Self Remembering

Self remembering can certainly be mistaken for certain other states and their related efforts. This is why the description of self remembering in ‘In Search of the Miraculous’, as related to ‘dual arrow attention’, can be so limited, and can easily be misunderstood or misapplied etc. Self remembering is said to begin artificially, such that a man can only intentionally engage in artificial self remembering to begin with. At some point this has to become organic self remembering. There is also the idea here of the arising of a ‘work I’, or group of such, which come to be mistaken for the Real I or its beginnings. The action at the level of the work I’s can prepare a place or possibility, but something else at a higher level has to be engaged to give real transformation and results.

Gurdjieff emphasises three-centered attention in his book ‘Life is Real’ as something of an effort towards aiding against the misunderstanding of self remembering and self observation. Self remembering and self observation tend to be one-centered or two-centered actions, and hence they are then limited and distorted in their results. We can remember George Adies words, I believe, when he was telling Gurdjieff that he thought he knew what self remembering was but had then come to the conclusion that he didn’t actually have a clue, and here Gurdjieff joyously remarked that from that day they were brothers. Self remembering and self observation can both become something formulaic and dead, though having the appearance of being alive and essential etc. Real moments of self remembering can easily and quickly become their counterfeit ‘image’ without this being noticed. The energy released or liberated through self remembering can also come to be distorted in its use, such that the results then become equally distorted. In terms of energy transformation, the energy of a given state has to be given a suitable means of expression, otherwise it devolves and becomes toxic etc.

Gurdjieff mentions how different people and schools can have different understandings of the different conscious shocks etc, and their work can be centred more in one or other of the shocks, but this then lacks a balanced understanding and engagement of all the shocks etc. Gurdjieff also mentions the possibility of coming to the fourth room prematurely or in a distorted way, such that the room is empty and the man becomes merely an immortal thing. In Beelzebub we have the Hasnamusses with higher bodies but malformed conscience etc. A state is never enough by itself to give balance and harmony, and as Gurdjieff said, all the different aspects of the work need to be engaged in balance in order to give the proper results.

Self remembering, subjectively, involves a total act of the being, and this is very different to ‘one part observing the rest’ with some sense of its own ‘self’. Self remembering should concern the I, but what the ‘sense’ of I consists of in different people can be radically different. In one sense, self remembering, as the affirmation of I, should not be a ‘effort’ at all, and yet on the other hand, if it is to correspond to an effort, then this must far exceed one that is centred in the ‘mind’ in terms of simply an action of the general mental attention. If we were to centre self remembering in the brain, then it would be more connected to the cerebellum.

It is known that efforts at the work are not guaranteed to give results, and distortion and misunderstanding need to be appreciated. It is said that it is inevitable for work to begin in the personality rather than the essence, and hence there is the inevitable confusing of personality, or certain aspects of the personality, for the essence. The very sense of ‘who’ it is that is performing the work, and is to get results form it, can be mistaken from the beginning, as can the form of efforts involved in the work, along with the actual taste of the higher states etc. Gurdjieff emphasised efforts that take one to the edge of one’s ability, but in a global direction, and not just towards one aspect of one’s being. Gurdjieff also highlighted quality over quantity, even though he did give some value to repeated actions over time. A higher quality of action can enter any of our actions and capacities, and it may be realized through different forms of ‘effort’, or non effort, depending on the given application and situation.

Gurdjieff mentions the need for a connection between the conscious and subconscious, and in terms of self remembering, ‘that’ which remembers itself, or does the action of it, has to pass beyond the consciousness, such that it involves the subconsciousness. Self remembering has to transcend the ‘subjective’ effort that is centred in the subjective sense of self of the consciousness. This is not to say that the subjective effort of the given consciousness is not involved in self remembering, but by itself it cannot do it or give the correct results. In this direction, there is the biblical expression which says that we need to come to see just as we are seen. We might see here that self remembering is then just as much something that is done to us as it is something that we do. Self remembering always transcends the given ‘subject-object’, ‘self-other’ form of relation and conception.

In a simple sense, we can say that because we are legion in our nature, we are not used to experiencing the form of unity that is present in self remembering, we are not used to the unified form of self that is present in self remembering. Our given sense of self is a counterfeit image of unity, and hence the ‘self’ that begins the work and is making the efforts is ‘partial’ and one of the many legion. Along with this, the awareness that this ‘self’ has of itself is ‘fragmented’, and this means that the ‘self’ has limited awareness of its own actions. There is limited awareness of how things arise and happen, including the self’s own actions and efforts. An action or effort that seems to be centred in the self, and maintained by it, may actually be centred in another aspect of the legion. Hence the efforts that the self can be making, towards self remembering, may only be ‘nested’ within a larger action or effort. The ‘I’ that attempts self remembering, or thinks that it remembers itself, can also merely be the result or bi-product of self remembering.

The will in man is divided, and so man’s actions are divided, he has multiple centres of initiative. The given sense of the singular centre of initiative, the singular ‘i’ and self/identity, is a an ‘illusion’ resulting from an inner state of segregation and a capacity for ‘mimicry’. Gurdjieff presents the apparent ‘paradox’ of self remembering and Real I when he says that true self remembering is possible only with Real I, and yet Real I can only come through self remembering etc. There is the notion here of the apparent impossibility of ‘pulling oneself up by one’s boot straps’. This may only appear impossible because the ‘self’ that is to do the pulling is misunderstood in its nature to begin with. It is the fact that man has a multiplised will and form of being, and is legion, that enables there to be real transformation and realization of Real ‘I’. The nature of this Real I is evidently different to the general sense of self and I, it is not simply this but better and bigger and with bells on in some way. Real I is also evidently not just some capacity for ‘control’ and direction by one given part that may regard itself as the whole or as I etc. Self remembering is also then not just a heightened version of our ordinary experience.

The transition from dreaming to waking, that we experience each day, may be considered as simply a matter of an increase of awareness, and hence the waking realm may then be taken as simply a heightened form of the dream realm. The transition between the realms, and the difference in their natures, may not be one that is simply determined by an increase or decrease in the level of awareness. The waking and dreaming realms are realms in their own right, and they are thereby differentiated and distinguished by something other than simply the level of awareness. The dream realm has different laws to the waking realm, it has its own nature, and different things can be done in it as compared to the waking realm. In terms of the subjective experience, a dream can be much more intense than a waking experience, and it can be experienced with the sense of the presence of a greater awareness than a waking experience.

The subjective experience of the transition between dreaming and waking is not experienced as a matter of subjective effort or concentration in regard to awareness. The same is so for the transition between waking and dreaming/sleeping, which evidently involves something more than subjective effort in regard to the degree of awareness. In regard to falling asleep, in general we can only make the effort to put ourselves into a suitable state, such as relaxation, in order to aid the onset and transition into sleep, and the transition itself then remains outside of the direct control of the subjective self. Even if one could directly initiate the transition into sleep, we might consider what this would mean in terms of the experience of this transition, as well as how having this ability might change the experience of the dream, and also waking, realms. Along with the transition between dream and waking appearing to be outside of direct subjective control, there is also the general experience in which the transition is a ‘blank’ in terms of subjective experience. The subject simply ‘finds himself’ either dreaming or waking, regardless of what his intention was prior to this moment. Also, once finding himself in the given realm or state, the subject tends not to experience any sense of having to make an effort in order to remain in the said realm of experience. Here, self remembering is said to be the birth right and inheritance of man, and yet he appears to experience a form of estrangement from this that may be his very nature. The sense of having to make an effort in order to maintain, and remain in, a given realm or state of consciousness cam seem mysterious and questionable. How can we be actively involved in the creation and maintenance of the realm or ‘world’ that we inhabit ?

In dreaming, we have such things as ‘lucid dreaming’, where there can be intentional action and control over the dream happenings etc, but this control is still centred ‘within’ the dream realm itself. One can experience control over the environment of the dream realm, but in lucid dreaming one does not experience participation in the creation of the dream realm/state itself nor its maintenance and persistence. In lucid dreaming one does not participate in the action whereby the dreaming state is maintained, and one does not participate in the action whereby the dream realm/state itself is created or initiated and actualized.

With self remembering, we have to conceive of a greater participation in the creation and maintenance of the realm or state of experience itself, rather than simply some form of greater capability and capacity in a given realm of experience. Self remembering is then creative and always has something unique to/in it by its very nature. In self remembering, man participates in the creation of his own realm or state of consciousness and being, and this is much more than simply ‘putting oneself into a certain state’, and perhaps then ‘trying to remain in that state’.