‘Foundation’ types and the ‘path’ /2008/09/08/foundation-types-and-the-path/

‘Foundation’ types and the ‘path’

SK’s comment on ‘paths’
Some good points. The Ouspensky stream has served the purpose for which it was intended: create a cultural beachhead to serve the purposes of Gurdjieff. But does the result lead anywhere for the people involved in it, granting that the ‘Foundation’ groups are no real harm to anyone?

I have a feeling such people are simply left in neutral gear to be props in a larger skullduggery. Noone quite connects the outer form of the ‘work’ with its concealed reactionary intent, and its long-range anti-democratic seeding of ‘ultra-conservative’ culture. One of the ironies here is that if you deceive a spectrum of liberals to serve your aims behind a disguise, their lack of real information drives them to shift the center of gravity to something that wasn’t intended. The few in the know are too afraid of losing their momentum to declare, let alone try to enforce the real agenda, about which we are left to speculate.
The concealed resemblance to Traditionalism is striking: against the modern world.

I think that in any case the techniques given out by Gurdjieff via Ouspensky are so disorganized as to be of very little use in practice. Nothing ever appears to back up or develop the seed ideas presented (e.g. self-remembering) and the rote repetition of the same old ‘work mantras’ chugs along in automatic. That’s a sign that nothing is intended for this mass of people.

As far as ‘essence’ is concerned, your concerns are valid, and the truth is worse. I remember being warned by a ‘sufi’ to be wary of people talking of realizing your essence. MacDonald’s hamburger time can’t be far behind.
So the people in the ‘work’ are just barn yard cattle for a hidden elite with an unlimited pool of naifs.
The amount of time spent going in circles could have been more profitably spent on something that actually works and has a tradition, like meditation.
In general, a concealed ‘agreement’ to the terms of someone else’s game lurks in the formulation of Ouspensky. That seldom quite enters the awareness of followers.
Declare yourself done with it, and make sure the rules of the game involve your freedom and autonomy.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s