David Quinn wrote:CG: It is so far topical, not deep.
DQ: So far the show has dealt with the importance of rationally going beyond science, knowing the Tao, becoming more conscious, the nature of cause and effect, the importance of giving up emotional attachments, and the need to eliminate religion. Unfortunately, none of these are topical subjects in the world today, in the sense of being in the media and widely discussed. But they are timeless and deep.
Sorry, wrong word. By topical I was going for skin-deep, as applying an ointment topically (which I now realize actually means locally) rather than taking internally.
CG: Anyway, I'm saying the speakers appear dull, not the subject matter.
DQ: So the subject matter is fine after all? Your objection is that the subjects are being dealt with in a calm manner?
I must confess that I'm still finding your criticisms confusing and vague.
I find the subject matter fine, except for the "fundamentalist" episode which I thought was oddly framed.
But the show skims through these subjects in such a surface manner that a coffee-klatch NPR-broadcast atmosphere arises.
And most of all, the moderators come across as entirely intellectual. That was the surprise for me, though it shouldn't have been, really, coming to know well the sources and emphasis of the three principles of this forum, as I have these past 3 years.
I have heard other advanced people speak, and there is more aliveness, and more gravity, in their voices.
CG: Mental. Head. In the three years I have been reading here on almost a daily basis, this has been the QRS emphasis. The heart (emotions) (female) has been ostracized. No talk of the body except to say it's appearance is unimportant (beards, plain clothes). Do you think this is wise? I do not. I favor a balanced approach.
DQ:There is no such thing as "a balanced approach". That is an illusion. Every approach is extreme. Every approach involves pursuing one set of values and rejecting all others.
An approach can be balanced and
extreme. An example is G.I. Gurdjieff's Fourth Way, also known as "The Work." Gurdjieff noted there are three traditional paths: the path of the Yogi (head), the path of the Monk (heart), and the path of the Fakir (body). He then synthesized a fourth way, sometimes referred to as the path of the Sly Man. The Fourth Way combines the other three, which potentially speeds one's progress and allows (encourages) one to practice this in
the world (it does not need or necessarily benefit from the withdrawal the other three usually require).
You're not familiar with this?
CG: What is this interior development you speak of?
DQ: Weeding out the delusions which obscure consciousness of our infinite nature.
You see, this sounds good. It is this sort of statement that has kept me investigating the QRS ideas. Though I would not put it that way, it sounds like it is connected to the root.
Identifying delusions is certainly important. Increasing consciousness of my inner workings, including delusions, through self-observation. Increasing consciousness, in general, through attention to the present. Realizing my place in the larger picture. That would be more my language, but it seems we are speaking of the same thing.
CG: All I see is the need for an internal masculinization (by moving as much energy as possible up into the head), and the guiding logic of A=A which which to dispel delusion. It doesn't add up. By cutting off parts of us, it lacks breadth, and depth.
DQ: Your own emphasis of thinning out your energies on a multitude of different things - e.g. head, body, emotions, etc - involves a cutting off of the single-minded mental path to enlightenment. So who is right?
There is no thinning out. I have studied the Fourth Way, and there is only concentration of energies through mutually supporting efforts, utilizing and transforming all the systems of the self.
I don't doubt your way, which I think basically the way of the Yogi. I cannot, since I have not immersed myself in it. I cannot immerse myself in it, since I am not built that way. But I have gradually come to understand some things about it. It has been educational, and interesting.
I believe Gurdjieff said that the other three methods do work, but take much longer, and, of course, pretty much require withdrawal from the world.
In my view, a whole person uses his head to open himself up to his infinite nature. In this way, he goes beyond the head, body and emotions. He becomes his larger self.
Why be satisfied with a meager collection of little things - e.g. head, body, emotions, etc - when your entire infinite nature could be had?
I basically agree with that.
I'm guessing, but it would seem that you had previously regarded the contributions to the forum made by Kevin, Dan and myself as a kind of part-time hobby on our part, and now you've realized by listening to the show that we are actually serious about it, that we live and breathe what we write, and that is repulsing you.
That's kind of funny. Shows how way off we can be about each other using this goofy internet medium. Stuff we could clear up in a few minutes face to face continues to create misunderstanding after years of posting.
Actually, I have been well aware of how serious you folks are, beginning with that debate on Enlightenment on The Ponderer's Guild in Feb '04. It's obviously a lifestyle for you. My shock was in listening to your voices, after absorbing the ideas for 3 years, and getting the impression of dry desert trees grown over in one direction, and lacking generally, moisture, sap, juice.