Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Gurdjieff and the Women of ‘The Rope’ (1997)

gurdjieff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 44 posts

Re: Gurdjieff and the Women of ‘The Rope’ (1997)

#21

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

dang wrote: post #12
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #9

From Wikipedia's article on Gurdjieff: >> Gurdjieff taught that most humans do not possess a unified consciousness and thus live their lives in a state of hypnotic "waking sleep", but that it is possible to awaken to a higher state of consciousness and achieve full human potential. Gurdjieff described a method attempting to do so, calling the discipline "The Work"[5] (connoting "work on oneself") or "the Method".[6]…

" Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something. " https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Gurjieff was a new-age guru, a mystic, who taught a "Way" to find enlightenment with no scientific basis, or any other basis than the fact that he came up with it and managed to convince people to give him money to be taught it.

There is nothing there to engage in a "deep", rational manner. Are the guidelines supposed to protect "work" like that also? Should we spend time and energy carefully rebuffing every psychic, UFOlogist and astrologist, who is linked on HN, also? Or should we accept such articles as if they have something useful to contribute, just because someone took the time to write them?

Re: Gurdjieff and the Women of ‘The Rope’ (1997)

#22

Post by o2l »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #21
dang wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something. " https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Gurjieff was a new-age guru, a mystic, who taught a "Way" to find enlightenment with no scientific basis, or any other basis than the fact that he came up with it and managed to convince people to give him money to be taught it. There is nothing there to engage in a "deep", rational manner. Are the guidelines supposed to protect "work" like that also? Should we spend time and energy carefully rebuffing every psychic,…

How do you put scientific basis for enlightenment? Most of the people who have claimed to have a path towards enlightenment have focused on the mind and that too remains private to the practitioner. If it adds value to the seeker's experience or gives someone more clarity, then that method has gained popularity and acceptance. You don't see a scientific basis for his methods but your opinion is not based on experience either. It is indeed a shallow dismissal.

Re: Gurdjieff and the Women of ‘The Rope’ (1997)

#23

Post by peterwwillis »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #21
dang wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something. " https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Gurjieff was a new-age guru, a mystic, who taught a "Way" to find enlightenment with no scientific basis, or any other basis than the fact that he came up with it and managed to convince people to give him money to be taught it. There is nothing there to engage in a "deep", rational manner. Are the guidelines supposed to protect "work" like that also? Should we spend time and energy carefully rebuffing every psychic,…

I think you miss the point a bit. The guidelines here are not unlike Gurdjieff's movements: formalism disguised as a practice of enlightenment. If your comment included something like "Lorem Ipsum's maxim from the 16th century was an example of this method being rhetorical and counter-productive", you would not have been taken to task because it would appear intellectual, even if it's nonsense.

Re: Gurdjieff and the Women of ‘The Rope’ (1997)

#24

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

peterwwillis wrote: post #23
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gurjieff was a new-age guru, a mystic, who taught a "Way" to find enlightenment with no scientific basis, or any other basis than the fact that he came up with it and managed to convince people to give him money to be taught it. There is nothing there to engage in a "deep", rational manner. Are the guidelines supposed to protect "work" like that also? Should we spend time and energy carefully rebuffing every psychic,…

I think you miss the point a bit. The guidelines here are not unlike Gurdjieff's movements: formalism disguised as a practice of enlightenment. If your comment included something like "Lorem Ipsum's maxim from the 16th century was an example of this method being rhetorical and counter-productive", you would not have been taken to task because it would appear intellectual, even if it's nonsense.

The HN guidelines are very reasonable and they have created one of the least unpleasant discussion boards on the entire internet (and I mean, historically).

The particular guideline that dang brought up makes a lot of sense. I don't understand why he applied it in this case, but as a guideline, it's sound and solid.

Re: Gurdjieff and the Women of ‘The Rope’ (1997)

#25

Post by cam_l »

dang wrote: post #16
rimliu wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Hitchens' razor applies there. "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" Would you leave the same remark under a comment dismissing some flat-earther?

I'm afraid this comment is breaking the same guideline. Dismiss as much as you like, but please don't post like this to HN. It's informationless and therefore boring and therefore off topic here.

Dang's Razor: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without comment."

Re: Gurdjieff and the Women of ‘The Rope’ (1997)

#26

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

dang wrote: post #16
rimliu wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Hitchens' razor applies there. "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" Would you leave the same remark under a comment dismissing some flat-earther?

I'm afraid this comment is breaking the same guideline. Dismiss as much as you like, but please don't post like this to HN. It's informationless and therefore boring and therefore off topic here.

If it's about information content- I was concerned that people reading this article may not be aware that Gurjieff was a New Age guru. The article is written to present him as some kind of respectable philosopher who attracted a following of intellectuals and artists, rather than a cult leader. I felt it was important to point out what he actually was.

I still don't quite get why my comment broke that guideline. What would be a non-shallow dismissal of Gurjieff? I mean, give me an example here, because I'm a bit confused, really. The man had no "work" to dismiss, he was just full of hot air and making it up as he went along. What else can be said about him than the fact that he was a charlatan?

What, at the end of the day, is counter to HN guidelines about calling out cranks?

Re: Gurdjieff and the Women of ‘The Rope’ (1997)

#27

Post by nibbula »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #9

From Wikipedia's article on Gurdjieff: >> Gurdjieff taught that most humans do not possess a unified consciousness and thus live their lives in a state of hypnotic "waking sleep", but that it is possible to awaken to a higher state of consciousness and achieve full human potential. Gurdjieff described a method attempting to do so, calling the discipline "The Work"[5] (connoting "work on oneself") or "the Method".[6]…

One may be skeptical that a dog can solve differential equations better than an accomplished mathematician, but it is none the less true. Likewise it is easy to doubt that the spiritual enlightenment of a human has discerned a profound truth about physics, cosmology, or consciousness because like the dog, they cannot write down the formula for the epagogic mind to follow.

Re: Gurdjieff and the Women of ‘The Rope’ (1997)

#28

Post by whatshisface »

nibbula wrote: post #27
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #9

From Wikipedia's article on Gurdjieff: >> Gurdjieff taught that most humans do not possess a unified consciousness and thus live their lives in a state of hypnotic "waking sleep", but that it is possible to awaken to a higher state of consciousness and achieve full human potential. Gurdjieff described a method attempting to do so, calling the discipline "The Work"[5] (connoting "work on oneself") or "the Method".[6]…

One may be skeptical that a dog can solve differential equations better than an accomplished mathematician, but it is none the less true. Likewise it is easy to doubt that the spiritual enlightenment of a human has discerned a profound truth about physics, cosmology, or consciousness because like the dog, they cannot write down the formula for the epagogic mind to follow.

You'd think that argument would apply to physics, which is knowledge that exists in the mind and is nothing like everyday experience, but nobody has trouble writing that down. The most likely explanation is that nothing about this person's "enlightenment" can be written down because nothing substantial is there. In this case it's especially easy to realize that, because apparently his idea of enlightenment was to realize that his teachings were pointless...

Cult leaders, bad politicians and the dark side of enterprise software sales all run on the same principle: big false promises ("you will become God"), combined with a teaspoon of truth to make it believable to some ("you do not have control of your autonomic nervous system"), backed up by personal charisma of the salsesman (see: his description in the article).

Trying to extract the "nugget of truth," which was put in there just to make the false parts believable, is one of the worst possible ways to find truth. It's like looking for cheese in a mousetrap.

Re: Gurdjieff and the Women of ‘The Rope’ (1997)

#29

Post by bookofjoe »

whatshisface wrote: post #28
nibbula wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One may be skeptical that a dog can solve differential equations better than an accomplished mathematician, but it is none the less true. Likewise it is easy to doubt that the spiritual enlightenment of a human has discerned a profound truth about physics, cosmology, or consciousness because like the dog, they cannot write down the formula for the epagogic mind to follow.

You'd think that argument would apply to physics, which is knowledge that exists in the mind and is nothing like everyday experience, but nobody has trouble writing that down. The most likely explanation is that nothing about this person's "enlightenment" can be written down because nothing substantial is there. In this case it's especially easy to realize that, because apparently his idea of enlightenment was to rea…

>bad politicians "bad" = "successful"

Re: Gurdjieff and the Women of ‘The Rope’ (1997)

#30

Post by qntty »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #21
dang wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something. " https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Gurjieff was a new-age guru, a mystic, who taught a "Way" to find enlightenment with no scientific basis, or any other basis than the fact that he came up with it and managed to convince people to give him money to be taught it. There is nothing there to engage in a "deep", rational manner. Are the guidelines supposed to protect "work" like that also? Should we spend time and energy carefully rebuffing every psychic,…

If you don't have anything worth saying, silence is fine.
Post reply on HN