65

It's my birthday today. 

I'm 65, assuming I am still alive when this posts. One never knows these days. 

Here's my birthday present to others who work.

Seven kinds of man, instinctive, emotional, intellectual, balanced, I, knowledge, will. — All philosophies refer to man, but to which kind? Therefore no agreement between them. All are right in a limited way.

Gurdjieff, second meeting, December 1921. From notes of the early meetings.

This particular statement from Gurdjieff precisely mirrors the above model of the enneagram, which in turn follows the numerous texts I've written on the subject. 

One of the interesting things about this tidbit is that it provides a specific name for the force that has, until now, only been named “the Absolute.” We already know that the two intervals or “shocks” connected with this diagram are conscious labor and intentional suffering; now we know that at the apex of the triangle, the reconciling factor is will. 

This provides material for an expansive dialogue about the nature of all three of these forces; and it completes the picture of the diagram, as illustrated. 

It also brings into question a new understanding of the relationship between conscious labor and intentional suffering: both are ruled by will. On our level, this can be construed as wish, which explains why it is so important.

The diagram correlates the seven different kinds of man with the forces that the enneagram represents; it’s easy enough to see that they directly correspond, especially in the place of sol — being — where the first three centers are balanced; and in “I,” which represents purification, the point at which spiritual distillation is completed and there is a single I. The correlations at the other points need little or no explanation, and underscore the objective nature of the diagram and the forces it represents. In a certain sense, any created entity can be "man" from this point of view.

The reason that Gurdjieff said “all are right in a limited way” is because each of the kinds of "man" is part of a complete octave which represents man taken in his entirety. 

We're unable to see “man” from that level; but there seems to be little doubt that man forms a single note in an octave above him which we're equally unable to see.

.In the same way, it’s clear enough that there are seven different kinds of instinctive man, seven different kinds of emotional man, and so on. 

Because we know what the forces associated with these types are, it’s possible to see the qualities expressed within each type, or level. 

One of the obvious consequences of this analysis is that each type of man can develop within its own octave at one of seven different levels. 

An emotional man who develops to the note Sol in that octave is clearly more developed than a man who only develops to the note mi. If man number two, emotional man, developed to the level of si, he would represent an extraordinary achievement of a certain kind. 

We can thus understand the crude or outstanding aspects of particular individual, including very exceptional ones, by understanding them in the terms of this diagram.

This is undoubtedly what Gurdjieff meant when he said to Ouspensky, as he did on more than one occasion, that it was possible to look at a man, understand his type and the level he was at, and to know what was possible for him. 

Gurdjieff, as a case in point, told Ouspensky that he had heard about him traveling to the east and performed just that kind of analysis on him with his students; thus, he said, they already knew what Ouspemsky was capable of discovering before he even left.  

In essence, what is above a man’s own level is invisible to him under ordinary circumstances. Emmanuel Swedenborg discussed this in relationship to the levels of heaven, where he explained that angels in the lower heavens are unable to see anything at all in the higher heavens; the same principle applies throughout creation. 

We can't see who is on the level above us; but they can see us, and we can aspire to that level. In his remark in the meeting of January 3, 1922, Gurdjieff said “higher beings can only reach us and help us through higher centers; we must reach upwards.”

***

The rest of this post was, as you can perhaps tell, written some time ago, as is in the case with most posts.

Here's an add-on, written this morning, Oct. 1.

The perennial complaint. 

I undertake a task. I make an appointment with myself. Then I don’t remember to keep it.

There is a part of me that wants to work, but I’m usually not in it. How do I undertake an effort to work with the part of me that loves work? It’s in there; but most of me is not with it.

I'm making my appointments from the wrong part. The part that doesn’t love working, that doesn’t care about it, that can’t or won’t be bothered. 

I live in this part outside my work and look in on the work as though it were some living creature shut in a glass jar. It wants to get out and live in its natural environment, in my life; but I won’t let it. I want it in the bottle, with a cork in it. 

There are sinister implications here.

I need to let my work make the appointments. The part of me that loves work is what needs to be allowed to supervise the work. The rest of me is worthless here.

This takes a kind of intuition that I don’t have in my ordinary self; can I see that?

Go. and sense, and be well.

Lee

Lee van Laer is a Senior Editor at Parabola Magazine.