Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: E who wrote (24913)	9/15/1998 12:02:00 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

E, I did read one of Ouspensky's books once (a long, long, time ago), and while the vision it contained was pretty bizarre, it was if nothing else notable for its astounding detail. It also contained a huge amount of "proof", in the circuitous (and generally fallacious) manner of the time. I've forgotten most of the contents, but I do recall that he devoted a large number of words to proving conclusively that time does not exist. But if you think he was an oddball, take a look at Gurdjieff. That one was really way off the deep end. Something about that period seems to have encouraged such individuals. I recall reading that Maitreya, who according to some SI posts has apparently been resurrected, was much talked about then. Not sure what he/she/it was supposed to have been, as I devote scant attention to such matters, but I'm a bit disappointed that whoever is pushing him now couldn't come up with something a bit more original. Have you ever noted the similarities between messiahs and BB stocks? Maybe we could put Janice to work on some of them... Steve PS Nice work on the sequels.

To: E who wrote (24913)	9/15/1998 9:46:00 AM
From: Rick Julian	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 108807

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.