For the purposes of this treatise, sports, as practiced in my home country of America will be examined and I will attempt to illuminate the true nature of a contemporary activity, i.e. sport, through the lens or Teskooano of the Tales to reveal its true nature as well as and the identification (as described by Gurdjieff and recorded by Ouspensky in ISOM) with such sports, not only by the direct participants but also by the multitudes of indirect participants otherwise known as spectators or fans. In the chapter, “The Fruits of Former Civilizations,” Gurdjieff states: “None of these unfortunates know and probably will never reflect that not only is nothing good obtained from this maleficent sport of theirs, but they, as I have already told you, solely owing to this sport alone, still further shorten the duration of their existence which is already trifling without this.”
If we could read the secret history of our enemies, we should find in each man’s life sorrow and suffering enough to disarm all hostility. Longfellow, Table Talk, 1875.
Preface
This paper addresses three integrated areas of importance in our Work. The three are psychological multiplicity, the relationship of multiplicity to the “second conscious shock,” and the relationship of both multiplicity and the second shock to egoism that is the problem our Work ultimately must come to grips with.
I suggest we have missed and should investigate multiplicity in our self-study. It is critical for real transformation. I view the Gurdjieff work as a call to develop into full human beings and search out ways to continue his work and exploration, and not simply to repeat what Gurdjieff did. Gurdjieff in his writings gave examples of individuals and groups that dedicated themselves to exploring methods to facilitate human development. Beelzebub was asked many times to investigate and solve real problems that existed on the earth. We must continue Gurdjieff’s work of investigation and experimentation into new ways to help human evolution and search out information, practices and new understandings that maintain the Work and carry it into the future; this in implicit in the Obligolnian Strivings.
We see the purpose of the practice as… mundane.
The primary reason that this practice has not risen to a central position in Work literature or in Group Meeting discussions or in our individual practice could be that the reason for the practice is not all that impressive. Not impressive enough to work its way into our memory or our Work efforts. Mr. Gurdjieff says that it will:
‘destroy the egoism completely crystalized in them that has swallowed up the whole of their Essence and also that tendency to hate others which flows from it – the tendency, namely, which engenders all those mutual relationships existing there, which serve as the chief cause of all their abnormalities unbecoming to three-brained beings and maleficent for them themselves and for the whole of the Universe.” 6
The chief cause of all our abnormalities is our mutual relationships. The line of cause and effect is: egoism gives rise to hating others, which gives rise to the current state of our mutual relationships, which is the cause all of our abnormalities.
Really? Mutual relationships are the chief cause our abnormalities? Come on. We work on a lot of things – self-remembering, internal consideration, not being identified, and more. Those are The Work. Getting along with others looks like social constructionism or secular humanism. Working on egoism, hatred, and our relationships with people are all great things and can certainly be part of our Work, but the sole means of ending all of our abnormalities? No.
You get the drift. This might be why Beelzebub’s summary of our situation, made directly to THE ABSOLUTE, gets less attention than ‘Purgatory’, Ashiata Shiemash, and The Terror of the Situation. Egoism, hatred, and relationships are a bit mundane. They move the book to the self-help section in the bookstore.
I’m trying to characterize this lightly, but I think it’s a serious issue. Have we, or has the Work as a whole, veered away from something that Gurdjieff puts at the core of The Work?