Wrong Crystallization, Part I

 

Piermont, NY. Jan 26 2022

"Fusion, inner unity, is obtained by means of 'friction,' by the struggle between 'yes' and 'no' in man. If a man lives without inner struggle, if everything happens in him without opposition, if he goes wherever he is drawn or wherever the wind blows, he will remain such as he is. But if a struggle begins in him, and particularly if there is a definite line in this struggle, then, gradually, permanent traits begin to form themselves, he begins to 'crystallize.' But crystallization is possible on a right foundation and it is possible on a wrong foundation. 'Friction,' the struggle between 'yes' and 'no,' can easily take place on a wrong foundation. For instance, a fanatical belief in some or other idea, or the 'fear of sin,' can evoke a terribly intense struggle between 'yes' and 'no,' and a man may crystallize on these foundations. But this would be a wrong, incomplete crystallization. Such a man will not possess the possibility of further development. In order to make further development possible he must be melted down again, and this can be accomplished only through terrible suffering.

—In Search of the Miraculous, P. 32

Gurdjieff used the term "wrong crystallization" to describe individuals who embark on a spiritual path and reach a point from which they can develop no further.

The term is often seen as being allegorical in one form or another; but he meant it quite literally, because from a technical point of view, seen from the perspective of microbiology, all of the cellular structures and substances that make up our bodies are crystals of one kind or another. That is to say, they’re molecular entities which create solid substances with regular forms and symmetrically arranged atoms. DNA, for example, is a crystal, albeit a very flexible and elaborate one. 

When we deposit substances in our bodies, they create these regular arrangements, and spiritual work that changes the psyche relies on the change in molecular relationships in the body to effect that. (See related material in In Search of the Miraculous). This kind of work, even if it isn't done for spiritual purposes, is remarkably and even—as the book’s notably revised title implies— miraculously complex. All of the thoughts, the ideas, the feelings that form your personality and your essence arise from energetic exchanges initiated by these molecular structures. At the root of this arrangement are quanta, individual packages of energy which manifest their potentials in highly organized manners, according to laws that we only vaguely sense and certainly do not understand.

So this is the way the Microcosmos arranges crystalline structures and behavior; yet we inhabit what is, for them, a Macrocosmos of truly vast size relative to theirs. The fact that we are infinitesimally small creatures in yet another Microcosmos far greater than ourselves is beside the point for now. The question is, what does wrong crystallization mean in terms of the psyche; how can we identify it?

The idea that something can crystallize in a "wrong" way directly implies that there is also a right way. Putting aside specious arguments that there is no right and wrong and that everything is relative — a product of mechanistic rationalism with absolutely no objective value relative to human development and human affairs — anyone who has even partial "right" crystallization knows at once that the right way to crystallize is in such a way as to honor, love, and value one’s fellow human being, the gift of life itself, and God. 

Human beings that do not have this capacity – and there are many who are like this, but secretly hide it and manage to pretend they do by imitating others and following evil, self-serving scripts they have written for themselves — are examples of wrong crystallization, and go against everything that esoteric science and the practice of spiritual development seeks to realize within the world. 

Gurdjieff never used the word with Ouspensky, but the term that he used in Beelzebub’s Tales to His Grandson was xachamyc, phoentically, “hasnamuss.” The word has multiple potential roots in Turkic languages, inferring qualities such as vile or bad (Persian khass), peculiar (Turkmen xac), and naked (Kurdish xac) that are connected to the Kurdish Namus, which means honor or reputation. So those who are wrongly crystallized are “vile people of nakedly dishonorable reputation.“ Yet in exploring the origin of this word, we should remember that Gurdjieff did not necessarily make up all of his special words exclusively from roots in eastern languages. His personal secretary, Louise March, was German, and in German the word mirrors two verb roots from German: hassen, to hate, and müssen, must. They’re joined by the colloquial German conjunctive, “na”, which is a very flexible device meaning, in this case, “there you are,” or, “it’s so.” (Cf. the Duden German-English dictionary.) 

This meaning yields us a person who not only hates, but has no choice. They are crystallized: the results in them can only yield this. 

The chief feature of the one who is crystallized is that, in his or her present state, they’re irredeemable: only by being broken apart, reduced to constituents, and starting all over again can any new results ensue. 

with warm regards,

Lee