confusion

for days i've been meaning to write about a topic or another. everything i'm about to write is tempered by a web search and finding something more comprehensive, sophisticated, and sometimes even scholarly already extant. but more than that ... my lone cry to make sense of the contradiction between what had been "the fourth way" and the legacy transmitted through mme de salzmann seems to be developing somewhat.

i've outlined some of the topics I'd like to cite and round up, and am haunted that that consistency might be a very formatory manifestation of the intellectual center.

it will change and maybe won't ever get written! but so far it includes ...

--desalzmann creating a nucleus

--bennett et al looking for the next teacher and baraka

--bennett on baraka

--sophia wellbeloved's toothsome morsel

--"there will be facts" a la ouspensky, this force from higher is real

--on one hand it acts on a "chemical factory"

--the work starts on a higher level; staircase, distrust in teacher, brute force missing the mark, only conscious labors count

--on another hand there's paranoia and conspiracy, to the tune of telling having the sheep guard themselves telling them they are "men" and finding nothing crystallized

--sophia wellbeloved's article in the journal of contemporary religion equating gurdjieff's teachings with love a la subud

--frank sinclair's helpful and interesting context, which, however, ignores the elephant in the room

--the energy is real

--the fourth way being transient as recounted by ouspensky

--what "the ways" "bring," and "aim"

--so with regard to the seemingly mathematical precision of the "fourth way" - physiology, psychology, alchemy, laws - what is subject to change? has the fourth room been vacated?

--nicoll and gospels, rumi