Recomendaciones para el proyecto de aplicación profesional

Introduction

The following sections will provide a description of Gurdjieff‘s teachings concerning the human situation. This teaching embodies parallel and closely interconnected psychological and cosmological components.

Taking the psychological dimension first I will focus on Gurdjieff‘s central ideas that ‗man as he is‘ is mechanical and that he is enmeshed in a complex multi-causal situation from which he cannot escape without help from outside. An important corollary of this inherent mechanicalness is that people do not have the conscious attributes that they believe themselves to have. This will be explored in terms of: (i) the key assertion that people do not remember themselves; (ii) their lack of ‗constant selfhood‘ and inner unity; and (iii) Gurdjieff‘s assertion that ―man cannot do.‖ These ideas are then shown to be embodied in Gurdjieff‘s depiction of people ‗as the exact reverse‘ of what they should be; and Gurdjieff‘s conclusion that people cannot be held responsible for their situation because they cannot do anything about it is introduced.

I then move on to discussions of Gurdjieff‘s idea of ―centres‖ and his ‗essence versus personality distinction.‘ At an individual level, the human ‗bondage to mechanicalness‘ is explored in terms of the imbalance and mutual dysfunctionality of the inner ―centres‖; and it is shown that, from Gurdjieff‘s point of view, people with biases towards physical, emotional or intellectual activity are, fundamentally, in identical situations. Gurdjieff‘s term ―essence‖ is introduced as defining that which is

real in the human; and an exploration of the way in which the ‗seed of essence‘ can grow into the ‗flower of man as he can become‘ also introduces the idea of developing higher bodies. Essence is contrasted with ―negative personality‖ which signifies identification with that which is unreal in the human and from which nothing real can grow. The ideas of essence growth and the creation of higher bodies are further expanded in terms of Gurdjieff‘s description of the human being as an

‗alchemical factory.‘ I examine the distinction between the factory‘s curtailed functioning in mechanical people – which is equivalent to that of animal life – and the functioning that can give rise to inner evolution. This will lead to a more philosophical discussion of how it is possible, in Gurdjieff‘s system, that the ―man machine‖ can cease to be a machine, and raises the important doctrinal issue of the need for help.

Lastly, the psychological discussion turns to Gurdjieff‘s concept of ―buffers‖ – psychological devises designed to prevent contact with essence and to maintain identification (with negative personality) – and his idea of an ‗hypnotic force‘ in the human that keeps it in an identified state. Consideration of these ideas will lead directly into the cosmological material.

Considering the cosmological scenario set out in Beelzebub we find a degree of ambiguity: on one hand, man, as a ―three brained being,‖ has definite cosmic possibilities and duties which he has an obligation to fulfil (cf. the ―being obligolnian strivings‖); on the other he is suffering from a dysfunctionality for which he cannot be held responsible. The latter view is explained in terms of Gurdjieff‘s ‗cosmic myth‘ in which, for reasons that were not its fault, prehistoric humanity was forced to serve a lower order of creation (the ―moon‖) and had an ‗organ‘ (―kundabuffer‖) placed in it to prevent it from seeing this cosmically aberrant situation. This ‗organ‘

was later removed. However, humanity subsequently found its way back to this lower mode of existence because of the habitual residue of its earlier behaviour being transmitted by means of a ‗Lamarckian‘ hereditary process. The habit of servitude has since become deeply engrained. A consideration of the cosmological account given in ISOM serves to amplify the above ambiguity.

In ISOM the collective sleep of mankind in ‗enslavement to the moon‘ is presented as an entirely normal and lawful occurrence for the involutionary structure of creation. In this version, liberation is only cosmically feasible or desirable for a tiny minority. It is argued that this converges with Beelzebub‘s description of the practical situation as it has become, but seems to contradict Beelzebub‘s message that the whole of humanity could change.

I then consider the question of which account deserves priority. It is concluded that, because it is not possible to be certain about the reason for the difference, it is necessary to accept that the Gurdjieff teaching embodies this ambiguity. The consequences of this are briefly explored.

Finally, I turn to Gurdjieff‘s allegory of the ―two rivers‖. These represent the

‗evolutionary direction‘ of conscious people and the ‗involutionary direction‘ of mechanical people. Consideration of this allegory will allow us to focus the cosmological material on the situation of individual development; it will also help to clarify the relationship between the cosmological and psychological perspectives.

Gurdjieff‘s ideas about the role of inherited and environmental influences are discussed in relation to the idea of essence and the different possibilities individual people have of actualizing the specifically human possibilities. – According to Gurdjieff, normal development through childhood is rare and becoming rarer for reasons of hereditary degeneration and maleficent educational influence. – His

criterion for a ‗non-aberrant attainment of adulthood‘ is discussed. Lastly consideration of the ―two rivers‖ allegory provides a new focus for the question of how mechanical people can become conscious. This perspective provides insight on Gurdjieff‘s views concerning the possibility and difficulty of a person achieving such a transition.

Psycho-Cosmological „fragments‟.

Before introducing the psychological and cosmological material it will be useful to discuss the status of the ideas in terms of the original context of their presentation and the extent to which they can be deemed to be systematizable.

The idea of the importance, in the Gurdjieff teaching, of the parallel study of man and the world has already been introduced (see Chapter Two). The psychological schemes – i.e., the study of man – and the cosmological schemes – the study of the world – are closely integrated with each other. In addition to the reasons described in Chapter Two, this may be seen as being of necessity for the reason that people cannot understand their condition and its possibilities without reference to the nature of the world or worlds in which they have their being: thus, the psychological ideas must be connected to cosmological ones at every point. The resultant discipline has been termed ―psycho-cosmology.‖ Clearly, for the serious follower of the Gurdjieff way these matters are a practical concern. As Anthony Hodgson puts it:

...cosmology (or more fully psycho-cosmology) is ultimately a map of who we are, where we are, what our predicament is and what we can expect to go through if we are going to get out of that predicament.¹²

The psycho-cosmological doctrines are seen as being of a radically different order to mere speculative metaphysics. Whereas the latter would be seen as

originating in the ordinary mind of undeveloped people, the former may be seen as coming from the ―Objective Reason‖ of an ―Inner Circle of Humanity.‖¹³ Presumably, these different schemes cohere as part of a whole which is apparent from a state of ―Objective Consciousness‖; but they do not necessarily do so from below.

Ouspensky reports Gurdjieff as saying (to his St. Petersburg group, c.1916):

Schools teach fragments¹⁴... ―Do you think that anything is given in a complete form in schools [it is not]?‖¹⁵

And in 1923 he told students at his Institute for the Harmonious Development of Man:

All this teaching given in fragments must be pieced together, and observations and actions must be connected to it. If there is no paste, nothing will stick.¹⁶

The ―paste‖ of which he spoke can only be generated by efforts at self-development guided by the ―fragments‖ which the teacher has deemed it useful to provide; the understanding that is offered can only be made one‘s own by means of an effort involving the whole being. This is not to say that the different schemes and diagrams are, from the point of view of ordinary consciousness, totally disparate. In Chapter Five I will argue that a relatively coherent model of the levels of ‗man‘s possible evolution‘ and their characteristics is possible if the attempt to produce a ‗grand design‘ is avoided; (because such attempts tend to result in unresolvable structural inconsistencies). Rather, the approach which must be adopted is one in which the different schemes are used to amplify and illuminate one another.

The Psychological Perspectives.

Man is not as he believes himself to be.

Fundamental to Gurdjieff‘s teachings is a strong critique of ‗man as he is‘ as compared to ‗man as he should be‘; and basic to this critique is the assertion that man does not have the attributes of consciousness, a constant self, a will or a soul which he believes himself to have. On the contrary, he is mechanical.¹⁷ Although it is possible for people to cease being mechanical and to gain the attributes that they mistakenly believes themselves already to have, Gurdjieff‘s analysis shows that it is extremely difficult for them to disentangle themselves from the web of multi-causality in which they are ensnared.

Gurdjieff makes no compromise about his assertion of humanity‘s mechanicalness: even the things that are conventionally thought of as the highest cultural products – both artistic and intellectual¹⁸ – are for Gurdjieff conceived, like all the other manifestations of ordinary man, as being produced by mechanical, and basically random, associations.¹⁹ People, says Gurdjieff, hold the tacit, and if challenged explicit, beliefs that they are conscious, that they possess a constant selfhood, that they can act intentionally and in some cases that they are in possession of an immortal soul.²⁰ He challenges these beliefs relentlessly, the first three on empirical bases and the fourth more doctrinally.

Gurdjieff‘s primary psychological assertion is that ―we do not remember ourselves.‖²¹ This is because we are absorbed in or identified with what we are doing, or, more precisely, what is happening to us.²² We are asleep, in a state of ‗waking dreaming‘ and we pass through our lives only partially aware of our existence.²³

Why, then, do people believe that they have self consciousness, an inner constancy and the capacity for self directed action if it is not so? If Gurdjieff‘s proposition that the ordinary person exists in a state of identification, sleep and dreaming is accepted, then it must follow that a person‘s beliefs in his or her consciousness and autonomy are themselves features of the dream state – i.e., illusions. This explanation is the pith of Gurdjieff‘s position; as a philosophical proposition it appears circular and hence unverifiable. However, Gurdjieff is not putting forward a philosophy: his analysis of the human situation is primarily psychological. Several of the major features of this psychological explanation of the human state of mechanicalness and sleep will be explored below. In the present context it is sufficient to give a brief explanation of how the illusion of a conscious and constant selfhood is deemed to be generated. Gurdjieff speaks of a part of the human ―intellectual centre‖ (the doctrine of ―centres‖ receives detailed attention below) which he calls the ―formatory apparatus‖. This is meant, even in the evolved human being, to function mechanically as a coordinating centre or clearing house for sense impulses, feelings and thoughts. It is this function which gives the illusion of constancy and consciousness: it gives an erroneous impression of ―I‖ and intentionality to whatever impulses it is coordinating at any given moment. Gurdjieff states that this function usurps the position of the ―Real I‖ which is absent in the ordinary person.²⁴ Moreover, the fact that people will not seriously seek to achieve attributes which they already believe themselves to have contributes to the perpetuation of the situation.²⁵ It is Gurdjieff‘s view that the momentum of this state of mechanicalness is so great that even when, on occasions, people do awaken they are immediately drawn back into the sleep state; often in such situations the person then ‗dreams of wakefulness‘.²⁶

True ―self remembering‖ can only be consistently experienced as a result of persistent inner ―work on oneself‖. Gurdjieff prescribes that people can become convinced of their inability to remember themselves – that is to say, to remain fully conscious of their own presence in conjunction with ordinary activity – by setting themselves the task of attempting to do so over a specific period of time. At the outset they succeed, but after a short period, especially if any additional activity is attempted, they forget, only to ‗re-awaken‘ at some later point. (Ouspensky provides a telling account of his own performance of this experiment in ISOM.²⁷) As I will describe below, this effort, while inevitably unsuccessful at the beginning, plays a crucial role in the developmental process which goes beyond the initial recognition of one‘s own true state.

Such a recognition of lack of selfhood and of the capacity to remain conscious would, of itself, serve as a shock to the habitual status quo. It is from such a recognition of the true state, as opposed to an imagined one, that real ―work on oneself‖ can commence. However, if this is to have the possibility of leading anywhere then the person requires detailed knowledge of the mechanisms by which the habitual state is maintained. It is to the various ‗maps‘ of the human situation which Gurdjieff provides that I now turn.

Gurdjieff describes the human being‘s inner inconstancy in terms of a collection of semi-autonomous sub-personalities each one awaiting the particular set of external stimuli which will evoke it so that it can be ―king for a five minutes‖²⁸.²⁹ Why then are people not aware that this is how they are constituted? Firstly, people in the ordinary state have no point of objective reference within them from which they could see this – they are simply subject to it. And secondly, the illusion of constancy is strongly sustained by the role of the ―formatory apparatus.‖ As described above, this

is merely an automatic coordinating function, analogous to that of an automatic switch board. The illusion of ―I‖ which it gives can now be understood as referring to whichever sub-personality (themselves particular patterns of reactions to the stimuli of thought, feeling and sense data) is connected at the given moment.³⁰ Thus there is always ‗I‘ even though the ‗self‘ to which it refers is continually different. He says:

Man has no permanent and unchangeable I. Every thought, every mood, every desire, every sensation, says ‗I.‘ And in each case it seems to be taken for granted that this I belongs to the Whole, to the whole man, and that a thought, a desire, or an aversion is expressed by this Whole. In actual fact there is no foundation whatever for this assumption. Man‘s every thought and desire appears and lives quite separately and independently of the Whole.³¹

(Further aspects of the process by which people remain identified with their illusory world will be introduced below). Again, Gurdjieff holds that if we take the trouble to observe ourselves honestly we can find clear behavioural evidence of this inner inconstancy. In an early lecture Gurdjieff gave a fictitious account of a day in the life of a ‗typical person‘ from the point of view of the different sub-personalities that are successively activated, illustrating the unnoticed incessant transition from one mechanically induced state to the next. He concludes with the strong implication that, in this sketch, we should recognize ourselves.³²

If man lacks any inner constancy, then his supposed ―will‖ and ―ability to do‖

are easily disposed of. How can there be any intentional achievement, or, indeed, any real intentionality in such a plural and unstable being? ―Will‖ and ―intentionality‖

fall with consciousness and selfhood. Gurdjieff emphasizes that one ‗I‘ can decide on a course of action, but that those that follow it do not necessarily recognize the validity of the decision and have no reason to continue the course (but may, nevertheless, have to deal with unwanted consequences).³³ Even actions that are not subsequently countermanded by another ‗I‘ are said to have little chance of success

because, according to Gurdjieff‘s ―law of octaves‖³⁴ a complete process requires, in addition to its initiatory impulse, additional shocks to be administered at crucial points to keep it on course. In the absence of such shocks, an intention can be converted into its opposite over the course of time. However, such are people‘s inconstancy and capacity to delude themselves that they frequently believe such antithetical outcomes to be precisely the things which they originally intended. Gurdjieff gives the example, on a collective scale, of the transformation of the love taught in the Gospels into the Inquisition of mediaeval Christianity.³⁵

Gurdjieff depicts man as he is as a parody of man as he can become. In fact, human functioning is presented as the exact reverse of what it should be; but people take this parody for the real thing. What should occur is that the individualized will governs the intellect which in turn guides the emotions which supply motivational impetus to the physical body. The physical body, being a machine, obeys its instructions. What does occur is that the physical body receives ‗accidental shocks‘

from the environment (sensory stimuli) which trigger emotional reactions according to past programming; these emotional reactions give rise to ‗thoughts‘ each of which says ―I‖, thereby masquerading as the will.³⁶ Gurdjieff compares the situation to that of a carriage which should be owned by a ―master‖ who decides where it will go and for what reason. However, in the absence of a master with the authority to properly direct the functioning of the carriage, it has become a dilapidated ‗taxi‘³⁷, with the driver picking up anyone who hails him.³⁸ The contrasting situations are depicted in a pair of diagrams in ISOM³⁹ which are reproduced below:

[Man as he is] held responsible – either collectively or individually – for his actions; nor can he be expected to maintain a genuine ethical standpoint.⁴⁰ For this reason, Gurdjieff is uncompromising in his view that no belief system – however well intentioned – can alter the human situation. All good intentions will rapidly be lost, or even turn into their opposites. All mankind‘s experience simply happens to him, and while he remains inwardly mechanical he can do nothing to change this.⁴¹

Centres.

A further analysis of the human condition is given by Gurdjieff in his doctrine of

―centres‖. He speaks of a total of seven centres. These are divided into three main categories:

(i) The ―moving centre,‖ the ―emotional centre‖ and the ―intellectual, or thinking, centre.‖ These three centres are ‗blank‘ at birth, but are ‗programmed‘ by

environmental influences during the formative years (prior to adulthood). These centres are the perceptual tools through which a person interacts with the environment.⁴²

(ii) The ―instinctive centre‖ and the ―sex centre.‖ These two centres exist fully formed in people from birth. The former may be thought of as equivalent to the

(ii) The ―instinctive centre‖ and the ―sex centre.‖ These two centres exist fully formed in people from birth. The former may be thought of as equivalent to the