I'm resisting the impulse to simply post a sarcastic quip. You seem like an intelligent man. I have trouble believing that you seriously believe what you just tweeted.
-
-
Replying to @Aristokles11235 @ejwatsonjr
Beelzebub certainly doesn't treat 'the sexes' as a social construct, "... distinct and opposite sexes ... that is to say in 'men' and 'women' ..." -pic.twitter.com/ySWiFtble0
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @Aristokles11235
I do not read Beelzebub’s Tales as literally as you do.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ejwatsonjr @Aristokles11235
I also would never use BT to support an argument I’m making about politics or society even in areas where I think BT does “support” my beliefs. I think that would be using the text incorrectly. I use it for inner work, not social commentary. This is where Christianity went wrong.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ejwatsonjr @Aristokles11235
The series of books is called "All and Everything" for a reason. Gurdjieff's writings, his aim, and his life do not support a compartmentalized treatment of the Work. I don't know why you think it does.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @couturerob @ejwatsonjr
He thinks it does because to think otherwise wouldn't allow him to comfortably fit in with all of the other people in his environment that think exactly the same way he does about the very latest "burning question of the day".
2 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
It's a very convenient stance. Gurdjieff writes hundreds of pages of meta-historical/social commentary. You write it all off in favor of a purely 'spiritual' interpretation because, well you just know better. It all gets reduced to something indistinguishable from, say Buddhism.
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @Aristokles11235 @couturerob
Gurdjieff also writes a great deal about science. Are you going to tell me that the sun literally is not a source of heat and light?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ejwatsonjr @couturerob
Lame. And you know it. Try a bit sincerity now and again.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Aristokles11235 @couturerob
I am being sincere. Do you not take that part literally? Why pick and choose what is literal and what isn’t?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
You're making the demand that the interpretation be either literal or inner, not I. That's a formatory trap. Mr. G's ideas on sexual normalcy are well known & not limited to BT. The state of the Sun you're referring to occurs in the Chapter entitled The Arch-absurd. Go figure.
-
-
an relevant account from one of Mr. G's students- C. S. Nott. (quoted from his book <Teachings of Gurdjieff-a Pupils Journal>)pic.twitter.com/sBZdkIHUCe
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Obviously Mr. Gurdjieff and C.S Nott lived in an era when people still thought of homosexuality as some sort of disease that needed to be cured. Too bad they weren't even as awake and enlightened as the average modern progressive.
1 reply 1 retweet 8 likes - 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.