partly i looked at it b/c i was told how lame and lazy the intellect is. but the article quickly dispelled misgivings, discussing how geometry engages intellect and intuition, and illustrates pythagoreanometricly proof that a2+b2=c2 (c2 being the square on the hypotenuse).
by coincidence, on the same day I also read "As we are we are like two thirds of a triangle, a negative side and a positive side, but no base connecting them so there’s nothing to let them flow, work together. What takes the place of real “I” in us now is personality and personality constantly changes, never stays put, so we can’t really use ourselves for any real tasks. When we replace personality with individuality based in essence, then we will be able to do." -- recounted from a 1973 meeting with Annie Lou Stavely (d. 2001).
In the common presence of every being existing merely on the basis of itoklanotz, there is 'something' similar to the regulator in a mechanical watch, and this 'something' is called 'iransamkeep,' which means 'not-to-give-oneself-up-to-the-associations-resulting-from-the-functioning-of-one-brain-alone.'
the NYT article indicates that the pythagorean theorem is less about lengths than areas. i can't help but reflect that pythagoras is given due recognition in B'sTs (apart from G's derision of other "philosophic" greeks' pouring from the empty to the void), and also to consider the fourth way tenet that everything is matter. and i associate the discussion about shocks, that the nature of the first conscious shock is self-remembering, and the nature of the second conscious shock is more difficult to describe but related to emotion and the efforts of not identifying and not expressing negative emotion, etc..
i particularly appreciated this article. there's something experiential. as though the exponent "squared" is indeed weilding, even with subtle expertise, "levers."
how to grapple with an unknown quantity - unknown in length certainly, but perhaps also in dimension? well, first of all, there's whatever it is that's sucking all my attention, what i'm identified with - that's a given, how i live my life ordinarily. along comes something that might expand my attention - for instance, if i'm "identified" with writing some argument, perhaps some bodily irritation or remembering to sense my body might invite another center to participate within my field of attention. although bodily irritation might inform my experience, it might automatically engage personality; but perhaps a work effort would be an invitation to something more essential to participate.
setting out to identify a2 and b2 to derive c2 (and perhaps ultimately the root of it all - "I") seems a tall order. yet ouspensky's frontespeice to tertium organum includes cites Paul theApostle, The Epistle to the Ephesians, III, 17-18, saying "That ye, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height."
but just one other thing about this, about trigonometry and "wiseacring" -- once I accompanied an architect who was surveying where a building was planned. with stakes and a string we charted out the land -- i don't recall the procedure, but i think what we did was some primative triangulation (although it might have been rudimentray measuring (perhaps haskel duke will find this blog and refresh my memory)). similarly, i've got this notion that with the tools at my disposal, i should be able to discern something on a larger scale. but even so, just as the NYT suggests that there are areas hiding behind lengths, what will enliven my sensibilities to register such expanded impressions?
in any case, it is both my disposition as well as my purpose that by pondering or simply mashing up these ideas i might somehow distill or otherwise make something for myself. maybe i'll even stumble upon something in the upturned soil. meanwhile, like the forbidden room in a fairy tale, i take license and even invitation in G's "warning" (c.f., “Never forget that every stick has two ends. The devil can lead you to paradise, and God, directly to Hell.” — G.I. Gurdjieff ). Moreover, G. himself indicates regarding iransamkeep:
If only such an idea would occur to them and they were to carry on their usual wiseacrings with it, they would then perhaps discover onevery simple 'secret.' I am sure that somebody would stumble on this 'secret' because, in the first place, it is simple and obvious, and in the second place, they discovered it long ago and have often put it to practical use.
Posts
