E,
Nothing but fair game to post Ouspensky excepts. I am also quite familiar with Gurdjieff's writings.
I agree that many of their ideas seem outlandish, especially without the benefit of the full context in which they appear.What I admire most about their ideas is their boldness--the sheer intellectual bravery they display in their elucidation of a cosmology. Their work is as innovative (particularly Gurdjieff's) as Stravinsky's, or Joyce's, or Coltrane's, or Picasso's -- all whose avant garde works elicited claims of "outlandish", "bizarre", and "unorthodox" when they first appeared, and even now to the uninitiated.
Do they always hit the target? Hardly. Do they occasionally strike gold? Positively. Gurdjieff's sense of the human psyche is occasionally stunning and capable of shifting one's perceptual paradigm. Sometimes he is simply wacky, but the same can be said of many innovators--one doesn't break new ground by playing it safe.
I don't have time now to address the excerpts you referenced, but will respond later. For now, suffice it to say the minimally worded bolded quotes you included were supported by thousands of words which establish the theoretical (and often metaphorical) framework of their thesis.
Rick
p.s. I'm not being an apologist for these men, just want to give them a fair shake. My feelings about them remind me of those I have for Louis Farakkan: while he's widely branded as a rabid racist by the media (and were one to listen to limited excepts from his speeches one could be easily led to this conclusion) I've listened to many of his speeches in their entirity, and I hear his message being much more complex and sensible than his occasionally rancourous rhetoric. |
