"Why do some of you grope in darkness, after so many years, still not understanding what work on yourself means? What is wrong with you? Can you observe nothing in yourselves that is patently contradicting the Work-teaching?" Nicoll Commentaries, p1693

It becomes clear to anyone reading the later lectures of Ouspensky and Nicoll that something has gone wrong; this something has to do with Self-Observation (SO). Most folks of my acquaintance 'in the Work,' or who write Work literature spend the majority of their time focused on this subject. Is this what the system dictates? Should we really spend such a percentage of our work efforts on one aspect of this many facetted teaching?

Going straight to the horse's mouth, so to speak, we find a startling statement: G says, in the third series, that SO "is indeed quite indispensable at the beginning for everyone who is striving to learn the truth, but which, if it becomes the center of gravity for the mentation of man, will, as was long ago established and verified by me, unfailingly lead to just the result which, to my great regret, I observe now in each one of you." (p96) This result is described also: "There stood out on the forehead now of one, now of another of you, the inscription 'candidate for the madhouse.'" (p70) Here G tells us of a predisposition in Americans; should we not heed this direct warning? Let us take a deeper look to verify this for ourselves.

Let us begin by defining 'observation'; this is certainly linked closely with ordinary 'thinking.' Since man does not really think, but is merely influenced by a constant flow of association passing through the formatory apparatus, observation quickly becomes part of it, that is, he 'observes' only the things he wishes to see or, better said, 'it' observes. This is the lamentable state that G spoke of in the third series.

Even people who have just begun preparatory work quickly realize the necessity for re-defining ordinary words that are used in the Work. Such terms as 'understanding,' 'being,' 'self-conscious,' even the word 'work' itself, have a completely new and exact meaning in the context of the Work, particularly in a school setting. Unfortunately, most 'gurdjieffians' study in/attend 'groups,' not in schools, and are thereby prone to misunderstandings. This kind of misunderstanding is dangerous enough in ordinary life/business, but is especially so when using the powerful ideas of the Work. "Where there is little good there is also little bad; where there is much good there is also much bad." (Views p250)

So what are we to do with SO? What is it that is necessary? [There is only one rule in a school - Do not do what is unnecessary.] Could we have gotten lost in the translation? What if SO is a noun and not a verb? Then SO would be a result and not an action. Since practical exercises are a regularly used tool at the Kesdjan School, we have much direct knowledge of this result. Invariably SO is a part of the result in every exercise. The student always sees something new and unexpected when he does an exercise. [This is why exercises are grouped according to level of being; then you won't see more than you can bear.]

Another important consideration/verification is how SO happens in ordinary life. It is simply the result of accidental shocks from outside. This is part of how life attempts to teach us. People who are able to follow the 'objective way' (Search, p362) are able to use these shocks and resulting SO in a productive way instead of 'squashing' them or self-calming. The rest of us, who need a 'way,' are not normal enough to use these shocks. We become annoyed or indignant in reaction to these helpful shocks and do not receive them.

This 'ordinary SO' is the 'illusion of working,' often spoken of in the literature, and is the primary reason why students fail with SO. Since we cannot depend on these shocks and since they do not come as a result of conscious effort our work falters and drifts. So even though ordinary SO can be useful, it is often not used that way. Looking closely at this phenomena, one may also see that SO as a verb is intricately linked with the illusion that ordinary man can 'do.'

When a man reaches 'Philadelphia' (Views, p191), becomes impartial and the Way becomes one he is able to begin use of SO as a verb, or as an action. In short, he can 'do.' Until then he will only fuel his illusions by seeing only what confirms his rationalizations (or his flow of associations). The power of man asleep in false personality, with billions of people supporting it, must not be underestimated. Personal verification, or direct knowledge, is the only tool strong enough to withstand this enormous tide.

This all leads us back to the necessity of a school with a teacher who knows the way. G flatly states repeatedly that you cannot do it by your self (observation). Perhaps we should have school observation instead; this would avoid many pitfalls. G once said that two years working rightly (with a teacher) would enable one to work alone (Struggle p91). I suggest that if you are taking longer you are not working rightly and in severe danger of wrong crystallization of SO, thereby becoming a 'candidate.' If this be the case you will be better served by looking only for objective results.

Kevin Roberts
The Kesdjan School
9/20/99