quote:
"We know Gurdjieff did not discount the concept of sin. His aphorism reads:When you know it is wrong and do it anyway, you commit a sin difficult to redress. "
from:
http://zenyogagurdjieff.blogspot.de
it needs to listen to one's own inner silent voice...better.
Monday, January 5, 2015
interesting way of seeing essence, personality and the role of consciousness
quote:
"Extracting one kind of information, it turns out, lessens our ability to extract other kinds. This is a fact; or, if you will, a law.
It occurred to me, when reading the paper this morning, that Being and consciousness, as a manifested portion of reality, must be subject to this law.
This leads us to some interesting thoughts about the question. One can conceive of essence as being a particle; this is the "I am" of the quantum world, the point at which one knows one's location, one knows who one is. Following the law, the more one knows who one is, the less one would know where one is in terms of movement, motion, trajectory. These three qualities correspond, more or less, to one's outward nature, or personality.
When we are deeply invested in personality, as we all are, the information of our essence, who we are, remains encrypted to us, and the further we move into personality, the more we learn about it, the less we know about essence.
The paradox arises when we attempt to learn about essence; at which point, we may master our inner being, but as we do so, consistently sacrifice information about our personality, which then also becomes encrypted to us.
Gurdjieff, we may note, taught his pupils to master both entities; that is, to balance essence and personality, and inhabit the two of them simultaneously. This is necessary, in order for the Reality of Being to manifest; one must be invested in both of the wave of one's life, one's living, and the particle of one's "I", one's Being.
Yet the one apparently excludes the other; and apparently, there is a fundamental law that creates the tension between the two, which must be resolved through a unique and inexplicable mechanism — that mechanism we refer to as consciousness."
from:
http://zenyogagurdjieff.blogspot.de
"Extracting one kind of information, it turns out, lessens our ability to extract other kinds. This is a fact; or, if you will, a law.
It occurred to me, when reading the paper this morning, that Being and consciousness, as a manifested portion of reality, must be subject to this law.
This leads us to some interesting thoughts about the question. One can conceive of essence as being a particle; this is the "I am" of the quantum world, the point at which one knows one's location, one knows who one is. Following the law, the more one knows who one is, the less one would know where one is in terms of movement, motion, trajectory. These three qualities correspond, more or less, to one's outward nature, or personality.
When we are deeply invested in personality, as we all are, the information of our essence, who we are, remains encrypted to us, and the further we move into personality, the more we learn about it, the less we know about essence.
The paradox arises when we attempt to learn about essence; at which point, we may master our inner being, but as we do so, consistently sacrifice information about our personality, which then also becomes encrypted to us.
Gurdjieff, we may note, taught his pupils to master both entities; that is, to balance essence and personality, and inhabit the two of them simultaneously. This is necessary, in order for the Reality of Being to manifest; one must be invested in both of the wave of one's life, one's living, and the particle of one's "I", one's Being.
Yet the one apparently excludes the other; and apparently, there is a fundamental law that creates the tension between the two, which must be resolved through a unique and inexplicable mechanism — that mechanism we refer to as consciousness."
from:
http://zenyogagurdjieff.blogspot.de
what is a double bind situation...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind
"A double bind is an emotionally distressing dilemma in communication in which an individual (or group) receives two or more conflicting messages, and one message negates the other. This creates a situation in which a successful response to one message results in a failed response to the other (and vice versa), so that the person will automatically be wrong regardless of response. The double bind occurs when the person cannot confront the inherent dilemma, and therefore can neither resolve it nor opt out of the situation."
well, i know, this is for sure..
it is not ALL enlightening...
this wiki link is not too bad.
really not.
Apart from Bateson, R.D. Laing is one of those who did a lot of questioning on this subject, so did Cooper.
But ,alas, it is daily bread for all of us to chew on and my best way to confront it so far has always been to run away.
another way may be to just fcn ignore it.
as soon as desire is involved, it will be always difficult to ignore.
most persons will fall back in childhood patterns of behaviour,
and it is hard to find a way out.
further communication in any double-bind situation will most times only result
in staying even deeper in a net which can but cloud the perception of truth and
will prevent all free flow in life.
it will disturb love and kill all.
seeing through it though one can just get tired of it,
choose and go away, bearing the loss but free.
it happens all the time, doesn't it?
and it is not a question of who is guilty but of how to stop it.
how to communicate....
or to stop "communicating".
"A double bind is an emotionally distressing dilemma in communication in which an individual (or group) receives two or more conflicting messages, and one message negates the other. This creates a situation in which a successful response to one message results in a failed response to the other (and vice versa), so that the person will automatically be wrong regardless of response. The double bind occurs when the person cannot confront the inherent dilemma, and therefore can neither resolve it nor opt out of the situation."
well, i know, this is for sure..
it is not ALL enlightening...
this wiki link is not too bad.
really not.
Apart from Bateson, R.D. Laing is one of those who did a lot of questioning on this subject, so did Cooper.
But ,alas, it is daily bread for all of us to chew on and my best way to confront it so far has always been to run away.
another way may be to just fcn ignore it.
as soon as desire is involved, it will be always difficult to ignore.
most persons will fall back in childhood patterns of behaviour,
and it is hard to find a way out.
further communication in any double-bind situation will most times only result
in staying even deeper in a net which can but cloud the perception of truth and
will prevent all free flow in life.
it will disturb love and kill all.
seeing through it though one can just get tired of it,
choose and go away, bearing the loss but free.
it happens all the time, doesn't it?
and it is not a question of who is guilty but of how to stop it.
how to communicate....
or to stop "communicating".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)