Formatory Apparatus

 

“In the process of ages, owing to wrong education, etc., the formulatory apparatus usurped the function of the real mental center. It was originally to collect impressions. Thoughts in the formulatory apparatus always change. What we have in other centers remains the same.”
– Gurdjieff

Gurdjieff also mentions that the formatory apparatus is not a center, but an apparatus through which the experiences and manifestations of the centers occur.

Identification with ‘false personality’ has been connected with the working of the ‘formatory apparatus’, such that the ‘thinking’ that is present is dominated by habitual patterns that have been acquired externally from others and which change accordingly. If one is approaching something/someone in the ‘same old fashion’, with the same old ‘story’ towards it/them, then it could be seen that attention is identified with the working of the formatory apparatus and thereby ‘false personality’.

However, it is said that the working of the formatory apparatus is such that its potential for combination is so vast that it can ‘trick’ us into taking a ‘re-shuffling’ or re-‘formatting’ of the old or existing/given for something that is actually new. It is this apparent ‘deception’, or our lack of seeing of the ‘mechanical’ nature of the formatory apparatus, that fosters identification itself.

The nature of the formatory apparatus itself, along with its particular relation to identification, connects very much to the idea of being dominated by functional apprehension alone. To develop the apprehension of the other experiential aspects, of being and understanding, is itself related to the notion of developing the apprehension of the centers themselves, along with their inter-connectivity and inter-communication etc. Gurdjieff mentions that, relatively, the formatory apparatus is mechanical or ‘inorganic’ whereas the centers are ‘organic’ or ‘conscious’ etc.

It is often considered that to be dominated by the activity of the formatory apparatus simply consists in something like being ‘lost in thoughts’, or being dominated by a certain kind of thinking activity/content etc. The functioning of the formatory apparatus influences the other centers such that, although the formatory apparatus is specifically linked with the thinking center and could be said to be the equivalent ‘thinking center’ of the personality and/or false personality, its action is not limited to the apparent content or activity of thought.

This means that through the functioning of the formatory apparatus the experience as a whole is ‘formatted’ in a certain way, reality is apprehended according to a certain ‘form’ or ‘logic’ etc.

The action of the formatory apparatus, when dominant, then also orders or formats the experience and/or content of both emotion/feeling and sensation as well as thought. Feeling and sensation are also apprehended in a certain fashion through the dominance of the formatory apparatus, they are ‘defined’ and ‘determined’ in a certain fashion because the action of the formatory apparatus influences the relationship or connection between the different centers, and it is from this relationship that the individual elements ’emerge’. The particular appearance and operation of the individual elements comes from the particular relationship and connection that is present between the centers.

I mention that the action of the formatory apparatus influences the working of all the centers, and does this via influencing the form of relation and connection between them. The action of the formatory apparatus then conditions, and ‘formats’, the experience as a whole, rather than being something which only acted in relation to ‘thinking’.

In influencing the whole experience, the formatory apparatus conditions the experience of both feeling and sensation as well as thought. Each is apprehended according to the action of the formatory apparatus. Not only is the content of thought, feeling, and sensation conditioned according to the action of the formatory apparatus, but also the way in which each is apprehended and related to in itself. The content, nature, and relation of the centers is formatted.

Seeing this nature of the formatory apparatus and how it functions enables efforts to be directed in a potentially more fruitful way. Seeing that the formatory apparatus is not limited to one center opens the field of inquiry, opens the attention to something that is much more pervasive throughout the total experience and concerns the way in which reality and experience is apprehended.

‘’What about the relation between the formatory apparatus and the so-called “rolls”. They both seem to have some role in collecting and associating impressions. Are they two different names/analogies for the same function?’’

For me, they are not exactly the same thing, though strongly connected. The rolls are ‘in’ the centers as a part of their nature and working. They collect impressions and sort them into various groups or connections based upon different perceived ‘samenesses’.They also act in the ‘re-animation’ of these stored impressions when there is the relevant perceived ‘sameness’ in the present experience.

We can see here the connection between the nature and function of the rolls and formatory apparatus, both having this similarity in relation to how they process ‘data’ or impressions, both past and present.

The difference between the intended function of the formatory apparatus and its general use is mentioned in respect of collecting impressions. In simple collecting, there is not the added aspect of processing that is connected with multiple categorisation and the ‘re-animation’ of impression related to ‘memory’ etc.

The formatory apparatus, in taking on an unintended functioning and role, acts to process impressions in way improper to it, and in doing so it ‘mimics’, or takes from, the related processing capacity of the centers and rolls etc. As a means of collecting impressions, the formatory apparatus can appear similar to the personality in the relation of essence and personality. The rolls as a feature of the centers can appear as an aspect of the essence.

To possibly clarify; you asked if the rolls and formatory apparatus were two names/analogies for the same thing or function. I have said that, in effect, they are two means or ways of serving/performing the same function. This taking into effect the current situation being one in which the formatory apparatus is functioning other than intended.

We must remember that our general experience of the formatory apparatus is the experience of it such as it has come to operate and function. So there is clarification to be made between the definition of the current functioning of the formatory apparatus and what it is and its intended function.

If we considered it as a kind of middleman between the centers and their rolls and the outside world, then in collecting impressions there would be a degree of sorting that took place but this would be different to that of the centers and rolls. In the centers and rolls there is an extra degree of processing and connectivity, as well as them also having the aspect of the ‘re-animation’ of impressions.

In the mis-working of the formatory apparatus, there is the attempt at these latter two processing aspects connected to the centers and rolls. This then influences the functioning of the centers and rolls. What is meant to be one means of data reception and processing becomes the total operating system so to speak. There is connection here to the idea of the ‘secretary’ and their possible ineffective working etc.

Apart from their different function, there is also a difference in how data or impression is accessed in the centers and rolls and how it is accessed in the formatory apparatus. The data or impression is accessed by different means and is experienced differently in each. This also has a bearing on different means of storing data or impression. This having connection with the difference in how experience is recorded and processed through the different kinds of reason; the ‘Reason of Understanding’ and ‘Reason of Knowing’ as mentioned in ‘Beelzebub’s Tales’.