Greetings everyone. Mr. Patterson will join us in a few moments. He asks that you take a moment to read the following quote:

"We know that 'war,' and 'politics,' and 'economic life'—in a word, all those things about which one reads in the papers, and in which those big two-dimensional creatures called Nations and States live and move and have their being—we know that all this is one thing, but that the life of individual men and women is quite another thing, having no points of contact with the former except when it does not allow the latter to live. We know now that the whole life of individual men and women is a struggle against these big creatures. We are able to understand without difficulty that a Nation is a creature standing on a far lower stage of development than individual men and women; it is about on the level of zoophytes, slowly moving in one direction or the other and consuming one another."
—P. D. Ouspensky, Letters from Russia 1919, pp 2-3

<WPP> Let's begin with Ouspensky's quote. What does it say to us? Anyone?

<BG> It resonated with my perception of these larger entities happily consuming individual lives, which had never occurred to me before.

<BG> He refers to individual men and women. I'm no expert but it seems to me that the essense and the possibility of authentic life is being eaten.

<WPP> Yes, essence and the possibility of life is being extinguished when a person dies--but is a person and an individual the same?

<BG> What you mean by that - please clarify.

<WPP> It seems you are using the word "person" and "individual," as if they have the same meaning, the same value.

<BG> I am, but I'm not asserting anything. Please tell me how they're different and I'll revise my vocabulary.

<WPP> Well, my point is in reading Ouspensky’s quote, isn’t there the unconscious assumption that we are individuals, no?

<GT> There is a different scale between a man as an individual and a government or country.

<WPP> Yes, but are all men and women (Ouspensky does include women) 'individuals'?

<GT> Well, yes. To a certain degree. But there are different forces that a person deals with as an individual versus those that a country has to contend with.

<WPP> An individual, in the sense the Ouspensky uses the term, is awake, no?

<GT> An individual has the opportunity to become awake. At least that's the way I understand it.

<WPP> As we are, we are machines, asleep, with no indivisible I, no free will--isn't that what Gurdjieff declares?

<GT> Yes.

<WPP> So how then can we be individuals? And if we are not, aren't we on the same level as Nations and States?

<WPP> Isn't an individual someone who is not caught in the usual reaction patterns to external and internal impressions?

<GT> If you are an individual or even want to be one, you cannot afford to identify with anything..

<WPP> On a deeper level… isn’t the individual is identified with his/her consciousness/awareness. As an example, look at what Mr. Gurdjieff writes in the beginning of the Third Series.

<GT> That's a rather large book. I'm still working on my second pass through it. Refresh my memory.

<WPP> It's on the first page. He suddenly finds he is not remembering himself.

<Cindy> I had a dream the other night. A voice told me to work on sensation and the word URGENT was used twice.

<WPP> Cindy, how would you work with sensation?

<Cindy> I had not been doing my morning sit. So I began again.

<WPP> What did you do?

<Cindy> I could use some suggestion on this. I sit and sense different parts of my body and then think I and feel my whole.

<WPP> So sensing your body--bringing the attention out of the head brain and redirecting it into the body--activates the instinctive center and brings sensation to a level where the mind can be conscious of it, right?

<Cindy> Yes. Though I’ve never thought of it like that.

<WPP> What is the experience of sensing the body?

<Cindy> Well it feels good. Very good. But I get annoyed by my inablity to land my attention. It seems to float around.

<WPP> Yes, it does feel good. Would you say it gives a sense of depth that wasn't there before?

<Cindy> Yes, depth. And strength. When I try to sense my hands together, my arms and chest jump in and it's much easier.

<WPP> Self-remembering is, and can only be, practical (in all the meanings of that word).

<Cindy> Yes, a fuller sense of myself. Collected. I feel I can to through my day with conscious awareness. Seems like a very easy thing ... until I dream again.

<WPP> Let’s return to the subject of this exchange--Ouspensky's quote. He speaks of Nations and States as what?

<Leontine> Creatures.

<WPP> But what kind of creatures?

<GT> Creatures on a lower level. Zoophytes.

<WPP> What is a zoophyte?

Long period of silence.

<WPP> When we read we should have a dictionary handy. We must know the meaning of the words and the sense in which the author is using those words. It’s also important to "hear" his or her voice.

<Leontine> Invertebrate.

<WPP> Yes, a zoophyte is a spineless creature. So Nations and States have no "spine." Only an individual can have a spine. It used to be called having "backbone." Something that can stand against the moment; that is not swept up in it. Look at what happened with 9/11,

<PDM> Yes, I have noticed a great lack of energy inside since the events of September 11.

<WPP> No work exists outside its time, its historical moment. It is important for me to see what my work is in the context of this time. The "big creature" is active now, in danger of becoming hysterical, no?

<PDM> How can we not feed this creature? Can we stop feeding it?

<WPP> Yes, the moment I remember myself, am remembered, I attract a conscious energy.

<BG> There is this sense of being eaten in the sense of being sucked into worry and my emotional buttons being pushed all the time.

<WPP> In a time of potential mass psychosis--collective identification--must we not work to not be pulled into identifying with the jingoism?

<BG> Yes.

<WPP> You see, if I am not 4 or above--then I am that 'big creature' and what happens to it, happens to me, no?

<PDM> "I" am no longer there when I am watching TV--it is a daily struggle to stay...great depression takes hold.

<WPP> Yes, it literally 'sucks the life,' the attention, out of us. It feeds on us, no?

<BG> Yes, I am definitely caught up in the machinery. I actually got an emotional high from buying stock in October. This makes no sense. I did it partly out of patriotism - "buying into America."

<WPP> Since everyone is a human being, a person, what would it mean to be a "individual"?

<BG> It felt GREAT to go along with some of the jingoism at times.

<WPP> It always feels great. You are the crowd. You are not alone. Again, what would it mean to be an "individual"?

<BG> Some groups say man number 4.

<WPP> Well, we must remember that man number 4 is someone who is working on themselves, who is in the process of becoming balanced and integrated—but is not yet fixed. Whatever one has come to can be lost at any moment. We see this with people who have been in the teaching and then left. Talking ‘esoteric’ heads. In any case, do we see that most people are not individuals?

<BG> So what about man number 1, 2 and 3?

<WPP> The big creatures Ouspensky speaks about—aren’t they composed of man number 1,2 and 3?

<BG> Poetically I would not even place them that high, although their functionaries in the flesh certainly are.

<WPP> Let's forget poetics for the moment. Is man number 1, 2, and 3 the big creature or not?

<BG> The big creature could not manifest without them so I guess so.

<WPP> So only when I begin to work on myself, when I begin to remember and observe, am I in the process of stepping out of my identification with "big creature." Correct?

<BG> Yes, and Gurdjieff gave exercises to each to correct the perceived imbalances he saw in people too.

<WPP> We need to try to stick to the point. Do we see how the mind flares off?

<BG> Yes, and I am a champion at this. Flaring I mean.

<WPP> In the First Series Mr. Gurdjieff speaks about degrees of individuality.

<BG> I have Beelzebub but have not made it through yet.

<WPP> Well, if I am in my head--that is in a thought, a feeling, an impulse--I don't have a body, do I? That is, the body is not in my experience. So, psychologically, I am as the Tibetans say 'a ghost.' Ghosts have no body. No depth. They can have height and width but no depth. Same with Nations, no?

<GT> It's a mechanical reaction between those nations.

<WPP> Well, let’s end on this. If I do not remember myself, I am not. If I am not, I am a two-dimensional being. I am my own Nation and State. And therefore the big creature--the collective Nation and State--can easily influence me. My only certainty and protection is –to work to be.

<BG> Sometimes I can get to a calm place inside. But it doesn't last long. Either something from outside interrupts, or something in me craves re-engagement.

<WPP> I 'step-out' of time, so to speak; step out of the times. One has to see what robs one.

<BG> Part of the robbery comes from inside me.

<WPP> But is it not--in terms of current history--our identification with the 'big creature'? Robbery is robbery. The question is: why is one being robbed? Who and what robs me of my possibility of 'true individuality'?

<BG> I bear part of the blame, but also there is the big creature, other people, it's almost like we conspired to make it so.

<WPP> You bear all of the blame. No one can take your attention. You must agree to squander it. See that.

<BG> Well, yes in that I could stop it if I wanted to and tried hard enough. My fragmented self doesn't always want to.

<WPP> It's like being told--and agreeing--on what to do at a future time. And then doing the opposite. Why would one do this?

<PDM> It's easier.

<WPP> Observe your fragmented self, and, yes, it is always easier to go 'down', than 'up.' It’s always easier to be part of the herd, than make the sacrifices necessary to be an individual.

© Copyright 2001 AreteTelos Society