Gurdjieff, Ouspensky, Bennett

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

tell me about them, if you know about them

― kyle (akmonday), Friday, 2 February 2007 23:59 (eighteen years ago)

My ex-gf's grandfather met Gurdjieff.

― M. White (Miguelito), Saturday, 3 February 2007 00:02 (eighteen years ago)

i am interested in this stuff but it is all so daunting and seems to assume more background knowledge of other things than I have

― kyle (akmonday), Saturday, 3 February 2007 00:06 (eighteen years ago)

I have a sister-in-law who is a Gurdjieffian. Once we watched her and some others do the Gurdjieff-dancing-thing. She is a very nice person, but not very talkative about her spiritual beliefs.

― Aimless (Aimless), Saturday, 3 February 2007 01:42 (eighteen years ago)

I keep threatening to get this. I've been deeply interested in Robert Fripp (the thinker, the teacher, not so much the musician) for years, so a little interest in Gurdjieff and Bennett have rubbed off.

― Tuesdays With Morimoto (Rock Hardy), Saturday, 3 February 2007 02:24 (eighteen years ago)

I think Fripp's Exposure was one of the first places I came across this as well; but what intrigues me now is how obscure it all is, and how so much of it seems to go uncriticised. I'm intrigued by reports that Bennett worked with Catholic monks and presented his concepts to the Vatican as well.

― kyle (akmonday), Saturday, 3 February 2007 03:54 (eighteen years ago)

Gurdjieffian types are pretty secretive about their beliefs, although I had a wonderful conversation with Martin Bramah of the Fall / Blue Orchids about it once (the first two Blue Orchids 7"s and their first album are essentially lengthy paraphrasings of Gurdjieffian ideas) - largely because I'd already plowed through Russian samizdat copies of the "Beezelbub" triology, which was no picnic.

The point of it (to a large extent) is to seem daunting and unknowable, of course. If it ended up making sense you would have missed the point - the central idea being that one cannot awaken without huge effort, exertion and work. Ouspensky is much more 'readable' but something gets lost in the simplification. Gurdjieff is probably tougher to read than ever in that so many of his political / historical / geographical references are much more obscure these days - not that it was ever as plain as day.

― Dee Xtrovert (dee dee), Saturday, 3 February 2007 04:53 (eighteen years ago)

I've flipped through that Beelzebub book in the shop a few times and it looks pretty formidable, though my friend's New Age buff massage therapist mom seems to think I'd dig him.

― Marmot (marmotwolof), Saturday, 3 February 2007 05:26 (eighteen years ago)

Great mustache, in any case:
http://www.gurdjieff-italia.org/gurdjieff.jpg

― Marmot (marmotwolof), Saturday, 3 February 2007 06:49 (eighteen years ago)

i want to know more about the body movement work

― pinkmoose (jacklove), Saturday, 3 February 2007 08:04 (eighteen years ago)

Having read several works by Gurdjieff (many moons ago) the lingering impression I retain is that he walked a deliberately wavering line between being a true savant and being a liar, an imp and a charlatan. He left the sorting out of which was which as an exercise for the reader. Depending on your own personality, this might make him magnetically attractive and fascinating, or repellant and repugnant.

― Aimless (Aimless), Saturday, 3 February 2007 17:55 (eighteen years ago)

My opinion of Fripp veers between those two extremes.

― Tuesdays With Morimoto (Rock Hardy), Saturday, 3 February 2007 17:58 (eighteen years ago)

I am leery of this approach, myself.

I can see how it can be justified as forcing the seeker not to rely upon the guru as a lame person leans on a crutch. The idea being that the seeker is not a lame person and must learn this truth before they can walk in the right way.

OTOH, it muddies the waters. One is forced to consider the thought that the guru does not know the difference between his lies and his truth or that he is making the seeker into a plaything for his own amusement. If this is so, the relation between him and the seeker can never be correct and the best lesson the seeker can learn is to reject the teaching.

― Aimless (Aimless), Saturday, 3 February 2007 19:13 (eighteen years ago)

I read a book called "The Unknowable Gurdjieff" by Margaret Anderson, which is a first-person account by someone who was a follower of Gurdjieff and a member of his circle in France - she found him essentially a cipher, as her title indicates, but it's an interesting take on the psychology of the disciple-guru relationship.

― o. nate (onate), Sunday, 4 February 2007 00:46 (eighteen years ago)

I keep imagining it is JIMMY BENNETT who is going to be hanging out with Gurdijieff. "Fuck you and your faux Eastern Philosophy, you prick" he would say. I wouldn't say that.

― Fatal Deviation (dirtyvicar), Thursday, 8 February 2007 17:50 (eighteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.