In the general kind of notion of the nature of the ‘subconscious’, there is a sense in which it is regarded as something of a ‘memory bank’, but by itself, this would limit the subconscious simply to being a receptacle of experience, rather than being the ‘real consciousness of man’ in Gurdjieff’s words. Gurdjieff’s is a different notion of the subconscious, different to some of the ideas of psychology and the notions of the ‘shadow’ etc. ‘Shadow work’, in the form of the exposure of ‘repressed memories’ and working through them, is not strictly the same as the development of higher bodies and higher vehicles of consciousness etc.
It’s not so easy to talk of, but what is taken as consciousness, in the general state, is not the same as ‘real’ consciousness. Consciousness in the general state is simply the recognition of ‘functioning’ or the activity of the centers, and it is this from a particular kind of temporal vantage point. The general form of consciousness has a particular relation to ‘experience’, no matter what the experience is. The general form of consciousness could recognise every ‘repressed memory’, and go through some form of ‘psychological processing’ with the attendant form of reason to such consciousness, but again, this would not change the form of consciousness present.
Gurdjieff’s use of the ‘subconscious’ is not exactly the same as the general notions about the meaning of the word or what it refers to. he says that we call the ‘subconscious’ represents to him the real consciousness of man. Subconscious here is not simply a set of memories, it has the capacities of reason and action, and can inform our consciousness in different ways. It is a mistake to simply take it as some passive collection of memories that influence us automatically. It may be another mistake to assume that everything must be brought into the given consciousness and ‘processed’ or ‘reconciled’ by such. In Gurdjieff’s language, this conception of work would be to attempt to develop the fictitious consciousness, using its limited means. The ‘sphere’ of the general consciousness, in terms of what it can ‘contain’ and the extent and scope of its ‘reach’, is too small in ‘time and space’ to be able to deal with ‘higher matters’.
How can the given ‘sphere’ of consciousness, and its given form of attention, embrace a whole lifetime and the whole nexus of relations therein, in order to gain an understanding of ‘self’ and real individuality? We would have to speak of something like increasing the ‘circumference’ of this given consciousness so that it could accommodate more etc, but it cannot do this to the extent required, and it doesn’t need to, given the presence of the real consciousness. This is why I spoke of the general notion of development as one which involves simply the increase or extension of the given form of consciousness in some aspect. We may have to try to ponder on what a different form of consciousness itself may be, rather than simply picturing the same consciousness but simply ‘more’ in some aspect, ‘more of the same’ etc.
I mentioned that the highest level of consciousness is considered as ‘containing’ and ’embracing’ the others. I wouldn’t say that the levels ‘merge’ so much as become related in a particular form of operational unity. The levels remain ‘distinct’ though related in a different way. Instead of thinking of the levels as ‘lower and higher’ we can see each as equally valid and valuable, having its own nature and potentials. In the work, there are the different laws that pertain to the different sides of our nature, the different worlds, which each have something to offer. Each world or realm then has to be negotiated in its own way, according to its given laws.
There is the idea that the highest level provides a ‘consciousness’ of/in all the other levels, hence there is the idea of ‘becoming conscious’ even in ‘deep sleep’. But the problem here is that this ‘becoming conscious’ gets taken according to the given experience of consciousness, hence people can think that they will become conscious in/of these other levels in the same way that they are conscious of their present experienced level/s of consciousness. To become conscious in the ‘deep sleep’ level is then quite different to becoming conscious in/of the waking level etc. Each level can also appear differently depending on the given degree of Being and understanding. Development of Being and understanding changes how we experience and relate to the different levels or worlds, and it also changes how these levels or worlds are related to each other. We could think of something like the establishment of a simultaneous presence in/of the different levels, meaning something like ‘being in several places at once’. Can we imagine what this would be like, to ‘be in several places at once’ ?
If we ponder this, reflecting on our given experience, we may see that a significant change in our means of dealing with experience would be required. These ‘several places’, which one would be present to/in simultaneously, cannot be accommodated into the given form of consciousness or experience. These ‘other places’ would not simply be ‘brought into’ the given form and experience of consciousness, as the given form is not able for this. The given form of consciousness and experience works precisely according to ‘only being in one place at a time’. To try to accommodate the multiple simultaneity of ‘being in several places at once’ into the general form of consciousness would shatter it, destroying the functionality of the ‘self’ and ‘identity’ that is related to it.
This is all to say that the ‘co-presence’ and ‘coalescence’ of the different levels does not happen through the given form of consciousness, the various levels are not brought into the given form of consciousness and unified and embraced by/though it. Something else, or a different form/level of conscious is required to do this and is the agent of this.
In the Work, this ‘co-presence’ and ‘coalescence’ of the different levels of consciousness is achieved via something other than consciousness, this being related to ‘will’ and ‘understanding’. In the Work we are said to have a triadic nature, and consciousness is only one aspect of this triadic nature. You may see that it can appear hard to speak here of something that is beyond consciousness or of a different nature to it. The typical response to the suggestion of something beyond or other to consciousness is to say ‘well if it is beyond or other to consciousness how can I know of it’? This reply, and the apparent notion therein, may be seen as perhaps the very essence of the problem here.
We could say that it appears that man is ‘identified’ with his given experience and notion of ‘consciousness’, and this ‘identification’ colours his whole experience and conceptual capacity. Such an ‘identification’ with the given form of consciousness makes anything other to it appear as ‘impossible’ and/or ‘incomprehensible’ etc. The given form of consciousness is taken to be implied in, or a pre-requisite to, all and any ‘experience’ and ‘knowing’ etc. This ‘identification’ with the given experience and conception of consciousness may appear to prohibit man from any other form of consciousness and anything outside of it. However, it is also said that these other levels of consciousness and other aspects of man’s nature are already present to/in him, but they are not recognised for what they are.
I said that the experience of ‘being in several places at once’, as a kind of analogy for the co-presence and coalescence of the different levels of consciousness, would be impossible to the given form of consciousness. Yet these other levels are already present and related in some form through our given experience and nature. This is then to say that we already do experience ourselves ‘in ‘several places at once’ to some degree, but this is watered down and barely recognised for what it is and its implications etc. This lack of recognition and understanding being related to our given form of ‘identification’, which keeps our focus in one direction so to speak.
Many attempts at work on oneself and development can actually strengthen this identification, as the form of effort used can simply involve the exercise of the given form of consciousness. In ‘trying to be more aware/conscious’ one can simply end up becoming ‘more aware/conscious of the same’, and this may be something like simply increasing the wattage of the light bulb in one room of our house, such that the things in the room become brighter and more defined etc, but this is quite different to leaving the said room and venturing outside or even just to another room in the house etc. Efforts can begin under the assumption that one knows what it is that is to be developed, it is taken for granted that one knows what the ‘development of consciousness’ means and involves, and hence the form of effort required for this development is also assumed to be understood.
These ideas have been mentioned in the Work in terms of such things as the lack of discrimination between ‘personality and essence’, in which it is said that a man inevitably mistakes certain aspects and features of personality for essence. The idea has also been mentioned in relation to the three terms of knowledge, being, and understanding. Man is said to confuse knowledge for understanding, and is said to to have barely any conception of being and its role in understanding. We may see that man confuses knowledge for consciousness, or equates his given form and experience of ‘knowing’ with consciousness. He then proceeds to project this form of ‘knowing’ on to all and any kind of experience. Man then takes the given experience or sense of ‘knowing’ for consciousness itself, and any other forms or levels of consciousness are defined according to this given experience and sense of ‘knowing’, simply being variations in its ‘intensity’.
Knowledge or ‘knowing’ is not consciousness, and in regard to the three terms of knowledge, being, and understanding, consciousness is more connected with the aspect of being. In the Work, it is said that a man can live the greater part of his life in ‘automacy’, and he can certainly have the sense of having knowledge and knowing in this condition. A man can know various things without being conscious, at least according to the definition of consciousness as something outside of mechanicality etc. In our general experience, such knowing and knowledge may be seen simply as a degree of ‘functional competence’. Or we can say that knowing and knowledge only pertain to ‘facts’, only ‘facts’ can be known etc. But here we have to try to see what such ‘facts’ are in their nature, and what limitations or realm of application they have. If ‘facts’ only pertain to one side of our nature, as related to the aspect of knowledge, then reality, as the totality, is not reducible to ‘facts’ alone.
The general form of ‘identification’ is such that everything is considered to be ‘factual’, and hence everything is considered as able of apprehension through the given form of ‘knowing’, which also gets taken as consciousness itself. The ‘Absolute’, for example, cannot be ‘known’ in its totality, which is to say that there is an aspect of the Absolute that concerns knowing and knowledge, but this is only one aspect of it. The Absolute has aspects of being and understanding, and these are not approached and apprehended in the same fashion as the aspect of knowing and knowledge. To say that knowledge and knowing have a certain realm of application can then appear to to push the other aspects of reality into the ‘unknown’ and ‘unknowable’ etc. But here it should be seen that such ‘unknown’ and ‘unknowable’ are conceived of according to the term ‘known’ or ‘knowledge’ and its given experience and conception. The general conception of the ‘unknown’ or ‘unknowable’ is simply the other ‘pole’ to the given experience and conception of knowing and knowledge.
To the given experience, which is centred in the realm of knowledge, the ‘unknown’ or ‘unknowable’ is prohibited from engagement by definition; it is either relegated to the ‘un-experienceable’ or is simply relegated to the realm of ‘uncertainty’; in the sense of the experience of being ‘unsure’ etc. Some things may be ‘unknowable’ but this does not mean that they are then removed from experience, which is to say that they can be engaged through the aspects of being and understanding. We may see here that ‘to experience’ has come to mean ‘to know’, in the sense that all and any experience is conceived according to the given form of experience, which is one that is ‘identified’ and ‘biased’ to the realm of ‘knowledge’.
The modern ‘non-dualist’ schools tend to emphasise this aspect, that the ‘self’ cannot be ‘experienced’ as an ‘object’ or as a ‘content’ to ‘awareness/consciousness’ etc. This then connects to the notion that ‘enlightenment’ and ‘self realization’ is not an ‘experience’; which is precisely what most ‘seekers’ are said to be looking for; conceiving the intended aim or result as an ‘experience’. This may be fair enough, but it can lead to a kind of ‘limbo’ because the general ‘non-dualist’ approach regards everything as consciousness, consciousness then being the one and only or Absolute itself etc. If someone equates consciousness with experience, and then considers ‘enlightenment’ as ‘not an experience’, then they may feel that they have to ‘escape experience’ itself in order to find ‘enlightenment’ etc. The general ‘non-dualist’ approach or conception can appear to have no notion of the other aspects to reality, the aspects of being and understanding in the terms of the work. To say that ‘enlightenment’ is not an ‘experience’ could be seen to be pointing in this direction, pointing to reality of the other aspects of being and understanding, but it may appear to do so in a rather vague way for the seeker on such a path.
‘Vedanta’, as a form of ‘non-dual’ teaching, expressed the ‘goal’ as ‘self knowledge’ or ‘knowledge of the self’, but it is still expressed as something other to ‘worldly knowledge’. The form of ‘knowing’ implied is quite different to that present in the general experience and sense of knowing. In the terms of the Work, we might see such ‘self knowledge’ as related to the aspect of understanding. It is stated in the Work that knowing and knowledge is mistaken for understanding, that there is barely any real recognition and conception of understanding. The closest that the general conception comes to understanding understanding, is in the notion of ‘practical knowledge’.
If one is able to do something, in terms of some practical competence in some sphere of activity, then one is regarded as having some understanding of, or in, the said sphere of activity. This is true to a degree, that understanding has a bearing on what we can do, but the problem again becomes what is the given conception of ‘doing’. In the general conception, this ‘doing’ simply becomes some physical or mental activity, or the control of such in some way or area of application. The ‘doing’ gets equated with the activity itself, whether ‘internal’ or ‘external’ or both, or the ‘doing’ gets equated with the perceived result of such activity etc. ‘Doing’ may then simply get equated with the notion of having some ‘skill’ in some area. But here we should see that an ‘automaton’ is quite capable of having a ‘skill’ in some area, in the sense of a ‘practical competence’ to achieve perceived results of a certain degree of quality, as defined according to the given criteria of the perceiver.
We can see that a machine is quite able of producing results of a certain quality, though of course we would not say that such a machine ‘possessed’ the related ‘skill’. But how do we define the true possession of such ‘skill’ in human activity?
In the Work, it is said that the work of a Real Man possesses and expresses certain attributes The work of the Man is a manifestation of his individual consciousness and understanding. The degree of consciousness and understanding is not solely expressed in the ‘physical’ perceived result of the Man’s work, the perceived degree of quality and ‘skill’ in the manifest expression or result of his work. This is to say that the degree of understanding is not equatable to the perceived level of ‘skill’ in some area, which ‘skill’ tends to get equated simply with a degree of control or ableness of the functions. Two pictures of the same still life object may vary in their degree of likeness to the physical object that is painted, but this does not mean that the painter of the greater likeness has a greater understanding, of painting or still life painting etc.
In the Work, this has been attempted to be expressed in the idea of ‘Objective Art’; which is said to be experienced the same way by all but still relative to the given degree of being. The criteria of judgement, or the value of ‘Objective Art’, is more related to the ‘inner experience’ of the Artist in question, the ‘inner experience’ present and at work in the making of the artwork. There is the question of ‘intention’ here and how the result relates to the given intention present in the creation of the artwork. The danger here is that the quality of the work is simply reduced to making the functions conform to the given intention, reducing understand again to the general conception of practical competence.
In Objective Art, the intention itself would have to be ‘weighed’ and the unit of weight would be related to the kind of level of information present in the intention, the ‘weight’ of what it is that was to be communicated in or through the artwork. This concerns the artists ‘experiential world’ and how much of his world experience he is able to bring to bear and invest into the artwork. This action, of holding the ‘essence’ and diversity of his experience before himself and putting this into some form of expression, is not simply one of bringing out what is already there within him. The action of ‘Objective Art’ is creative, and hence there has to be an element of ‘self revelation’ involved in the process of making the artwork. This is then to say that understanding is also creative and does not consist solely of/in the application of pre-acquired ‘skill’. Understanding then ranges beyond what is currently known and what is currently able to be done.
Some of the expressions in the Work, regarding understanding, can be misleading in this direction. Understanding has been called ‘practical know how’ in the Work, and understanding has been called ‘what a man can Do’. But again, these are approximate expressions, using the given language, made in the attempt to articulate and instigate a line of inquiry, rather than being simply ‘factual expressions’. It is also said in the Work that ‘a man IS his understanding’, which may be seen to express that such understanding is not a ‘possession’ in the general sense of the term. What a Man IS ranges beyond what he can ‘possess’ in the general sense of the term. We could talk of something like the degree of ‘self-possession’ here, but there would still be the question as to what exactly is possessing what, and what this possession itself consisted of.
Understanding may be what allows and enables the co-presence and coalescence of the mentioned levels of consciousness, but then this understanding is not equatable to any given level of consciousness. If we simply equate this coalescence with a given level of consciousness itself, then we still have to see that such a level of consciousness is not really at all like any given experience of consciousness or state of consciousness. In the general form of experience, there is the ‘identification’ with consciousness, or the given sense of such, such that ‘I’ is equated with the given sense of consciousness. Evidently this is a limitation to any further development in the sense and notion of ‘I’. This is particularly so if the reality of ‘I’ ranges beyond consciousness itself, regardless of level.
It is not for nothing that the main barrier to development has been portrayed as the lack of ability for a change in the very conception and experience of ‘I’ or the sense of ‘I’. What could be a more radical change than a foundational change in the sense and meaning of ‘I’? For many, such a change of ‘I’ would simply be conceived of as a change of ‘who one was’, the ‘I’ then being taken in relation to some kind of ‘character’ qualities or attributes etc. To wake up one morning, for example, and come to find you were ‘somebody else’ would be quite a significant change and shock, but it may be considered as less of a change and shock than waking up to find that one was a pebble or bookcase etc. We can see here ideas relating to the experiential categories of ‘who’ and ‘what’, and a change in the sense and meaning of ‘I’ would give changes to both such categories, and more. The sense and notion of ‘who’ and ‘what’ ‘one is’ arise from the sense and notion of ‘I’.
In the general form of experience and conception, a real change of/in ‘I’ would appear impossible, because such an ‘I’ is the very thing which gives the sense of ‘continuity’ to experience, to ‘oneself’, the ‘I’ is equated with such sense of ‘continuity’ itself. A change of/in ‘I’ would then be pictured as impossible because the change would remove any continuity which would be the means of the ‘recognition’ of such a change. This could be summed up in the following expression of the general conception ”If ‘I’ were to change, how would ‘I’ know about it’?
The Tapestry of Beelzebub's Tales, G.I. Gurdjieff, and The Work. 