I had a http://www.site called I-Site. It’s now transferred to WordPress so I can get my house in order…
Introduction
We are not one single unified ‘I’ – we are many ‘I’s…
Ouspensky: Fourth Way
We imagine life as we live it; though we might occasionally hope for something else, we continue to imagine that it could not be any other way than it is; we tell ourselves long intricate stories about it—about how clever I am, how confused I may be, how ambitious I am, how lacking in confidence I used to be, how I cannot think of what to do next… On and on and on…
Most of all we imagine that we are one Single-I—that all the ‘I’s in the previous paragraph are exactly the same ‘I’; using the same little word ‘I’ as the subject of each of the statements gives us the impression, though it may be a bit mystifying at times, that it is the same entity that governs all our feelings and quandaries. We imagine that we are one ‘I’—the Big-I-am. We can’t get out of that I—we identify with it as our one single self.
As a result, it is almost certainly the case that until we realise how we are imprisoned in a single ‘I’ there is no chance for us to change or develop. “This is my ‘I’ and I’m stuck with it…” “There’s nothing ‘I’ can do about it…” To which one might respond: Which ‘I’ can do nothing about it?
We have chosen to imprison our selves in a single ‘I’.
Do you find yourself ‘stuck’ for words, for ideas, for a way forward, for a way of proceeding? Do you find your self saying things like “I have a writer’s block”, “I do not know what to do next”, “I’m not feeling very creative today” and so on? All ‘stuckness’ is the result of imagining that all these ‘I’s are one and the same ‘I’.
With I-site you’ll be able to discover how to become unstuck in whatever way you choose, just whenever you choose.
The thing is that as well as having a Being-stuck-I you also have thousands of other ‘I’s—Multiple-I’s—that are not at all stuck, not at all blocked and you can have plenty of coherent and resourceful strategies for coping with things.
Conventional-I is an abstraction only roughly referring to what is a very dubious whole. On the other hand a Multiple-I is a specific representation of a recognisable recurrent element or state of Being.
Having arrived here successfully, there’s an ‘I’ in your repertoire that can decide now to begin exploration of your Multiple-I’s and find out how new insights will bubble up, helping you to achieve more clarity of vision, enhance creativity and bust imaginary blocks in general.
The concept of Multiple-I’s takes Enneagram Studies and Neuro-linguistic Programming (NLP) several stages forward, helping you to coach yourself into renewal of self and relationships and to possess a feeling of vastly expanding your place in the universe.
If you’ve ever heard one of your ‘I’s saying, “There must be more to life than this…” (Ouspensky in The Fourth Way), then this is the place for you!
There must be something more to life than this…
colinblundell 
That, I would submit, is one of the fine things about being a writer: One is always happily exploring Multiple-Is.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes! And awareness of constantly shifting from ‘I’ to ‘I’ increases one’s writing facility and flow. Stuck in one area, moving to another ‘I’ will offer a different perspective. You’ll know this anyway!
LikeLike
Hi Colin,
This page doesn’t seem to be a blog, I’m not sure how to reply to it except for this. But I wondered, have you seen the Enneagram Studies that J. Kamel and I did on our List? That was on the Fall Harvest Edition of JKU, that we made back in 2007. You find that here http://bit.ly/zIoiml , if you’d like to look at it. The Enneagram Studies Category is the, of course, 7th one, but you just scroll down to it, and there’s an outline at the top of the document so that it is not at all confusing to use (you’d be surprised at how much trouble some people have at figuring out how to use the JKU). And, you probably already know this, but, you can link directly from the List to any website on it simply by ctrl-clicking the line. (If Word fails, just copy and paste the URL into your browser’s address bar. The new Word 10 often fails like that, one of their worst ones yet.)
Won’t you write to me with any questions or comments?
Jone Dae
LikeLiked by 1 person
Enjoyed a second time around.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jone
No, it’s not a Blog (or Glob as I prefer to call it just to be awkward – I always follow Gurdjieff’s grandmum’s never to do as others do…) It’s part of the Introductory pages to what amounts to a Website. The fact that your post arrived here meant that you did the Right Thing!
I used to have an expensive Website that I couldn’t fathom how to manage properly for myself; with free WordPress I have all the benefits of a Website with total control over the text – I can change anything I like any time and it’s interactive. I have many more contacts as a result of setting up WordPress than I ever had before. And I can insert a regular Glob at the press of a button.
Sounds like an advert for WordPress.
I’ll have a look at your reference. Thanks!
Colin
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jone
I find that I have already visited your lists via Henry. An excellent resource.
One of the first things that happened to me in WITW was that I was trodden heavily upon by various people who said the only way of looking at the Enneagram was the Rodney Collin way or some other way or who asserted that Icahzo/Naranjo were populist charlatans.
Since somewhere in ISOTM Gurdjieff is quoted as saying that everything can be plotted on the Enneagram, I came to find the people who jumped on me to be boring mechanicals.
I was especially pleased to have a weekend with Claudio Naranjo a couple of years ago where his relating of Gurdjieff thinking to the Enneagram of Fixations confirmed me in my belief that the way I teach the Enneagram is valid. The people I explore it with certainly think so.
I have also linked Bennett’s Process Model with the Ichazo/Naranjo approach. I have a paper on it. The Process Model works very well for the business people I work with and they instantly recognise the relationship with Multiple-I’s.
Your resource lists are very useful, Thank you.
Colin
LikeLiked by 2 people
Wonderful.
LikeLike
It’s a small world, sometimes. In the 1990s, I was in a group called, the Berkeley Brain Center, or BBC; they later changed their name to the Berkely Symposium. And after I had voluteered to do some service work for them, they asked me to transcribe a talk, that Claudio Naranjo had given there, knowing that I had those kinds of skills. Naranjo, too, in one of the few educated sources of information, in the form of psychiatric case studies and so on, about various rare psychedelic plants, fungi, and such substances. His book was useful to me there. But also, (I guess I do like Naranjo, really) I like his Gestalt book best of the ones available, and some of his other writings as well.
This is probably the appropriate place to mention that I met Bandler and Grinder, back when they were just Not Ltd. in Santa Cruz. One of them was giving a talk on campus, UCSC, to the Liguistics Club, and I attended by invitation; but that was around 1980, and I’ve forgotten which of them it was that came and spoke.
Sometimes the world is a little smaller, when we find others like us. I once did a list, and proposed it to Jae for one of our online Lists, of The Heroes Of The 20th Century, grouped by Category, of course. I suspect, that may be a very good way for folks like you and me to find others of our kind. And, those very much not of our kind. However, we put it on a back burner. Many of my notes, handwritten, stayed behind in Indiana when I cam back out here, so, I’ve done nothing new on that. Instead, we shared a Library Thing account, and put one of our playful Lists on there. Here’s his page, http://www.librarything.com/home/JaeKamel , and here’s the List…. http://www.librarything.com/topic/99254 .
Enjoy.
Jone.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Now I’m here I notice that next to the ‘Reply’ button there’s one labelled ‘Quick Edit’ – that enables you to edit somebody else’s post!
I didn’t know of the Library Thing. I have all my books catalogued and could add to the list! There’s some overlap!
I like the idea of cataloguing heroes. One of the processes of NLP is to model on a hero/heroine. I’ve so many heroes that I now look for common characteristics. The NLP question is always HOW DO THEY DO THAT? It’s like the challenges at the end of Glass Bead Game – that is certainly on my list of great books and Hesse is one of my great heroes!
Grinder I think is OK. Bandler is a bit of a maniac. Dilts is my man!
Colin
LikeLiked by 1 person
Excellent. And so, you are one person that I can share a “secret” with: Jan Cox uses hypnosis in his talks! Especially, watch the videos, and, with what you know, you’ll see him doing that “magic”. -Henry is in touch with the Jan Cox followers, and, he sent a message to me. It was, that he sort-of “probed” them to see how aware they were about Jan: did they understand his sources? Did they understand how the material he presented was similar to or the same as the messages that others gave? Or how they were different, or unique to him? Did they understand what Jan did, and how he did it? Did they understand what Jan was trying to do? (I’m condensing and paraphrasing Henry here.) -And the results were, basically the answer ‘no’ to all of the above questions. They have fixed ideas about the kinds of things that you are supposed to talk about and think about, and especially about their hero, Jan Cox. For instance, it is wrong for you to compare him to anyone else, or to notice when his teachings were similar to those of other Teachers. They didn’t get, for example, that Teachers are teaching the same things, since they are True, and that the real Teachers adapt them for the time, place, and ‘cultural essence’ (G’s term) of the listeners. Even after I showed them the records from the University of Georgia at Athens, showing that Jan specialized on the history and contents of certain religious, philosophical, and esoteric ideas, they still denied that (a) he was saying anything that anyone else had; that (b) he’d adapted those teachings for his audience; and (c) that anyone else could have known and taught just what he did. Seriously! Then several of them dogpiled Henry, and revealed their degree of development, maturity, their degree of Being, when they did so. Henry, has found his own Enlightenment in life, and, in degree of being and intelligence, is a match for Jan Cox; he’s one of the best “sleepers”, people who are indecipherable to others, that Jae and I have found online, it’s one reason we became friends with him IRL, and then eventually FB friends as well. I’m hoping that you find this interesting. Both Dwa Carlos and Derek Hand, ‘talked down’ to Henry, assumed that they were smarter and more developed than him, and, basically better than him, especially in the case of Dwa Carlos, who has a very big ego, and is like a smarter, better educated version of Martyn Charles. You could join one of those groups if you wanted to, just to observe the dialog: Jac Cox 4D Science, and Jan Paradigm. Henry can see where they are at, and what they do and don’t know; they, on the other hand, can’t see Henry very well at all, and don’t see their own place in the scales, of degree of being, development, and intelligence. And those two, and some of the others, are obviously intelligent, but they are no match for Henry Jay Koehler, believe me. They would try to instruct him, and what he was doing wrong, and what he needed to do or to know, as if they were advanced beyond him, when all the while the reverse was true.
Anyway, Colin, I am grateful that you are comfortable with reading and writing longer posts, since, sometimes it takes a few words more to say what you’ve got to say; it is always worth the effort for us to think, can I say this another way, and in fewer words? So that we “stop!” the stream of automatic associations, which is how most people think and talk, or “think” in quotes, since it is all Mr. Personality letting their formatory apparatus do their thinking for them.
And that is the sad result of Jan’s work. He himself worked very hard for The Work, and spent his life doing his being-partkdolgduty, and became a man of a high degree of Being, and a Saint, perhaps; and he was “born to the breed”, as all of us were, who find ourselves in possession of a messianic complex, and born with the appropriate talents and gifts to do such Great Work. But his followers, don’t get that, his teaching was not complete, and that they have clever ideas about things, derived from their great man and their association with him, but that they themselves are still most of them unevolved, untransformed, or as Jan would say, living “at the City level”. BTW Henry said that Dana is their best man, the most intelligent and developed one. If you want to join their forum to watch what goes on. Dana is the “admin” or moderator of those forums.
LikeLiked by 2 people
You’re my match, Jone. 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Modelling Process in NLP is certainly not ‘slavish imitation’ of whatever appears on the surface. Asking how a chosen model does whatever they do can only go so far. I remember modelling on the guy who taught me NLP (along with a lot of other people!), Ian McDermott – I wanted to know how he coped with the unpleasant manifestations of others; I watched him; I noticed that he seemed to retract inwardly when somebody ‘attacked’ him; I tried that on for size myself – retracting inwardly – and found that I could take the whole of my being inward into some undefinable impenetrable place where nothing could touch me. Nowadays I’d call it External Considering from some distant place inside me. Slavish imitation would have just got me the externals – hand to chin and a long Hmmmm… The going beyond meant that in testing this pose out for myself I discovered internal things, internal resources, a movement of something or other that I’ve found very useful in life.
Jan Cox has a great feel of containment to him. I called my own discovery ‘self-noughting’. He, I think, is pretty well sure to have some version or other of that. In fact the essence of anybody I care about is their self-containment, reserve, the engine of their thinking working way down there somewhere. As you suggest, I think, they possess an ‘indecipherability’ and hold to it.
I think all ‘communication’ is hypnosis; we are hypnotised by words, phrasings, direction of argument. Jan Cox is mesmerising because of all this. Formal hypnotic methods I’m pretty impervious to – I think I think too much!
I find ‘dog-piling’ interesting but I think I’ve now understood the way it goes… It’s like Thoreau said of reading newspapers – once you’ve read one you’ve read the lot and you don’t need to keep on verifying that the world is full of swindlers, con-artists, empire-builders, murderers, power possessors exerting it, people running their own agendas without reference to anybody else’s. Joining WITW and escaping was enough for me; I don’t think I’m particularly into joining another group!
I agree about ‘…how most people think and talk, or “think” in quotes, since it is all Mr. Personality letting their formatory apparatus do their thinking for them…’ Hesse: ‘…we talk too much…’ Ouspensky: ‘…one must never do anything unnecessary…’ When I hear long conversations taking place I always keep wondering what on earth people find to talk about!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Colin,
I enjoyed your reply once again; you seem more centered and aware than I had initially thought, from reading the 4wla posts that Henry forwarded to me. Yes, he has tried to interest me in joining that and FB, but I often don’t have enough time for all the things I have to do. But also, Jae shares his FB page with me, so I can post there whenever I want. We thought that would be appropriate, since we work as partners, and have produced all the JKU that way. Additionally, I was originally the ‘silent partner’ on the JKU, and my name wasn’t used, at first. So, even though all my FB posts will still have Jae’s name and photo on them, we thought that would still be appropriate, as the silent partner in the partnership.
Regarding the remark about hypnosis, I hope that you will take this in the right way. That is, a professional or medical hypnotist, upon hearing that the techniques “don’t work on you”, would immediately accept you as a subject or patient. That’s right, they would know that they could hypnotize you, since you revealed that you don’t know how it works.
There are those who are considered non-susceptible, that’s the term that they use; however, there are other traits and behaviors to look for to determine who is and who is not susceptible. However, a person’s opinions about whether or not they are susceptible, is not relevant to that determination. This is common knowledge among professional hypnotists.
Advertisers have been using hypnotic techniques for years, both audio, visual, and A/V combined. That is, the ad agencies who design the ads for the clients. It was discovered, that the big companies and corporations, were willing to pay big money, serious money, for ads that created or perpetuated customers. To make a long story short, it became a very big industry over the years, and 99% of everybody has no idea at all, of just how sneaky and effective commercial advertising is.
I also can see why you wouldn’t want to join another group; but seeing how much Dwa Carlos was like the folks on WITW or 4wLA, just made me think of that. Really, though, you are quite right when you say, when you’ve seen one, you’ve see them all; I’m just disappointed that so many are that way. I was especially disappointed to learn from Henry that the Jan Cox followers are no different and no better, including that they think that they are.
Since Jan did nothing to teach his followers how to work with the emotional and moving/instinctive centers, his teaching was imbalanced. He also taught them some beautiful things, things that a saint would say or teach, sometimes. But the Jan Cox people have completely unmodified personalities, and undeveloped essences; they are still “normal”. And again, this is what makes me certain that Jan was in a School somewhere, since he was obviously several steps beyond them.
The Gurdjieff Work is still the most complete and most effective teaching that came from the 20th Century. About Krishnamurti, for example, he seems to be in the same situation that Jan was in: he himself was enlightened, but couldn’t make anyone else that way. I have had certain involvements with the Krishnamurti Foundation of America, and still receive e-mail from them, and, they too seem completely normal, still ‘at the city level’; and again, they also think that they are not. That pattern, we often see repeated.
LikeLiked by 2 people
A little more than 4 year later, and I have really liked re-reading this thread tonight.
I’m also studying Jone’s “new” Geology Glossary, a subject I never studied in school.
Cheers, Colin!
LikeLiked by 2 people