Snapping out of it
SK on ‘paths’
I am a little leary of getting drawn into this question of what is a path, after attempting to move past the whole question with my two paths, out of time and in time. That means there aren’t really any paths, only existence in time, and cessation.
One gets sucked back in by the gravity of the Gurdjieff confusion. All those loyal and diligent followers, I feel sorry for them. In the name of a path, they lose, it seems, all of them.
If one has any doubts about Gurdjieff and gurus it is better to hightail it out of the whole game. Consider what is said by Ouspensky about absolute obedience, for example. To dally around with doubts about the whole game, sudden doubts the enneagram is anything but concept junk, etc, all these things make you completely at odds with the intent of the enterprise, and vulnerable to all sorts of authoritarian mischief. That’s no laughing matter. I mean it. These people belong to another age altogether and take themselves too seriously and will destroy those who show independent will.
I think the whole Gurdjieff work deserves to be exposed so people can move on. Becoming clones in a reactionary culture project is a sad fate.
Anyway, the question is egregious. We have the jugular vein in hand: the absurd beliefs in the enneagram, the foundation of the whole, apparently. Destroying that makes the hypnotized snap out of it.
Not much more is required.
