Iteration of Form and Action of Being

L'Abbaye Fontevraud

Photograph by the author

August 4

As a result of a conversation I had this morning, I was left considering the difference between discussion of inner work and of the action itself.

 There was a long discussion about the food factory and the enneagram, and all the different ideas Gurdjieff provided to Ouspensky. It expanded to include the concept of other forms, the need for a precise language in order to discuss them, and so on. Whenever you turn to this space to read my diary, you are receiving the same kind of information, which flows in to our intellectual intelligence. There is simply no other way for information of this kind to arrive; and arguments about its vitality or lack thereof are specious. Clearly, it's vital enough; without it, no consideration of form could be undertaken.

Yet we get very attached to form; and we're stuck, broadly speaking, in one of two modes. 

In the one mode we're completely identified with form and prattle on about it in this way and in that; and in the other, we don shaman’s cloaks and wave our hands about in the air with special gestures speaking loftily about the mystery of everything and how nothing can be known. 

In the end, both of them seem to me to miss the mark: there's a need to investigate with intelligence, and a need to understand in a way other than that, which does not use that part. They're equally vital; yet they end up pitched against one another as though they were mutually exclusive. 

 The center of gravity in the discussion I had this morning was about the question of how an idea becomes alive within me using the faculties and capacities of parts other than the thinking mind. The action of Being, when grounded in an inward gravity and the sensation of Being itself, has a more objective value than the iteration of form. This doesn't make the iteration of form superfluous; yet it orders it in a hierarchy where the action of Being takes precedent. 

 How to put this? 

If Being acts inwardly before form is iterated outwardly, then form is iterated on a solid foundation based on truth. 

If form is iterated before Being is activated, it may get things right — if one is lucky. 

But this is a shooting gallery, because the iteration of form, if not based in the action of Being, always contains a subjective element that without the action of Being is difficult or even impossible to identify. Being knows truth much better than form does; and so if form comes first, one always finds oneself at the mercy of subjectivity.

If my understanding of form begins before I assume any form, then when form is assumed, it acquires a durable validity. And I need this durable validity of form, because the vagaries and erratic circumstances of life itself are fundamentally confusing and, no matter how strong I think I am, will always at one time or another have their way with me. 

If the form I assume arises through the action of Being, it will be reliable enough to serve as a compass during these times. 

If it arises on its own through outside influences — the iteration of form as invented by others — then it will not be strong enough to serve me; or, if it is, it will be aberrant in some way or another and lead me in the wrong direction.

Wishing the best for you on this day,

Lee

Lee van Laer is a Senior Editor at Parabola Magazine.