The Bourne Identity (link still works)
I finally got around to seeing the film The Bourne Identity after a curious experience of twice seeing the opening on late night TV as I was falling asleep.
It tweaked my curiosity, for a reason that at first escaped me. I never read thrillers, or go to see movies of such, but this film, or its opening seemed to have a remarkable symbolism.
This was confirmed by the film as a whole. On the surface the title, the ‘Bourne’ (born!) identity, and the opening with a near death experience at sea are good examples of the writer’s unconscious symbolism associations at work. Such things are very frequent in writers, but in this case the arrangement of pieces is remarkable (whatever one thinks of the Hollywood aspects)
Further the film is unusual in being a testament to the revolt against identity created by a social framework, and includes the attempt to remember the past identity involved.
I suddenly realized the unconscious attraction in me: the resemblance to the case of Ouspensky, or his reincarnation, a man who is trying to escape a previous identity in an ‘esoteric’ (‘intelligence agency’) after refusing a criminal mission.
More on this another time, but many have failed to see the ambiguity of Ouspensky, and the way he turned against the ‘company’.
//This is not a case of sufi tampering we have discussed, but an interpretative whimsy…the scriptwriter stumbled on a remarkable ‘who am I’ contemplative archetype.
Dandy on self-remembering link lost
Self-remembering is a way Gurdjieff used to give some apparent substance to his teaching, in the realm of practice. But it is mostly a brochure mode philosophy. Anyone with any savvy would be wary of this abstraction and follow the classic paths of meditation, which are mapped out. C’mon, this buddhist mindfulness repackaged to look original, but that it is because it explores the ‘energies/matter’ of mind/consciousness…
Self-remembering, as with everything in Gurdjieff is so hyped by lies that it ceases to be on the level, leaving one suspicious it is just window dressing.
Noone ever succeeds with this method, which is poorly defined. Look at the Gurdjieff people, they are the most retared spiritual types, without any practice. They just reread Ouspensky and hope.
later note: Nevertheless, Gurdjieff was a ‘materialist’ in a novel fashion, like the students of Samkhya: he wished to explore the material aspect of consciousness and the result is uncanny at times…His strange scheme of hydrogens is most strange. Too bad the whole game was left concealed and mixed up in his black magic..
Any teacher will even a trace of an objective of producing successful disciples who can graduate to real self-awareness wouldn’t inflict the confusing and impractical self-remembering on confused beginners.
(I forgot why there seem to be two editions of this book, with different subtitles)
Patterson’s book is misleading on Ouspensky, and my suggestion to consider the analog of The Bourned Identity might help. But it is hard to credit what I learned in my own way a long time ago, which is that Ouspensky’s rejection of Gurdjieff became amplified in his ‘return life’. He is a bad source for fourth way thinking, even as he is the main source. What a mess.
Patterson’s take is complete imaginary.
Gurdjieffians seem insenstive to the poignant dilemma: looking the other way at crime, to continue in the work. Ouspensky saw that was hopeless, and checked out early, willing, like Bourne, to take his chances in the attempts to ‘kill’ him.