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

31–40 of 44 posts

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

#31

Post by hobs »

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.

Seems like a weird take given the comment adds information from wikipedia, I hadn't ever heard of the dude, and that was useful information to me in quickly assessing what people were going on about.

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

#32

Post by Roxo »

zby wrote: post #17
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]…

What if being awake is worse than the "waking sleep"? Recently I was awoken to the reality of how fragile our lives are. I would prefer to stay asleep.

Would you really? Truly realizing your own mortality is very powerful. Would you rather prepare for a challenge, or be thrown into it completely unprepared?

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

#33

Post by loco5niner »

qntty wrote: post #30
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,…

If you don't have anything worth saying, silence is fine.

Calling someone out as a charlatan is worth saying.

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

#34

Post by loco5niner »

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.

Wait... you are saying that a dog can solve differential equations better than an accomplished mathematician?

If so, please explain.

I'm guessing it has to do with chasing rabbits, but I suspect there are quite a few pro linebackers/jugglers/baseball players with similar abilities.

Just because a being is doing a physical thing well, it doesn't mean they are "math-ing".

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

#36

Post by zby »

Roxo wrote: post #32
zby wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if being awake is worse than the "waking sleep"? Recently I was awoken to the reality of how fragile our lives are. I would prefer to stay asleep.

Would you really? Truly realizing your own mortality is very powerful. Would you rather prepare for a challenge, or be thrown into it completely unprepared?

I don't know - I have read somewhere that only depressed people have realistic views about themselves.

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

#37

Post by peterwwillis »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #24
peterwwillis wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is a bit like saying that Big Brother created the ultimate utopia, all they had to do was take away individualism and impose guidelines. I agree that it's quite effective, but still doesn't root out that thorn called humanity. The harsh but necessary enforcement efforts are undertaken out of view, leading one to believe that guidelines are responsible for the present social reform; but only so much as the Newspeak dictionary was for Ingsoc.

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

#38

Post by dang »

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 disagree. Articles like this do have something interesting to contribute. They're for sure of historical interest, and to some subset of readers, perennial interest. Gurdjieff was a fascinating character who attracted an astonishing circle of followers. You've heard about the obscenity trial of Ulysses? Jane Heap was the publisher who got tried for it [1]. A.R. Orage was T.S. Eliot's favorite editor. These people were at the heart of 20th century modernism. Before that, his Russian followers were at the heart of the Silver Age, an equally interesting period. Words like "charlatan" and "guru" don't open any of that up—they shut all of it down.

No post gratifies everyone's curiosity. When something fails to reach yours, please just find something more interesting to read. There are lots of choices on the front page and endlessly more at https://news.ycombinator.com/newest and https://news.ycombinator.com/front. Please don't rush in with shallow dismissals when something irritates you: that doesn't gratify intellectual curiosity. Worse, it leads to poor-quality discussion—so its signal-noise-lowering impact goes beyond just a single comment.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obscenity_trial_of_Ulysses_in_...

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

#39

Post by dang »

peterwwillis wrote: post #37
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is a bit like saying that Big Brother created the ultimate utopia, all they had to do was take away individualism and impose guidelines. I agree that it's quite effective, but still doesn't root out that thorn called humanity. The harsh but necessary enforcement efforts are undertaken out of view, leading one to believe that guidelines are responsible for the present social reform; but only so much as the Newspe…

How would we be supposed to "root out that thorn called humanity"? That is way beyond me.

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

#40

Post by qntty »

zby wrote: post #36
Roxo wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you really? Truly realizing your own mortality is very powerful. Would you rather prepare for a challenge, or be thrown into it completely unprepared?

I don't know - I have read somewhere that only depressed people have realistic views about themselves.

There may be reason to believe that depressed people are more realistic about certain things, but it doesn't follow that being realistic causes depression or that only depressed people are realistic.
Post reply on HN