In Search of the Miraculous
“…(W)e can imagine the whole of humanity…as consisting so to speak of several concentric circles.
“The inner circle is called the ‘esoteric’ …(T)here can be no discords among them, no differences of understanding…
“The next circle is called the ‘mesoteric,’ that is…the middle. …(T)heir understanding is… identical with…the esoteric circle… (b)ut…somewhat more theoretical.
“The third circle is called the ‘exoteric,’ that is… the outer circle of the inner part of humanity… (T)heir…knowledge is…more philosophical… more abstract than the knowledge of the mesoteric circle… But there cannot be differences in understanding between them…
“In literature which acknowledges the existence of esotericism, humanity is usually divided into two circles only, and the ‘exoteric circle’ as opposed to the ‘esoteric,’ is called ordinary life. In reality… the ‘exoteric circle’ is something very far from us and very high…
” ‘The outer circle’ is the circle of mechanical humanity to which we belong and which alone we know. The first sign of this circle is that among people who belong to it there is not and there cannot be a common understanding. Everybody understands in his own way, and all differently. This circle is sometimes called the circle of the ‘confusion of tongues,’ that is, the circle in which each one speaks in his own particular language, where no one understands another and takes no trouble to be understood… (M)utual understanding begins only in the exoteric circle and is possible only there… —Chapter Fifteen
*
“As a rule, when people realize that they do not understand a thing they try to find a name for what they do not ‘understand,’ and when they find a name they say they ‘understand.’ But to ‘find a name’ does not mean to ‘understand.’ Unfortunately, people are usually satisfied with names…
…People do not clearly realize to what a degree their language is subjective, that is, what different things each of them says while using the same words. They are not aware that each one of them speaks in a language of his own, understanding other people’s language either vaguely or not at all, and having no idea that each one of them speaks in a language unknown to him. People have a very firm conviction, or belief, that they speak the same language, that they understand one another. —Chapter 4
Gurdjieff’s Emissary to New York
Talks and Lectures with A.R. Orage 1924-1931
…The content that each word has for us is the result of all our personal associations with it up to date. If I have encountered the word “consciousness,” for example, in one book, or in one discussion, and you in another, it will have different associations for each of us. Nor can we get around the difficulty by “defining our terms,” for the very words we use in our definition will themselves have a different content for each of us, etc. We live in a Tower of Babel. —Tuesday Evening, 24 March 1931 – Beginner Group Meetings
*
…Speech always evokes corresponding associations; therefore, do not observe the words… but the meaning latent in the voice. Tone conveys nine tenths, and one tenth is verbal association… —Wednesday, 15 August 1928
Our memories can be exploited by someone else’s use of words…
…but it points to a possibility. If I can control images in my mind and control those coming from others, I can insulate myself against them; can resist mob suggestion, and the power of words. You can listen to words and prevent (the) mind from making corresponding images. —Lecture 25
Views From the Real World
…Every man who pronounces any word always attaches this or that shade of meaning to it by his imagination, exaggerates or puts forward this or that side of it… that is, designating by this word not all the attributes, but those chance external ones which first spring to his notice. Another man speaking with the first attaches to the same word another shade of meaning, takes this word in another sense, which is often exactly the opposite…
…(O)ne can say almost certainly that they understand every word differently and, while appearing to speak about the same subject, in practice speak about quite different things. Moreover, for every man the meaning of his own words, and the meaning which he puts into them, changes in accordance with his own thoughts and humors, with the images which he associates at the moment with the words, as well as with what and how his interlocutor speaks; for by an involuntary imitation or contradiction he can involuntarily change the meaning of his words… —New York, February 1924 – For an exact study, an exact language is needed
*
…In order to be understood by another man, it is not only necessary for the speaker to know how to speak, but for the listener to know how to listen. This is why…we must first establish the possibility of a common understanding. —Essentuki, about 1918 – When speaking on different subjects,
The Reality of Being
…(I)f I am in the position of listener… If I am searching for a more active attention, freer to listen, freer from associations and reactions, there can be a… participation that permits the exchange to flow in two directions, and activates the “hearer” in both questioner and listener. But if this active attention is not being searched for, if I receive the question with my ordinary attention— that is, passively— I respond passively and nothing is exchanged, no matter how clever my words or how strong my emotional force… —54. I need to speak
A Story
To a wise man everyone tells the truth. For example when asking two women, who were both 39, how old they were, the first replied with her age, the second claimed she was 29. To the wise man they were both telling the truth. The first woman told her age, the second said, “I’m afraid of growing old.”