes. I must have missed it.

You will never learn anything of value unless you can admit you have made a mistake, something which you never do, Kevin. It's what makes your philosophy questionable at best.

Carl G wrote: the Law of Three? Of the teaching of the Ray of Creation? Are you familiar with these?

No, I've never heard of such things. Why don't you elaborate on what they are and how they might defend against what Sue and David are attacking?

David Quinn wrote:

Carl G wrote: But seriously, it is amazing to see how logic does not serve, in the case of Sue and David, here in this thread. Brokenhead has shown it better than I. It is the difference between theoretical and practical.

You're joking, aren't you? You're actually saying that it is more reasonable to assume that teachers have always existed, all the way back forever, than admit that people can become wise of their own accord, without the help of a teacher?

I know you're being protective of Gurdjieff, but are you really prepared to cast aside your sanity to do this?

-

You cannot be serious. You cannot believe that anything you have said in Wisdom or in these threads is original in any way. If you claim your "knowledge" is your own and that it has simply come to you without your having been influenced by anything you have read, I might answer that that goes a long way to explaining why you don't seem very well read.

You can't have it both ways. I think you are posturing. I think your philosophy, such as it is, is if not wholly, then largely derivative. To the extent that it makes sense is the extent to which it is not original with you. You have simply chosen from existing schools of thought to form your Weltanschauung. The least you could do would be to admit it. Gurdjieff was simply saying he wasn't making anything up, and that the personal relationship between a teacher and a pupil is most beneficial. I have been a teacher, and I can verify that the teacher benefits just as much as the student. It is the teacher's very duty to assimilate existing schools of thought and then put his or her contribution into it.

Your stance here falls apart under even cursory examination. I am merely saying that knowledge and wisdom are evolutionary in nature. The effect of one man's enlightenment is caused by his learning from another's. Besides, your claim to enlightenment smacks of self-promotion, which you try to (thinly) disguise by never coming right out and saying "I am enlightened," but telling us time and again what the enlightened man is like, what he thinks, what he "knows."

All philosophers are influenced to an extent by other philosophers and thinkers, even Spinoza. It does not make sense that a person who values knowledge would not hunger for it but would disdain exposing himself to other intelligent discourse, whether in person or via the written word. Christ himself was rabinically trained.

I don't mean to sound so critical, but I do not believe Carl or maestro or I are defending Gurdjieff. Perhaps, though, I should speak for myself. I am simply saying it makes more sense to realize that genuine knowledge is ancient and predates history - certainly predates Aristotle and Socrates and Plato; it predates the very earth itself. We are rediscovering it. To the extent that we are humbly receptive is the extent to which the world's masters - both overt and hidden - will undertake to impart their wealth of knowledge, bit by bit, always matching our capacity for accepting it. I don't believe you are any more enlightened than I am - and I make NO such claims, as I have said many times at GF. Yet I believe you could speed up your own development by being less intellectually egotistical and realizing that, like me, you haven't had a truly original thought. Truth is discovered, not invented. A good teacher helps you discover what is already there. I am merely saying Gurdjieff was pointing out the efficacy of the teacher/student model of knowledge propagation. Surely, we would all benefit from such an arrangement if it were feasible.

I don't consider the core of my philosophy to be original. Originality isn't a concern of mine. My only concern is truth.

What I speak about has been known for thousands of years by the human race, or at least by those few individuals who have made it their business to know truth and live by it. I don't pretend to be pointing anywhere different.

What originality I do have lies in my own personal breakthrough into truth - thus making the truth my own, so to speak - and being able to speak about this process of breaking through in simple ways that appeal to people's sense of logic. This has been done before, but it is always good to have new voices injecting their own flavour into the mix.

As for the Gurdjieff issue, I'm certainly not saying that enlightened teachers aren't helpful. The good ones can be very stimulating, provoking and encouraging. Sometimes, a teacher can mean the difference between a student succeeding in making the breakthrough, thereby becoming a wise sage slinging his poisonous arrows into the world, and that of failing and receding into ordinariness once again. So I would never speak against the value of a good teacher.

However, not having a teacher doesn't spell inevitable doom. If a person has the inner desire and intelligence to understand truth, then he has every chance of succeeding through his own resources. That Gurdjieff doesn't acknowledge this is very strange and, to me at least, reveals his underlying agenda.

-

However, not having a teacher doesn't spell inevitable doom. If a person has the inner desire and intelligence to understand truth, then he has every chance of succeeding through his own resources. That Gurdjieff doesn't acknowledge this is very strange and, to me at least, reveals his underlying agenda.

How do you know what Gurdjieff acknowledged?

And what would that underlying agenda be?

I think he enjoyed shocking ordinary people and holding them in his thrall far too much. It is the same sort of thrill that a great musican experiences when he holds an audience spell-bound. This attachment distorted his teachings and limited his vision, and gave him the air of being a snake-oil salesman.

-

Carl wrote:

A man can only attain knowledge with the help of those who possess it. This must be understood from the very beginning. One must learn from him who knows.~Gurdjieff

David Quinn: It definitely sounds like he is talking about human or sentient teachers, and that it is impossible for anyone to become enlightened without their help. Not only does it fall apart logically, but it sounds like a cheap guru trick to reinforce his status in his follower's eyes.

You guys are trying to defend the indefensible.

You are correct in theory. Logic dictates that if knowledge came to a man long ago, then it can come to you or I today. However, in practice, there is more to it. I find it even difficult to discuss. For instance, Gurdjieff never used the term enlightenment (or guru, for that matter). What did he mean by knowledge? Knowledge of what? Of the Law of Three? Of the teaching of the Ray of Creation? Are you familiar with these, which he calls fundamental, the way you say "causation" is fundamental?

It boils down to you having trust in your own mind. You must have had some idea of what you expected to glean from Gurdjieff’s work. If it wasn’t enlightenment – that is, freedom from illusion – what was it? And if logic can’t be trusted in this circumstance, what are you using to understand Gurdjieff’s “fundamentals”?

On the subject of origin of information, I have already said that the information may have come from off-planet long ago. Would you have access to that now? What do you have access to, besides logic?

Imagination?

I think I would take from Gurdjieff/Oupensky their psychology and discard their cosmology altogether. Their cosmology is outdated, because it has been surpassed by modern science which focuses exclusively on the outer world with ever sophisticated instruments. The psychological theory still holds ground because, the ancients who developed it relied on their inner observations and compiled a very accurate model of the internal world. Since science avoids this personal method of gaining knowledge, it has lagged far behind and psychology today is a sham, based on giving people questionnaires and using statistical hypothesis testing. This psychology is of use only for advertising companies on how to fool people.

David Quinn wrote:I think he enjoyed shocking ordinary people and holding them in his thrall far too much. It is the same sort of thrill that a great musican experiences when he holds an audience spell-bound. This attachment distorted his teachings and limited his vision, and gave him the air of being a snake-oil salesman.

-

Holding them in his thrall. Really, that is a laugh. He pushed people away in order to get to the few with an authentic interest.

Sue Hindmarsh wrote: Carl wrote:

You are correct in theory. Logic dictates that if knowledge came to a man long ago, then it can come to you or I today. However, in practice, there is more to it. I find it even difficult to discuss. For instance, Gurdjieff never used the term enlightenment (or guru, for that matter). What did he mean by knowledge? Knowledge of what? Of the Law of Three? Of the teaching of the Ray of Creation? Are you familiar with these, which he calls fundamental, the way you say "causation" is fundamental?

It boils down to you having trust in your own mind. You must have had some idea of what you expected to glean from Gurdjieff’s work. If it wasn’t enlightenment – that is, freedom from illusion – what was it? And if logic can’t be trusted in this circumstance, what are you using to understand Gurdjieff’s “fundamentals”?

Yes, we must use our minds, as well as our bodies, feelings, and experiences, to verify everything. I am not denigrating logic. I'm only saying that logic and thinking has its limits, especially in practical matters. In those circumstances practice can trump theory.

As for what I hoped to gain through Gurdjieff's work, I would say consciousness, and freedom, that is, will.

On the subject of origin of information, I have already said that the information may have come from off-planet long ago. Would you have access to that now? What do you have access to, besides logic?

Imagination?

And self reliance is fine, but as someone has already pointed out, there are few among us who would be where we are without the inspiration and guidance of those wise ones who walked before.

The higher emotional center, is something, which I am most interested in right now. This is a part of the emotional mind that is able to choose the emotion/feeling, rather than it being generated by circumstance. It seems to me that for an optimal machinery nothing could be better than getting this center up and running.

Cory Duchesne wrote:

Carl G wrote: the Law of Three? Of the teaching of the Ray of Creation? Are you familiar with these?

No, I've never heard of such things. Why don't you elaborate on what they are and how they might defend against what Sue and David are attacking?

You will have to read of these on your own, as the explanations are extensive, and I am not well versed. Basically, the Law of Three says there are three forces involved in any action, while the Ray of Creation describes how energy and influence is stepped down from the Absolute to the minute, and explains such things as how musical scales came into being, and why efforts in one direction often skew the opposite way or just plain run out of steam.

Although the most in depth descriptions are in books, here's a brief introductionto some of the ideas.

As to how they address my point to Sue and David, the question was, assuming this material is true and therefore part of the basic makeup of our reality, would they come up with this on their own, for example.

As to how they address my point to Sue and David, the question was, assuming this material is true and therefore part of the basic makeup of our reality, would they come up with this on their own, for example.

I don't see how pure logic explains the significance of the number 7 in a way other than I have in these forums.

Carl wrote:

Yes, we must use our minds, as well as our bodies, feelings, and experiences, to verify everything.

I agree that our minds are not isolated from our “bodies, feelings, and experiences”. Because it is not isolated, those other things, and many more besides, are integral to its operation – so much so that the idea of ‘mind’ can’t be considered without them.

I am not denigrating logic. I'm only saying that logic and thinking has its limits, especially in practical matters.

What bought you to the conclusion that “logic and thinking has its limits” - was it logic and thinking – or something else?

In those circumstances practice can trump theory.

To make clear how your “practice can trump theory” fits in with all of this, could you give me an example?

As for what I hoped to gain through Gurdjieff's work, I would say consciousness, and freedom, that is, will.

You were certain that Gurdjieff’s work could be useful in developing your consciousness – is that correct?

Carl wrote:

Carl: On the subject of origin of information, I have already said that the information may have come from off-planet long ago. Would you have access to that now? What do you have access to, besides logic?

Sue: Imagination?

And self reliance is fine, but as someone has already pointed out, there are few among us who would be where we are without the inspiration and guidance of those wise ones who walked before.

How do we know who is wise and who is not? Even if we are told by another that they, or someone other is wise - isn’t it we who ultimately decide?

brokenhead wrote:

As to how they address my point to Sue and David, the question was, assuming this material is true and therefore part of the basic makeup of our reality, would they come up with this on their own, for example.

I don't see how pure logic explains the significance of the number 7 in a way other than I have in these forums.

Oh dear .....

The number 7, The Ray of Creation, The Law of Three - what is this, a New Age fest?

These sorts of New Age cosmologies are a dime a dozen, and express an emotional need to dress up Reality more than it is. I can't believe you guys expect to be taken seriously in this place with such junk.

-

David Quinn wrote:

brokenhead wrote:

As to how they address my point to Sue and David, the question was, assuming this material is true and therefore part of the basic makeup of our reality, would they come up with this on their own, for example.

I don't see how pure logic explains the significance of the number 7 in a way other than I have in these forums.

Oh dear .....

The number 7, The Ray of Creation, The Law of Three - what is this, a New Age fest?

These sorts of New Age cosmologies are a dime a dozen, and express an emotional need to dress up Reality more than it is. I can't believe you guys expect to be taken seriously in this place with such junk.

-

You are being illogical, DQ. If Reality=the Totality, then by definition it cannot be dressed up and be made to be "more than it is." What could be "more" than the "Totality"?

You are simply avoiding the very real fact that the number 7 arises in interesting ways. There are 7 consonant notes to the Western musical scale; 7 levels in classical Linnaean classification; 7 rows to the periodic table of the elements; 7 days to the week; 7 colors to the rainbow which is comprised of a continuum of wavelengths; 7 levels in the ultra-logical OSI model of networking, etc., etc. The number 7 also arises in Theosophy and in Aleister Crowley's Magick, to be sure. But if you are calling the latter two "new age," you are off by about a hundred years. Likewise with Gurdjieff's Heptapara Parshinock: G. was very much a 19th Century man despite some of his his radical forward-looking ideas, mainly in his fiction.

No, you seem quite incurious for a philosopher, David.

David is incurious about the 7 because, he will say, he has attained Cloud 9. Who needs the seven when you can have the nine. Have you considered, David, that reality is a little more complex than you know?

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:Carl wrote:

I am not denigrating logic. I'm only saying that logic and thinking has its limits, especially in practical matters.

What bought you to the conclusion that “logic and thinking has its limits” - was it logic and thinking – or something else?

Experience. Experimentation. Also, thinking can reveal the limitations of thinking. When one reaches a wall with thinking, it may be time for doing. In doing, more is revealed. This is why practice is important.

In those circumstances practice can trump theory.

To make clear how your “practice can trump theory” fits in with all of this, could you give me an example? [/quote]
I already have. It's what started this discussion. David smirked that if one person figured out the truth way back, then it is possible for any man to do it now, therefore Gurdjieff's quote about needing one who knows, is false. I pointed out that there may be extenuating circumstances on both ends -- the original source may not be available now (it may have been a consortium of minds, for instance, or an off-planet influence), and the receiver may not be of the same caliber as then. So, while in theory the logic is correct, it may not have practical application in our lives now -- hence the inappropriateness of David's remark.

As for what I hoped to gain through Gurdjieff's work, I would say consciousness, and freedom, that is, will.

You were certain that Gurdjieff’s work could be useful in developing your consciousness – is that correct?

No, I wasn't certain.

brokenhead wrote:

David Quinn wrote:The number 7, The Ray of Creation, The Law of Three - what is this, a New Age fest?

These sorts of New Age cosmologies are a dime a dozen, and express an emotional need to dress up Reality more than it is. I can't believe you guys expect to be taken seriously in this place with such junk.

You are being illogical, DQ. If Reality=the Totality, then by definition it cannot be dressed up and be made to be "more than it is." What could be "more" than the "Totality"?

Reality is "dressed up" when people project their own delusions onto it.

You are simply avoiding the very real fact that the number 7 arises in interesting ways. There are 7 consonant notes to the Western musical scale; 7 levels in classical Linnaean classification; 7 rows to the periodic table of the elements; 7 days to the week; 7 colors to the rainbow which is comprised of a continuum of wavelengths; 7 levels in the ultra-logical OSI model of networking, etc., etc. The number 7 also arises in Theosophy and in Aleister Crowley's Magick, to be sure. But if you are calling the latter two "new age," you are off by about a hundred years. Likewise with Gurdjieff's Heptapara Parshinock: G. was very much a 19th Century man despite some of his his radical forward-looking ideas, mainly in his fiction.

No, you seem quite incurious for a philosopher, David.

This is barely worth responding to.

A similar case can be made for any single digit number. For example:

One: 1 Totality, 1 sun, 1 earth, 1 Pope, 1 US President, 1 periodic table, 1 Western musical scale, etc.

Two: duality, symmetry, pairs, twins, opposites, binary, matter/anti-matter, 2 hands, 2 feet, 2 eyes, 2 halves in a football game, etc.

Three: Holy Trinity, Law of Three, 3 wise men, 3 cheers, 3 legs in a tripod, 3 sides in a triangle, 3 notes in a triad, etc.

And so on.

Choose a number, any number at all, and for just 50 cents, I will make it work for you!

-

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:Carl wrote:

And self reliance is fine, but as someone has already pointed out, there are few among us who would be where we are without the inspiration and guidance of those wise ones who walked before.

How do we know who is wise and who is not? Even if we are told by another that they, or someone other is wise - isn’t it we who ultimately decide?

We can test what is said. And we can decide if a particular path is appropriate for us.

Carl G wrote:David smirked that if one person figured out the truth way back, then it is possible for any man to do it now, therefore Gurdjieff's quote about needing one who knows, is false. I pointed out that there may be extenuating circumstances on both ends -- the original source may not be available now (it may have been a consortium of minds, for instance, or an off-planet influence), and the receiver may not be of the same caliber as then. So, while in theory the logic is correct, it may not have practical application in our lives now -- hence the inappropriateness of David's remark.

The truth is always with us, in the here and now. It hasn't lessened in any way with the onset of time. It is just as available now as it has ever been. To know it, one simply has to open one's eyes and perceive what is already there.

No special information from a second-hand source (a consortium of middlemen!) is required. If that is the kind of thing Gurdjieff talked about, then he was far more deluded than I thought.

-

David Quinn wrote:This is barely worth responding to.

A similar case can be made for any single digit number. For example:

One: 1 Totality, 1 sun, 1 earth, 1 Pope, 1 US President, 1 periodic table, 1 Western musical scale, etc.

Two: duality, symmetry, pairs, twins, opposites, binary, matter/anti-matter, 2 hands, 2 feet, 2 eyes, 2 halves in a football game, etc.

Three: Holy Trinity, Law of Three, 3 wise men, 3 cheers, 3 legs in a tripod, 3 sides in a triangle, 3 notes in a triad, etc.

And so on.

Yet you did respond to it. Almost.

You are impossibly obtuse and argumentative.

You forgot the 3 Stooges.

You cannot possibly be so dense that you fail to realize your lists are arbitrary and mine was not. Well, I guess anything is possible. Three is the reflection of the triune godhead, which leads to 7. There could have been 4 wise men. There are still 7 notes in the diatonic scale. You could have chosen a desk instead of a tripod (4 instead of 3 legs). But the Linnaean classification system would still have 7 levels - I can't choose another one. You could have chosen an octagon instead of a triangle. But the sun's rainbow will still have 7 colors.

Why is this so hard for you to grasp? The numbers 3 and 7 have special significance in Reality that say the number 19 does not.

Saying there is any significance to a triad containing 3 notes is like saying it is significant that a quatrain has 4 lines. You are obfuscating.

I am saying that all the 7's I have mentioned are not coincidences and they are not arbitrary. For instance, I am not including the 7 Dwarves, am I? No. Is the periodic table of the elements arbitrary? I don't think so.

I thought you didn't believe in coincidences, David.

17 - The 7th prime. Sum of first 4 primes. Maximum possible number of symmetry types in 2 dimensions. The number of syllables in a haiku. 7 (the number of spiritual perfection) + 10 (the number of ordinal perfection) = 17 (the number of the perfection of spiritual order) [see ROMANS 8:35-39].

Dave Toast -17 - The 7th prime. Sum of first 4 primes. Maximum possible number of symmetry types in 2 dimensions. The number of syllables in a haiku. 7 (the number of spiritual perfection) + 10 (the number of ordinal perfection) = 17 (the number of the perfection of spiritual order)





-Dave-
[see ROMANS 8:35-39].

-tomas-
Yup, if it's in the King James Bible ... it must be true!!

ps - Ol' king james, ain't he the creep that oversaw a portion of the ongoing witchcraft trials? Not only that, the perp liked having sex with a multitude of very-underage girls. When you "make the law" (ordained and interpreted) by earthly mere-mortal men ... anything goes.



.