Objective and subjective knowledge

The meeting started by reading from Chapter 14 of Ouspensky’s book "In Search of the Miraculous", in which Gurdjieff discusses the "enneagram". At the beginning he talks about "the difficulty of conveying 'objective truths' in our words".

"R" said that areas which are theoretical can take one away from the real work. L suggested that practical examples should be discussed at all points.

RM referred to the three gunas: sattvic, rajasic and tamasic, and their definitions. They depict the active constructive force (rajasic) in relation to the destructive and stalling, sluggish force (tamasic) of a desire to sleep, and the work required on oneself in order to reach the point of balance in stillness (sattvic) in an alert, awake state.

M gave a definition of the third force, stating that the force of action and its opposing force are in such balance that ordinarily nothing would change or happen, and that the third force is the application of greater will power to overcome the resistance. L thought that even then the perception that things had changed might still be an illusion, and that the third force is often an apparently unrelated event that brings change. RM said that this often comes about through the experience of pain.

Preparing the ground for discussing the enneagram, Gurdjieff said "The successive transmission of the ideas of objective knowledge has always been a part of the task of those possessing this knowledge. ... The forms which express this knowledge when perceived by subjective consciousness are inevitably distorted ... man cannot reconstruct the idea of the whole starting from separate facts and they cannot divine the principles of the division of the whole without knowing the laws upon which this division is based."

(Read more on this from the book itself. An electronic version of this book is available from the link on the right.)

RM talked of how symbolism was at the essence of vedantic philosphy, which had a symbolic mathematics at the heart of it. L said that his studies of the use of the Fibonacci series in music led to finding its origins in Pingala's work on Sanskrit prosody of over two thousand years ago.

RM spoke of the Chinese philosopher Zhuangzi, who dreamt he was a butterfly, and on awakening did not "know whether I was then a man dreaming I was a butterfly, or whether I am now a butterfly, dreaming I am a man."

L suggested the metaphor of a chess game to illustrate third force and the dream-like nature of life, quoting Nimzovich in his book "My System": "It may seem strange, but to me the chess pieces have living souls; they have wishes and desires, slumbering in their subconscious, to be understood only by me. They want something without understanding why. I don't understand either, but I know what they want."

RM spoke of the difficulty in reconciling the ideas of vedantic philosophy which focuses on the dissolution of ego, and the perspective of the Gurdjieff work which focuses on the evolution of an authentic identity through the growth of a person's essence. RM said that the ideas of Nisargadatta have been frequently quoted in his studies.

Gurdjieff's definitions of Man Numbers 1 to 7 were discussed (as described in Ouspensky's Book, "The Psychology of Man's Possible Evolution").

RM thought that Jesus Christ was Man Number 7. D said that Gurdjieff considered himself Man Number 5.

The meeting moved on to the matter of what "identity" means.

RM spoke of unity as the point of becoming one with the world and the point of not knowing who one is, where "one" ends and where "the world" begins.

D described how one needs to hold onto one's identity because of the danger of disintegration of the mind without some anchor in identity. He described someone at present whom he thinks is losing his mind. RM spoke about the danger of feeling suicidal at the point of realisation that there is no subjective "I"; if there is no understanding at this point that there is an objective "I", then there is a real danger of returning to mechanical sleep (tamasic), or of killing oneself (rajasic).

RM talked of "Truth" being the same in every religion and spiritual path. This "truth" was 'objective'. The definition of subjective and objective were then discussed.

Des told the story of the guru who, on being asked "Is man in this world to honour the flower?", replied "Is the flower in this world to honour man?"

L said it is more important to encourage the asking of questions than to give people answers.

D commented that Ouspensky, near the end of his life, said that all the teaching was rubbish and he hadn't learned anything.

Gurdjieff's analysis and definition of the words that he used in his system were discussed. Words mean different things to different people and trying to speak about something requires careful definition - even then it is not possible to communicate deep knowledge in words alone; for this symbols are important.

L spoke of challenges of communication between Bushman and Europeans, and how it can be eased via intermediaries who have some knowledge of both cultures and languages and can act as a bridge.

"R" gave an example of how true symbolism is very rare in art. She described how she has experienced a few paintings in her life that have spoken to her on many levels - these rare paintings provide a symbol through image. A powerful painting is so because it resonates with meaning on a symbolic level with the viewer and achieves a real non-verbal communication from the painter to the viewer.

T said that engagement in creative activity helps with the capacity for paying attention. It is in the paying of attention to what one is trying to do that links one with oneself and the world. Attention is the link between inner and outer worlds.

"R" agreed that attention is key.