depression

here's a response i contributed to a thread on a fourth way forum recently (I'll tweak it to make it appropriate for posting here):

A recent experience provided me with an insight on my general state which I think is well characterized by Nicoll's commentary on depression (I'll copy that to the end of this post). I might call my state vexation as well as depression because there is definitely an anxious component.

What has not worked, for decades, was sincerely trying to look at, weigh, probe, understand, work with, or work, against my depression. I've thought about multiple I's, I've tried to refrain from identifying with the state, I've variously relaxed or kept busy. Indeed I've noticed that despite being overall in a negative state that one or another center were not altogether negative (but still, my general experience was overwhelmingly negative); I'd altered my posture to see if negative emotional states would dissipated (mostly not); I've spent time with people in the Work, and of course immerse myself in Work ideas – I welcome such interruptions to my trend of experience, but invariably return to familiar territory. I had not followed-up on Nicoll's exacting attributions of which parts of which centers give rise to certain flavors of depression, but wonder if my own making such distinctions would be part of my problem, given my type and experience – I have no doubt that my esoteric interests and pursuits offer me relief, but at the same time I wonder if they morbidly focus me on suffering.

Maybe it is also worth noting in this blog, that people's well-meaning advice almost always comes across as patronizing. as though I hadn't thought about and tried some sort of supplements, exercises, keeping a journal, observing, separating, or whatever. Is reacting by giving a formatory remedy just a manifestation of discomfort? Or posturing as enlightened and superior to the state I find myself in? I said "almost" because some people meet depression eye-to-eye, they recognize and validate the experience before proscribing a remedy. In any case, yes, I've observed how well-meaning advice rankled! But ultimately nothing advised address my condition.

Recently, after spending time with people in the Work, I rode the subway in my usual state of anxiety; upon exiting I saw fat snowflakes falling and I experienced a moment of pleasure. After a moment my normal vexations returned, and I noticed my eagerness to abandon the pleasurable experience in favor of anxiety's clamor. I continued walking and it continued snowing and, having glimpsed both experiential possibilities, I walked very aware of a genuine experiencing of pleasure while guarding against giving myself over to my habitual negative state. For once I noticed that there was not a continuum of experience that was being swayed towards one pole or another; rather, I saw pleasure as something generally less insistent but perhaps more available than I had suspected, even at the same time!

As the inquiry proceeded the insight continued to materialize: Perhaps I forfeit pleasures because pursuing my anxieties seems more urgent or sincere. AS THOUGH THERE'S A MORE URGENT OR SINCERE "I" TO BEGIN WITH! Now, having been directed to Nicoll's relating about "utter integrity" and "noble fellow" (below) I recognize my own "sincerity"! But more than that, perhaps what I had been doing under the guise of looking caringly into my suffering was actually cultivating it! And neglecting what?

This is a new insight for me and I hope it alleviates some of the suffering which characterizes my life. My approach lately is that when there are moments of pleasure I try to affirm them, even just saying "yes"; and when anxiety arises I try to frame my inquiry more detachedly as though wondering how long it will take to pass and where it will go so that I should not mistake it for "me" – indeed, it is just one of multiple I's and I no longer want to seat him at the driver's seat or to coddle him as my favorite darling.

The pure logician on this list will object that pleasurable I's are just as fictitious as suffering I's. However, a general negative state is neither nutritious nor conducive to Work, and it accords to the principle of Mullah Nassr Eddin, "The-very-greatest-happiness-consists-in-obtaining-the-pleasurable-with-the-profitable."

These work ideas relating to others themes relevant to my life suggest these insights might be other than pure imagination and wiseacring; but the proof is in the pudding. I am grateful that by chance I was not in such a stupor so that those particular fat snowflakes were able to rouse me just a bit.

I don't doubt that some such sort of negativity will continue to characterize some of my day-to-day experience but I saw something I hadn't seen, I know something I hadn't known, and upon this basis, I hope, might come understanding and transformation.

* * *

Here's quotations from Nicoll's Commentaries as posted to that fourth way forum by some participant or other:

Now let us speak of efforts on depression. Depression is not the same as being negative. There is one interesting thing about depression to be noticed -- namely, that it affects all centres, even instinctive centre. Depression is not only due to loss of hope and belief in the future, although this is a common cause. It can arise simply from making no efforts of any kind so that the centres are water-logged, so to speak, and on the other hand the state itself, however caused, is one in which the energy in centres turns sour. It can arise simply from a picture of oneself, as when one imagines one is always, let us say, successful, and finds one is not.

But whatever its cause, the state of depression must be recognized and every kind of effort made to over come it. I say EFFORT, because effort only will change the state, even the effort of doing just ordinary small necessary things. But it is the conscious effort of remembering yourself that will instantly lift you out of depression.

The reason is that it brings you into the Work "I's" -- that is, into the I's that feel the influence of the work -- and out of life I's in which the depression is centred. And here I must add that you must add that you must fight to have the Work in you. You must fight in the mind for the Work, to keep it alive, otherwise it begins to get cold."

--Commentaries - Nicoll p.95

People in the Work say, just as people in life say: 'I feel depressed', and think they have observed themselves. Well they have not. They have not begun to observe themselves. If you wish to observe what you unthinkingly call depression, you have to observe from where it arises. From what part of the machine is it coming? From which centre? For instance it may be coming from Intellectual Centre. You will say: 'How can depression originate from Intellectual Centre? Surely depression must always arise from Emotional Centre.' Well if you say that you certainly have not observed yourself. The Emotional Centre may be quite cheerful and yet you are aware of depression existing somewhere in you. Now, if you cannot get use to the idea that you are not one single, unvarying person, but a multiplicity of "I's" and so of contradictions, you will never understand. One part of oneself may be cheerful and another part depressed. "How," you will say, "can such a thing happen? I am either cheerful or depressed." In that case you think as "I" as one thing and so all along your career in the Work you will make the most elementary blunders both in understanding yourself and in understanding the Work, because you cannot see or acknowledge that you are not one but many. A loss of prestige is certainly involved here. "Noble Fellow" -- yes, but fear that this "noble fellow" is a picture. "Perfect honesty and virtue" is a picture. "Utter integrity" --yes, but I fear the same thing again. So seeing through your own bluff, as it were, you cease talking about full of nobleness, honesty, virtue and integrity.

Actually, we are quite different from our pictures -- and indeed, far more interesting. Yes, we do steal jam still. Yes, we do lie, and so on. Yet -- and this is not strange? -- you can watch people becoming old and dried up because they still nurse their dead dolls, still cling to what is not themselves, and so lose all possible contact with the essential springs of their real existence. In such a case, the Personality has conquered-- particularly with the aid of the False Personality.

You can see a great many people in this situation every day if your mental eyes are open to the inner state and level of others. It is especially interesting to watch when a person stops and pitches camp for good in this long, strange, psychological journey called the Work. They meet a small difficulty and halt and settle down. There are some interesting parables about this. And it is all because of these false pictures of themselves that they worship and cling to.

Now one source of depression is obviously these pictures. So in observing the origin of depression you must observe whether it comes from a picture that has been injured by some chance remark. Of course, you will not be able to observe the picture directly, because it is imaginary. But you will be able to observe the remark, and from that, after perhaps many years, gradually deduce the picture that dominates you and prevents you from escaping from its narrow jealous power. I remind you here of what was said recently about touchiness and noticing what makes you touchy -- a very useful and practical form of self observation.

Now return to observing depression -- as it was said, it can originate from different centres. It may for example, be due to Instinctive Centre borrowing force owing to a slight infection. It may arise from the Intellectual Centre -- and certainly often does in the case of women more than in men, but I do not know. Intellectual depression is a very well-marked form of depression and is not primarily due to the Emotional Centre. The worst depression possible originates in the Emotional Centre itself, only here again are many forms involving different parts of the Emotional Centre. Depression centred in the moving part of Emotional Centre is common enough and is merely a kind of boredom. Depression arising from the emotional part of Emotional Centre tends to violence. Depression arising from the intellectual part of Emotional Centre is dangerous because it is connected with a loss of faith in God, taking God here as the source that gives us our daily bread --i.e. our daily supply of meaning for our existences. Then there is depression coming from people giving up some of their usual interests and sources of meaning, from some wrong aim. To give up a source of meaning without having another to take its place is to tamper ignorantly with the balance of the machine. Remember, we are taught in the Work that the First Conscious Shock can be given safely -- it does not tamper with the machine. Reflect here on all that the First Conscious Shock means. Then again there is the depression that comes from allowing old stereotyped "I's" to criticize Work "I's" -- the old criticizing the young in oneself--which is an ancient theme in myths -- as Kronos or Time eating his children.

All that has been said is to show how wide self-observation must become and how silly it is to say, for instance: "I am depressed", and leave it like that. One can at least begin to ask oneself: "What 'I' is depressed?" But in this paper which is more about centres, I cannot go into this aspect of self-observation dealing with "I's". Suffice to say that "I's" live in every part and sub-division of the different minds or centres in our machines. But I will add that they may be haunted by an evil "I" that seeks to drag everything down into despair and meaninglessness. Well, watch and observe this evil "I" continually.

--Commentaries - Nicoll p.1211-1213

to perish like a dog

of course gurdjieff's expression is a put-down, but i was thinking more about it. in particular, i remember someone absurdly suggesting that a child amongst us was the least enlightened of a group! yet while a young child is more awake than most of us can ever hope to muster, s/he is indeed not fully developed.

a dog is not particularly "asleep" either. they are true and intelligent and natural. gurdjieff indicated to someone (somewhere!) that dogs recognize something in man which the dog does not have (even if we don't recognize it!).

on a fourth way forum one participant indicated that gurdjieff said "Without aim, man no better than dog." (i haven't verified that gurdjieff said but don't particularly question it).

i don't know how true it is that dogs are two-centered beings because they certainly are intelligent. but perhaps it is an emotional intelligence. after all, it is hard to imagine a dog acting against what it "thinks" is proper. perhaps that's what the pavlovian experiments were about. humans have perfected the art of separating what feels right and action or thought. if only there were such a thing as an "institute for harmonious development of man" ... but i digress ....

someone once asked gurdjieff if there's anything that survives after death. gurdjieff responded that for the person who faints when they get a paper cut, what could survive death!? dogs probably don't ask those questions.

i once confronted a friend with the assertion, "besides all this theory about suffering and friction, what about emotional pain, what about the experience of it right now, what is it?" he responded, "first of all, it is real. it is not imaginary suffering. but that doesn't have to end with that - we're three-centered beings and our intellect can lead to transformation" - or something like that. along those lines another friend, perhaps saying something she read from nicoll, once told me, work ideas are "enzymes" to digest experiences.

so i'm thinking along the lines that inasmuch as our thinking function just moves, reacts, etc., it is all in vain and our experience doesn't go as far as it might and doesn't accomplish anything.

but more than that, like my friend alluded to, the intellectual center's reconciling might have a creative potential - to facilitate further digestion of experiences and to foster the crystallization of something more. things that are "perishable" decay, but gurdjieff's teachings point towards transformation and creating something that endures. perhaps harmonization of the intellectual center with other centers fosters such processes. perhaps dying like a dog is not in itself loathsome except to the extent that it is the waste of a precious opportunity to make something for one's self.

it is difficult to imagine that ouspensky, with his prodigious intellect perished like a dog. surely he made super efforts and applied all the theory; gurdjieff did say that no effort is wasted. there's missing pieces here. but then again, even ouspensky himself was frustrated by his application of theory and how far it took him.

i thought i was done, but apparently i'm not. maybe i'll get the hang of it. i did a search for the phrase and came up with this (strange) link:

In John Bennett's Talks on Beelzebub's Tales, he recalls one night spent in Gurdjieff's Paris apartment shortly before the latter's death। There was a typical gathering of students: among them English, Americans, French, Greeks—more than fifty people assembled in a small apartment to have dinner with Gurdjieff and to listen to him speak. Gurdjieff offered a toast which in its simplicity seemed forceful: "Everyone must have an aim. If you have not an aim, you are not a man. I will tell you a very simple aim, to die an honorable death. Everyone can take this aim without any philosophizing—not to perish like a dog." "As always," Bennett recalls, "he suddenly turns the conversation to a joke and in a minute the room is shaken with laughter at some story about the peculiarities of the English. But the impression remains of the overwhelming seriousness of our human situation, of the choice which confronts us between life and death."

What seems simple, not to perish like a dog, is for Gurdjieff the most difficult aim a person can have. And making us aware of the choice between life and death, or between kinds and qualities of death, is a main concern of Beelzebub's Tales. In the Tales, however, the choice is presented in far more complex terms: we can either live our lives and die our deaths passively and mechanically, for the sole purpose of unconsciously supplying the Cosmos with required energies, whereby upon death we sacrifice our individuality; alternatively, we can live in such a way as to supply required Cosmic energies consciously, and of sufficient quantity and quality, so that death carries the potential of amounting to more than a payment of transformed energy, and we gain the possibility of becoming "immortal within the limits of the Solar System."

The choice between life and death as expressed in these terms is related to Gurdjieff's Theory of Reciprocal Maintenance, which embodies his answer to the question, "What is the meaning and purpose of life on Earth, and in particular of human life?" Like all organic life on Earth, human beings are apparatuses for transforming energies which are required for some other purpose. However, as a more complicated type of transforming apparatus than plants or animals, human beings possess some choice regarding how to supply the energies required by their existence. They can transform energy consciously or unconsciously, in greater or lesser quantities, and of varying qualities, thereby influencing the purpose and outcome of their deaths. These are among the choices of which Gurdjieff wants to make us aware in his Tales.…

if such an on-target post already exists, what is my business posting in the first place?

and if here, as in probably all my posts, my attempt to integrate ideas and experience results in unlikely intellectual interpolation and extrapolation yielding something altogether improbable (even as upon ouspensky meeting gurdjieff, gurdjieff referred to ouspensky's tertium organum as something altogether impossible), even if it does contains a grain of truth, isn't that wiseacring?