Jump to content

Talk:George Gurdjieff: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs)
11,637,095 edits
m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)
Line 353: Line 353:


I'll be removing that bit from the "influences" section. [[User:Ian.thomson|Ian.thomson]] ([[User talk:Ian.thomson|talk]]) 02:47, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
I'll be removing that bit from the "influences" section. [[User:Ian.thomson|Ian.thomson]] ([[User talk:Ian.thomson|talk]]) 02:47, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

== The "Russian" question revisited ==

Whether Gurdjieff should be referred to as Russian has been brought up on here before but I think it needs more clarification in the article. While it is true that many sources refer to Gurdjieff as being Russian, in my view this is misleading even if, arguably, this was technically correct at the time of his birth (but it wouldn't be now). The extent to which Gurdjieff can be considered "Russian" is questionable as, both culturally and ethnically, he was mostly Armenian and in my opinion he is more correctly an Armenian than a Russian. I strongly suggest that this needs to be more adequately clarified in the article. As with articles on some other people whose nationality is complicated for historical and personal reasons, I suggest that his nationality is not mentioned in the opening sentence but the issues regarding this are mentioned further on in the article. [[User:Ontologicos|Ontologicos]] ([[User talk:Ontologicos|talk]]) 18:19, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:19, 19 July 2022

Template:Vital article

Another suggestion

I don't see a reference to Georgette LeBlanc's work, "La Machine a Courage," which is at : http://www.gurdjieff-bibliography.com/Current/07_leblanc_la_machine_2004-07-02.pdf and discusses her experience of working with G. in Paris. (It might, also, reading between the lines, suggest a kind of ?marriage counseling or a series of "relationship nurturance" sessions with a woman she is said to have been attached to at some levels, possibly as a partner, Margaret Anderson. Both are named in the discussion and the allusions seem to be to something new starting in her life, although they might not be explicitly relational, too.96.233.98.79 (talk) 05:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some suggestions for content

I've just reviewed this page and came up with a number of suggestions for content. I thought I would post them here in a series of bullets -- assuming I can figure out how to make them -- and if editors are cool with it, I think I could put in some work on them next week.

  • Fourth Way versus Gurdjieff Work. I don't think the highlighting of the term Fourth Way as opposed to Gurdjieff Work is historically appropriate. Gurdjieff only used that term very early and sources don't mention it after he left Russia. By the time of the talk replicated verbatim by Stanley Nott in "Teachings" which represents the 20s, or the talk "From the Author" in Beelzebub, the term is no longer being used. Nor is the term present in the rest of All and Everything. The term Fourth Way is really better associated with Ouspensky, who made the concept central to his teaching to the end of his life. I propose changing the relevant passage in the topic sentence to "Gurdjieff Work or Fourth Way", and perhaps opening the section on ideas/teachings with a brief paragraph on nomenclature that mentions the different ways Gurdjieff referred to his teaching.
Beautifully said. Aeuio 17:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Teachings - I have two proposals for this section. First, Gurdjieff is I think as noteworthy for the plurality of his offerings as their content. Gurdjieff brought music, movements, exercises, and methods for group work as well as ideas, and based on memoirs of his students, it's not clear he privileged the ideas above the rest. So I wonder if a category like "The Gurdjieff Work"(?) isn't more appropriate. If desired, a separate "ideas" section could sit next to a section that enumerated the various Gurdjieff materials.
  • Components of the work - I would divide the Gurdjieff materials into the following categories: Group Work, Writings, Movements, and Music. Music falls into three broad historical periods, only one of which involves de Hartmann, and I'd be happy to enumerate those in an edit. Movements perhaps fall best into four categories: the Obligatories, the 39, the ethnic dances and the rest, and perhaps each of those warrants a sentence. Writings would list the early writings, pupil notes including "In search", meeting transcripts and talks collected after Gurdjieff's death, and of course the privileged role of All and Everything. Group work, if other editors agree it's worth a header of its own, could list the innovative ways Gurdjieff brought people together: weekends and work periods of intensive labor, group meetings, discussions, performances and elaborate meals. I think he did that innovatively so it's worth including in the entry but other editors may feel differently.
  • The ideas themselves - the "teachings" section is a bit of a hodgepodge. I might structure the most salient Gurdjieff ideas into the following small categories: "Sleep, Self-Observation & Self Remembering"; "Struggle, Friction and Effort"; "Groups and Schools"; "Centers and Functions"; "Metaphysics" e.g. law of 3 and 7;, and "Cosmology". I throw it open to the editors if this is a good way to break it down, how long it should be, and how to organize it. I would be happy to write up this copy if I have a chance next week.
  • Sourcing the Gurdjieff ideas - I have a recommendation for sourcing. The standard sources are often "In Search of the Miraculous" and "Beelzebub's Tales". However, neither of these is really optimal. While Gurdjieff accepted Ouspensky's book, he was equivocal on many things and it bears a lot of Ouspensky's footprint. Beelzebub on the other hand is literary allegory. I think better sources for the Gurdjieff ideas are collected talks, like the "From the Author" in Beelzebub, the talks in the Third Series, the Orage talk in Stanley Nott's book, the collection "Views from the Real World", and the wartime meetings in "Voices in the Dark". If other editors are interested I can try to source a section on the ideas based primarily on those records of what Gurdjieff actually said.
I would object here with this sourcing. Many accounts of Gurdjieff teaching are from personal lectures which Gurdjieff taught to individual students or groups. His teaching may differ as presented by him from student to student, as he might have altered it to suit a specific group. But Belzeebub's tales was Gurdjieff putting his ideas for the public and everyone in general. It would therefore be a lot more reasonable to use BT as a primary source for Gurdjieff's teaching, and other accounts as back up and for diversity of the teaching. MoonEagle 22:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Criticism - this seems really written off the cuff. Good sources would be the "Forest Philosophers" article that brought Gurdjieff notoriety in Paris, as well as the media hullaballoo accompanying the death of Katherine Mansfield. James Webb's biography also ends with an exceedingly negative take on Gurdjieff and his students.
  • Reception - Gurdjieff's ideas have propagated in a lot of different ways that I think warrant interest. Some things that could be included include the new biographies of Licoln Kirstein, head of the School of American Ballet, and architect Frank Lloyd Wright, both of whom had extensive involvement with Gurdjieff and the work. Authentic or not, the many colorful claims made by people after Gurdjieff who claimed to be in touch with his sources are also part of his legacy, like Collin and Ichazo.
  • Last, the history strikes me as out of balance. Gurdjieff as a spy or watching the dervishes are both factual but don't strike me as significant in the broader arc. If we keep it bare-bones I'm not sure they should be in there. If editors are interested in a little more detail, I would add other details instead and would be happy to offer suggestions.

Sorry this is so long, but I just had a rush of ideas on this page for some reason and I hope you like them. Ericbarnhill 16:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty good suggestions - I agree with all of it and I think that it would make a better page. (the first bullet was the best). Aeuio 17:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I started some editing and I thought I'd have more time, but I got to go (I'll continue tomorrow). Sorry to leave the article in this situation - Eric please continue what I started as soon as you can. I deleted some repeated info so that you can add some new ones Aeuio 02:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure that its clear that his teachings were all based around the "spiritual teachings" - he didn't teach sacred dances for the purpose of dancing. MoonEagle 12:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aeuio, I said next week and I meant it! :) I won't have time to do a worthwhile job with much of this until a week from now. Editors uncomfortable with the floating headings should just cut them for now. MoonEagle, neither I nor any other editor should be having a discussion about Gurdjieff's "purposes", to use your word. This is an encyclopedia talk page not a discussion forum. Our job should be to enumerate what Gurdjieff did as sourced on the historical record not speculate about his purposes. Your vague objection to something that hasn't happened yet makes me nervous. Thanks for contributing and I hope you'll continue to give your opinion as we add some content. Ericbarnhill 19:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, the best I can do is ten minutes here and there so I will leave it till I have more time. Aeuio 19:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eric: I wasn't trying to discuss anything, I was just stating that be very wrong if the Dances or Music are presented independently from the spiritual teachings, as if there wasn't much connection with them. But as you said it's too early to comment on this (but currently that's where your sugggestions lead up to) - anyhow, we'll see when it's written. MoonEagle 00:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My comment to you was inappropriately aggresive. Apologies and I will bow out of posting here until I have the time to think about what I'm writing before posting. Thanks for the feedback and your opinions on the section will be welcome when I add it. Ericbarnhill 00:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - Somebody mentioned about having a section on 'The G Work' (maybe instead of 'ideas?') - sounds good. What I believe is one of the G work's key *practical* ideas/methods is sensation of the body. This does not seem to be mentioned anywhere in this article or the discussion. It is this emphasis on sensation which i believe distinguishes the G teaching from any other similar 'way'. thanks, cuyocksol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.172.247 (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The character of Dr Gambit in The Hearing Trumpet by Leonora Carrington is evidently a satire on Gurdjieff. Ali Smith says as much in her introduction to the Penguin Modern classics edition (2005) and I agree with her analysis, having read the novel, and knowing something of Gurdjieff's ideas via the works of Colin Wilson. I have no idea if Carrington ever met Gurdjieff - perhaps Aberth's biography says something about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plimfix (talk • contribs) 09:43, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New content

I added some new content. Have at it. :) Ericbarnhill 18:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I finally fully read this and can surely say that this will turn out a lot better. I'll be back later tonight to edit Gurdjieff article again. Thanks Eric Aeuio 21:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History

Since we are rewritting here, how about changing the "travelling dated history" to a more general history where it is explained where and when Gurdjieff met different pupils and what happened. That gurdjieff.org source up there is more than enough for this kind of change. I think it be better and more interesting than simply saying where he was and when. MoonEagle 22:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, I expanded a bit - and it already sounds somewhat better and more interesting. Aeuio 11:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is looking much better! Verbs should all be the same tense though. I am sorting out my thoughts on the "ideas" section but will notify editors about a draft before any editing. One problem is how much overlap to have with the Fourth Way page. The same question arises for Beelzebub's Tales - how much to put on this page and how much to put on the other page. Ericbarnhill 02:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that here there should be an overview of the info from other main page - such as the Fourth Way. Concerning BT, it's too soon to tell how this will turn out. Aeuio 02:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
O and the page is getting much better!Aeuio 02:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see these two concerns as related. I think it would be great to have an "ideas" section that references Beelzebub frequently, and leave the Ouspensky quotes more for the other page. I'll try to put that into my draft when I get to it. Ericbarnhill 21:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

Ok, we have the artist template (currently in the article) and the philosophy template. Is there anyone that prefers one over the other? Aeuio 12:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is Religious leaders as well (not very suitable in my view). The main drawback of the Philosopher template is that you have to assign a region, and only four are available: Eastern, Jewish, Persian and Western. Since this is the top field, it looks odd if you leave that blank. Now Gurdjieff is difficult to assign; his mentions of Nassr Eddin (= Mullah Nasrudin) and Bogga Eddin (= Baha'uddin Naqshband) would suggest Persian (= sufic), but then he is also distinctly Western in his terminology. He mentions Christian sources as much as Indian fakirs etc. So I would be unhappy to see him restricted to any one regional category. To me, that is the main drawback of the Philosopher template; otherwise, it looks ideal. Perhaps we should take it up with the makers of that template? Jayen466 13:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The link to the religious leaders template above was wrong, have now fixed it. Jayen466 13:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jayen, are the mentioned four types of regions "the only ones acceptable on wikipedia"? If not then I have a wierd idea. See MoonEagle. What do you think of the region? Or, we can write something more suitable if there is conflict- you can write anything in there. MoonEagle 20:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the instructions on the template page, those four are the options to be used. They tie in with categories. As you say, you can write anything in there and it will show up on screen, but there won't be a corresponding category. And I still find it difficult to think of something meaningful to put that is not restrictive and squeezes the man into some box he doesn't belong in. It's kind of daft to put something just for the sake of putting something. What attracts me a little about the Philosopher template, on the other hand, is the possibility to enter "Notable ideas" (e.g. self-remembering), and "Main interests". And the use of the Artist template also does not link with any category here. Its only advantage is that you can have the name at the top, without having to invent some contrived category, and that you can list "famous works" -- the Philosopher template does not allow for that. Also, listing famous works is a lot less likely to cause disputes than listing "notable ideas". Cheers, Jayen466 21:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that ME's suggestion is very good and agree to it. esoteric (read first paragraph) would fit pretty well in here. Concerning "notable ideas" I would just put Fourth Way there. While Gurdjieff's books are mentioned at two or three places and is linked throughout the article, so I don't think that it's a big deal whether or no it's in the template. Aeuio 23:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just put the philosophy template up (It could be a lot better - I didn't put much effort or detail in case everyone rejects) What do you think? Aeuio 23:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved him from the age of enlightenment into the 20th century. Hmmm ... am still not convinced by Esoteric Philosophy. :-)) It's just not an established term with an agreed meaning. I like the "influenced by Mullah Nassr Eddin" bit though. :-)) I guess my problem is that I see Gurdjieff as a mystic, not a philosopher. There is a difference. More centres involved. ;-) Jayen466 00:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
O, I defiantly agree to mysticism over philosophy, I just wasn't sure if that template is allowed to say mystic instead of philosopher. Is it? Anyhow do you think this template could be made better than the artist one? If so, then I'll upgrade the info in the template to be more accurate and precise. Aeuio 00:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, we need a new agenda for eternal links. I think the external links arguing wouldn't occur if all the "group links" are not allowed (including the Gurdjieffian Foundations). I think it's understandable that "the Foundation and its affiliates are not the sole representatives of Gurdjieff and his teaching. Wikipedia, which uses an encyclopedic format and therefore by its very format is regarded as “definitive,” creates a de facto situation by listing only Foundation links under the external links section." (the quotations are from a recent email I got concerning the external links). And I guess that we shouldn't be playing a judge here and deciding which groups to mention. The formation of groups is mentioned in "Reception" and anyone if interested would obviously do extra research - so the easiest solution for us here is simply to describe the formation of these mainly known groups in Reception and not to promote any current group in external links. Aeuio 22:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aeuio, I've been pondering this post for a couple of days. I have not been able to figure out why you have taken the stance you have, but wanted to think about it before questioning you. I just went to the WP external links page [[1]]and found that your decision is perfectly correct! Regards, --Moon Rising 20:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It had nothing to do with that WP page. If you'd actually believe me when I say that I am not in the Gurdjieffian Foundation it be pretty easy to get why I did that. Back when we were discussing the external links I had no problem of getting rid of all the links, but Yeago suggested to keep the Foundations. It really does seem unfair to the other groups that were also started by Gurdjieff's students. Aeuio 21:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, there are 2 reasons. I think the Gurdjieff Foundations would be appropriate links for this Gurdjieff's article, but they offer no information, which violates WP policies. I personally would not have a problem to have all sorts of 4th way groups linked to the Fourth Way article, (not this one) but again, most of those links would not enhance the article, which is the purpose of links, as I understand them. And I never, ever doubted your statement that you are not part of the G Foundation. --Moon Rising 23:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems good to me. I suppose I thought that the Gurdjieff Foundation was started by G himself, not students. Therefore I thought it was a class above student-created groups. Either way this article is a billion times better than it used to be, and way less spammy. Could someone archive the talk page sometime soon?Yeago 05:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Love-Ark: I appreciate your help, but your reasons in your edit summary were pretty bad. Not only are they connected to the foundations, but Dushka (the lady that's putting that book together) was a student of Gurdjieff himself. I just wanted to point this out before someone asked you to explain your deletion. Aeuio 21:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been firing up Chatzilla and going to #wikipedia at freenode and alerting an admin instantly when someone spams this (and other) pages with their links (notice User:TheFourthWay's indefinite block), rather than waiting days or weeks for an admin to stumble upon them (google wikipedia irc). Its effective.Yeago 03:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a link for: * The Teachers of Gurdjieff by Rafael Lefort (probably a pen name of Idries Shah). I removed the comment about "probably a pen name of Indries Shah", because it's unsourced - see the Indries Shah article. It mentions this conjecture, but only as one man's opinion. --Moon Rising (talk) 21:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links should be either eliminated or include all those who have a direct connection to Gurdjieff - probably it would need a group who would make this decision - not one person - to verify direct lineage and continued fidelity to gurdjieff's school without adulteration from other traditions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.186.53.202 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 3 February 2011
Both your links added;
Fails our External links policy for inclusion. Editors make the policies here at Wikipedia, and have established community agreed upon policies which govern any contents basis for inclusion. However an upsetting pattern has appeared;
194.186.188.203 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
89.169.34.23 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
194.186.53.202 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
194.186.53.79 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
Understand that Repeatedy re- adding and adding links to multiple Articles is unacceptable. This kind of activity is considered spamming and is Also forbidden by Wikipedia policies.--Hu12 (talk) 16:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gurdjieff and Politics

The article seems to imlicitly deny that Gurdjieff was a Tsarist spy, and it might be right, but I think it should be mentioned that his disciple Bennet thought that he was involved in espionage in some way; and Bennet can be presumed to be cluey about these things. Gurdjieff in Meetings for Remarkable Men refers to carrying letters for underground groups and the like.

Bennet also more than other disciples emphasised the political, social side of Gurdjieff's work. However heretical this may be to some it was clearly there, and referred to in the most direct terms in his postscript to Beelzebub's Tales. Bennet compared the Gurdjieff groups to mammals in the age of dinosaurs. He is sometimes reminiscent of the ur-anarchist Proudhon (even down to the sympathy for the tile) Jeremytrewindixon 05:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely an interesting direction. Do you have any sources?Yeago 14:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to expand the article on this subject Jeremy. Aeuio 14:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What, explicitly, were Gurdjieff's political affiliations, positions, views? Or did he even have a political philosophy? Shanoman (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't have one. Only driven statement by Gurdjieff concerning politics is that the worst kind of people are in power... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitalask (talk • contribs) 03:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How does everyone feel about that last edit? (removal of list of books and dvds)

Eh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeago (talk • contribs) 06:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page looks clearer to me. Aeuio 15:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pupils section

I am wondering if this article needs a Pupils section. Gurdjieff seems to have had a lot of direct pupils, some of noteriety. How should we deal with them?

The latest addition of the Finnish Psychologist is probably not noteworthy but still an interesting inclusion as an item in a list.

Of course, there are all those book-publishing pupils who are dying to get their name in his article. What to do?Yeago (talk) 05:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created a starter page in my namespace. Please add notable pupils to User:Yeago/List of Gurdjieff pupils —Preceding comment was added at 05:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section

I've recently read the last chapter in James Webb's biography "The Harmonious Circle", titled of masters and men where he sums up Alan Watts' criticism of guru-organizations. I think this is a very good criticism of the Gurdjieff work and Gurdjieffs projects and it also includes the current argument under the criticism section. I do not now to which extent this book is available among you - but if some of you could read this section and see if you agree with me? Could a summary of the main points here (1, 2 and 3) be a good thing for the article? Or maybe it should be sorted under the fourth way article? --PeterKristo (talk) 11:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The 3rd paragraph under "Responses" states that "Critics note Gurdjieff gives no value to most of the elements that comprise the life of an average man." Wouldn't many of his students and admirers agree? If others agree, the word "critics" should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.166.173 (talk) 13:22, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nasreddin as Gurdjieff's teacher?

Hello there. I've been doing extensive work to Life Is Real Only Then, When 'I Am'. I came across a few interesting passages. Among them is a quote by Gurdjieff where he says "...in the style of my former teacher, now almost a Saint, Mullah Nassr Eddin...". There are a number of ways this sentance could be read, some forgiving or apologistic of the idea that Gurdjieff claims to have been taught by Mullah Nassr Eddin, but I read it literally.

Is there another 'Mullah Nassr Eddin' that was alive in the 19th century? Was the historicity of 'Mullah Nassr Eddin' unclearly unknown in the 19th century?

Thanks. Also, I invite anyone who is interested to come help me work on the Life Is Real... article.Yeago (talk) 16:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that he meant it literally; more along the lines as if he was taught by Mullah Nassr Eddin's wise sayings. There's probably some symbolic meaning to the referral to Mullah Nassr Eddin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benzema (talk • contribs) 16:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Some symbolic meaning..."—rather vague. He says both 'my former teacher, now almost a Saint...' and I really don't think there can be any explaining away these two contemporary references to the Mullah. Anyone else?Yeago (talk) 20:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The statement matches the statements made in *Beelzebub*, ex. '...now almost an archangel...', and Nasreddin is a somewhat mythical figure to whom conventional wisdom is ascribed. I doubt it is intended to be interpreted as him actually knowing the guy. 108.83.178.154 (talk) 02:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, this is kindof consistent with the opinion that Gurdjieff was just kidding people. He is probably laughing in his grave about people still taking him seriously. Ok, even if you dont agree, I assure you that he could have called Nasreddin a teacher only in a comic way.
Waiting for some elaboration on the punchline's meaning, oh wise one.Yeago (talk) 07:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By this I mean this greater notion you espouse, 'the opinion that gurdjieff was just kidding people'. If its a legitimate perspective, it belongs here.Yeago (talk) 07:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think this comes very close to the heart of the question of what exactly Gurdjiev represents. It seems to me that he was indeed kidding people, but all the while trying to teach some point. Same as Nasreddin. What I never understood, though, what that point might be exactly. Maybe both of them were really just trying to wake up people from the everyday complacency. Kotika98 (talk) 11:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cruithne must be worth mentioning?

Hi all. In Beelzebub, Gurdjieff mentions Earth's second moon, that it IS there, that scientists currently do not know about it. That was in the 1930's. Some 70 years later modern science found this moon, now called Cruithne. Knowledge of this moon via the science at the time was impossible, so this seems to me to be the best evidence that Gurdjieff wasn't just a mystic or charleton. Everything else can be dismissed by scientists as pseodoscience or worse, but not Cruithne. So surely it is worth mentioning? Or have I missed something obvious, if so sorry and you can delete this post :) blucat david 6:00am, 8 June 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.142.12.109 (talk) 19:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page numbers? Quotes?Yeago (talk) 01:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with Cruithne is connecting it to Gurdjieff via some sort of publication. If you know of a place where an author has suggested this connection, then you can add it to the article as "So and so has suggested that Cruithne is the second moon that Gurdjieff was talking about" ; or something along those lines. Or even better would be if you know a place where Gurdjieff was documented as describing the second moon in a way which could be linked to Cruithne. Otherwise, Cruithne shouldn't be mentioned as another editor could very well say that 2002 AA29 is the second moon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benzema (talk • contribs) 16:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From the Cruithne page: "Due to its unusual orbit relative to that of the Earth, it is a periodic inclusion planetoid and is sometimes called Earth's second moon,[2] although it orbits the Sun, not the Earth." So its not a moon, but what is the point here anyway? Are you saying Gurdjieff knew about Cruithne via some other means? Or should we think that its existence was communicated to him by God? Or maybe he didnt know about it specifically, but meant it metaphorically, as in keep looking and you might find something important even if its not what your expected. Since he consdiders Nasreddin his teacher, i am inclined to think the latter. Kotika98 (talk) 10:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, I thought it was pretty well wrapped up by the excellent reply by Benzema. But just to try to address your comments: No, GIG specifically said that his teachings weren't 'communicated to him by God', but were handed down through thousands of years through underground sources, which he was smart and lucky and dilligent enough to find. So yes, he did know about it by other means. Also, it wasn't in the least bit metaphorical, as there is a chapter in "Beelzebub's Tales to his Grandson' titled, "Earths Second Moon', in which he says there is a 'Second Moon', but it is not known to current science because their telescopes are not powerful enough to find it, and tales of it were not handed down to them in their 'bedtime stories', and due to it's unusual orbit and small size it is unlikely that they will ever know about it. Anyway, now that we've found 2002 AA29, I withdraw my specific comment about Cruithne as it seems to be a lesser candidate for the 'second moon', and we are likely to find more such objects as well. blucat - david
Original research, sorry people.Yeago (talk) 02:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His origins.

Re Gurdjeff's origins: have a look at affined bibliography (such as here or The Gurdjieff Foundation) before deleting stuff.

Karnak, please join the discussion. This is a point of common confusion and edit-warring doesn't help.Yeago (talk) 15:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few quotes taken from Gurdjieff's book Meetings with Remarkable Men (Arkana, 1960. ISBN 0140190376) regarding his origins:

  • My father came of a Greek family whose ancestors had emigrated from Byzantium, having left their country to escape the persecution by the Turks which followed their conquest of Constantinople. (p.40)
  • Having settled in Kars, my father first sent me to the Greek school, but very soon transferred me to the Russian municipal school. (p.42)
  • In Alexandropol I had a friend named Fatinov. He had a friend, Gorbakoun, the son of a company commander in the Baku regiment, which was stationed not far from the Greek quarter. [where obviously G. lived] (p.63)
  • It should be mentioned that from the age of eight, owing to chance circumstances, my friends in Alexandropol as well as in Kars were much older than I and belonged to families who were considered socially higher than mine. In the Greek part of Alexandropol, where my parents formerly lived, I had no friends at all. (p.66) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.103.147.54 (talk) 17:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the citations. Karnak, who was reverting the above content, blanked invitations on his talk page to join this discussion, which leaves little choice other than outright strongarm/revert until he wants to discuss his editorial reasoning.Yeago (talk) 00:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biographical material from Moore

I suggest we should gently and judiciously rephrase parts of the biography; at present, some passages lean too closely on Moore's chronology (merely substituting past tense for historical present). Jayen466 00:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Terrific. Then simply blockquote him. If you see material that constitutes as a source, please tag it as such. It would not be so much copyvio as merely misleading to present the perspective of one biographer as encyclopaedic.Yeago (talk) 01:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The source is here; the content of that page is a straight lift from the Chronology in Moore's book. I've done a little bit of rewording in the para that bore the greatest resemblance to Moore, hopefully without doing harm to its readability. I guess we could add citations to Moore's book. Cheers, Jayen466 01:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The plain fact is that its not a copywrite vio if its sourced. Lifting the material and putting it here without a source is just journalistically irresponsible. Anyway, thanks for noticing and doing the legwork.Yeago (talk) 05:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a mystic named G.I. Gurdjieff. All content in this article must be notably related to him. All links must be directly related to him, as there are too many derivatives to chronicle here. Without a clear boundary, all claimants of the Gurdjieff Tradition have a causeway to place their links here (and there are MANY).

This is one of the most linkspammed articles I watch. While I cannot say that your sources are non-notable and don't belong on Wikipedia, I can say that 95% of links added here are not notable to G.I. Gurdjieff and do not belong in his specific article. Please feel free to create separate topical articles that meet regular WP guidelines and add those links there.Yeago (talk) 09:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paneurhythmy/Bogomilism etc.

These references should be removed. They are sourced, but the source contains no information about them. It is a brochure for some new-age conference that definitely doesn't mention Gurdjieff and doesn't seem to mention Paneurhythmy either. I'd add personally that I've looked at paneurhythmy videos on YouTube and they look nothing whatsoever like Gurdjieff movements. These references should be removed for irrelevancy. Ericbarnhill (talk) 00:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Do it.Yeago (talk) 00:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did it. I also rearranged some of the information in "groups". Ravindra is in the line of Gurdjieff pupils and affiliated with the Foundations, while Patterson had very limited study at the Fdn and founded a breakaway group. So, I didn't think they should be in the same paragraph. Ravindra is in with the Fdns and Patterson is in with the independents. Ericbarnhill (talk) 11:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greek Name

Whats the source for the greek name? Did Gurdjieff ever use this name himself? Ii find this translation of his name to greek as "Georgiadis" abit improbable. Kotika98 (talk) 09:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Added: Somewhere the article should mention that the name Gurdjieff may not, and most likely not his birth name. If thats the case, Georgiadis sounds more plausible, as it is an actually common name from the region. Any expert opinions? Kotika98 (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may just be that some Wikipedia editor has seen that he was of partial Greek descent and thought that alone justifies having his name rendered in Greek. I don't know how common it was for Greeks in the interior of the Caucasus region to still use Greek in everyday usage, or whether Greek names were used in birth certificates, baptisms, school registers, etc. There was a Greek book published - in the 1990s (I think) - about the Greek community in Kars which might contain such information. Meowy 14:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The question is not whether Greek was used by Greeks in the region, but whether "Georgiadis" is authentic or not. If that were the name by which he was known in modern greece, then the name would not be wrong but it would not be useful to include it on the english page. If that were his name at birth, we should include it and emphasize the fact. However, I have checked that the greek language article says "Γεώργιος Γκουρτζίεφ", so i will delete the greek as well as armenian spellings. Kotika98 (talk) 16:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Useful source

Thank you very much.Yeago (talk) 07:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George or Georges?

Apologies if this has been discussed before, but I thought his name was usually given in English as "Georges" rather than "George". What are the reasons for using "George" in this article? Thanks. Afterwriting (talk) 16:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Publications in English normally use "G. I.," but when written out, his own books and virtually all other use "George." --Dorje714285 (talk) 19:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Music

Not enough is mentioned about his music. Some expert guidance is needed on the issue of whether it is his music, or one should consider Hartmann as the true composer of this pieces. In any case, unlike occult philosophies, the music is actually good - in recent years a string of notable performers have recorded the music. Jarrett, Tsabropoulos/Lehner and Cecyl Lyttle recordings are all works of sublime beauty. Kotika98 (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Group work/drug abuse

The section supposedly about group work, is an endless rant about how various people, most of them unrelated to Gurdjieff abused LSD - a drug invented long after Gurdjieff death in 1949. This situation invites quick deletion, unless some rationale is forthcoming. AFAIK, Guerdjieff himself nor his groups were never known for drug abuse. Kotika98 (talk) 18:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[I am unskilled at finding, if possible, the history of deleted passages. I will now simply point out that the reference to the dates of synthesis of LSD are grossly inaccurate, an error that makes me question the competence of the writer. The wikipedia article documents the dates of its history, first synthesized in 1938, properties stumbled upon 1943, released as a drug for use in psychotherapy 1947. This at least makes it possible for it to be investigated before G died. Wiki mn (talk) 05:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)][reply]

I totally agree with this view. A lot has been thrown into this article that is peripheral at best. The material on Huxley is not even factual, much less relevant. (He was not introduced to mescaline by Crowley -- refer to book "Moksha" for this.) More to the point, Crowley is not even relevant enough for a footnote here, much less a section of the article. That represents someone's very biased interest in something besides the topic. (User: Dorje714285 -- my first post; will work on my formatting] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorje714285 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the section "group work". The point of that section is that Gurdjieff emphasized groups rather than individual methods. This should be covered in the article Fourth Way, it doesn't even belong here. More importantly however from what I can see is that that section was there only to make Gurdjieff and his groups look like drug abusers. And it's filled with false statements. If you have a source for supporting that nonsense then add it to the criticism section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitalask (talk • contribs) 15:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John G. Bennett

Excuse this posting- it's not quite on topic here but this is the best place I could think of adding this notice. The lengthy biography of John G. Bennett, who wrote several book on Gurdjieff, was almost entirely copied from other websites and so it had to be cut down to a stub. Perhaps someone watching this page would be interested in writing a fresh biography.   Will Beback  talk  18:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

enneagram

What is the source for:

An aspect of Gurdjieff's teachings which has come into prominence in recent decades is the enneagram geometric figure. For many students of the Gurdjieff tradition, the enneagram remains a "koan", challenging and never fully explicated. Lord Pentland only allowed very limited use of the figure. There have been many attempts to trace the origins of the enneagram; some similarities to other figures have been found, but it seems that Gurdjieff was the first person to make the enneagram figure publicly known and that only he knew its true source.[citation needed]

Lord Pentland only allowed very limited use of the figure is particularly obscure William M. Connolley (talk) 17:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great Job

Fairly good article on a very complex subject. Congratulations to all involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.208.24.98 (talk) 16:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

meaning in juxtaposed sentences?

"In 1919, Gurdjieff established his first Institute for the Harmonious Development of Man. He was thought[by whom?] to be greatly influenced by Niko Marr, a Georgian archaeologist and historian.[citation needed]"

Was GIG influenced in the setting up and/or the naming of the institute by Niko Marr?
Or is this just poor layout or bad editting - an unsourced claim, misplaced and productive of confusion? 124.148.164.7 (talk) 02:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Niko Marr" will be Nikolai Marr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.64.242.27 (talk) 03:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section: renamed

The "Criticism" section consists mainly of peoples recorded "Responses" to Gurdjieff and his teachings and writings. There is little actual criticism. To move WP towards accuracy I have renamed the section. If you change it back pls remove all the "non-Criticism" material from the section first. Or at least provide a rationale for misleading readers. 124.148.164.7 (talk) 04:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gurdjieff the Christian?

Perhaps there is a case to be made for some Christian categories for Gurdjieff? Gurdjieff had a complex but generally congenial relationship to Eastern Orthodox Christianity, having been raised in it and mentored by some Fathers he profoundly respected, and his funeral was Russian Orthodox. The book Meetings with Remarkable Men offers useful information on this; therein, he gives Jesus the highest praise. Gurdjieff always carried a well-read copy of the New Testament in Koine Greek. It can be argued that his Fourth Way was somehow a way of communicating the spirit of those teachings to people in the west that would have none of its externals. 74.133.104.185 (talk) 22:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Life Is Real Only Then, When 'I Am'#Consensus check

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Life Is Real Only Then, When 'I Am'#Consensus check. Tom Ruen (talk) 00:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Svetlana Hinzenberg

§ Children had the following at the bottom, after the bulleted list:

Clarification: Svetlana Hinzenberg – b. Sept. 27, 1917, d. Sept. 30, 1946 Mother: Olga (Olgivanna) Ianovna Lazovich, Father (of Record): Valdemar Hinzenberg. "In the winter of 1919, humoring a friend, she (Olgivanna) left her apartment to see a visiting Armenian-born mystic, a man who was said to teach dances that could develop the will. She was, she recalled, "looking for something beyond the limits of my senses." Friedland & Zellman: "The Fellowship: The Untold Story of Frank Lloyd Wright & The Taliesin Fellowship." HarperCollins, 2006. page 18, citing OLW, Autobiography.

Obviously this belongs in a reference, not the main text, and I've moved it to one, but I can't check it in the source. And the cited grand-source, "OLW, Autobiography", only makes sense as a typo for "FLW, Autobiography"; that would be An autobiography: Frank Lloyd Wright, originally published in 1932 by Longmans, Green and Company (Worldcat). --Thnidu (talk) 23:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on George Gurdjieff. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple issues tag

The article had a multiple issues tag, the tag claiming content "may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject" and "may be written from a fan's point of view". However, there is no associated discussion on this talk page that would explain what content this tag concerns. If editors are not told of what problems might exist with the article, how are those problems meant to be addressed? Also, there does there seem to be any recent talk page discussion that indicates a problem that would justify the article being tagged in this way. For that reason, I find the tag to be not productive or justifiable, and I have deleted it. If another editor wants to restore the tagging, would they explain exactly what content issues support the tagging. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just use more secondary sources.FourLights (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

composer

I have no knowledge of Gurdjieff being an influential composer, as stated in the introduction. He was a composer, but I don't know that he was influential in it. I had added a source saying he was influential in the other things, but my source says nothing about him being an influential composer. Therefore I removed composer. But someone has added it back.FourLights (talk) 22:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"it is believed that he had seven known children"

Surely the combination "it is believed that" and "known" is contradictory. If they were "known" children, "it is believed that" is superfluous - but if it is only "believed that" he had them, then they weren't "known" for certain.213.127.210.95 (talk) 14:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on George Gurdjieff. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on George Gurdjieff. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:01, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Circular Redirect

When the page for the book Life Is Real Only Then, When 'I Am' was deleted the link was turned into a redirect to a section of this article. The link within this section was a redirect to itself, which was not only useless, but confusing. This link has been removed ("de-linkified"), and the redirect target is supported by an Anchor template.
It would be better IMHO if there was a page to support this book, but as noted, it has been previously deleted.
XyKyWyKy aka raffriff42 (talk) 13:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Esoteric Chritianity

One thing Gurdjieff said is that his ideas could be thought of as "esoteric Christianity". Could this page be added to the category called "Esoteric Christianity"? Vorbee (talk) 16:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Contemporary lead sentence

Influential in humanities search for understanding self-knowledge (today).cited and referenced.Arnlodg (talk) 17:50, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Referenced "The Gurdjieff Foundation New York" to lead; Arnlodg (talk) 23:54, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Müller?

I'm not seeing where in the citation given that Gurdjieff was influenced by Müller, but that Gurdjieff's student Ouspensky was.

Quote from source: "P. D. Ouspensky, a Russian former Theosophist and follower of the Greco-Armenian thaumaturge G. I. Gurdjieff, was inspired by Müller's lectures on theosophy in the formulation of his own mystical system."

The commas would indicate that the sentence means Ouspensky was both:
-"a Russian former Theosophist and follower of the Greco-Armenian thaumaturge G. I. Gurdjieff,"
-"...inspired by Müller's lectures on theosophy in the formulation of his own mystical system."

I'll be removing that bit from the "influences" section. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:47, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The "Russian" question revisited

Whether Gurdjieff should be referred to as Russian has been brought up on here before but I think it needs more clarification in the article. While it is true that many sources refer to Gurdjieff as being Russian, in my view this is misleading even if, arguably, this was technically correct at the time of his birth (but it wouldn't be now). The extent to which Gurdjieff can be considered "Russian" is questionable as, both culturally and ethnically, he was mostly Armenian and in my opinion he is more correctly an Armenian than a Russian. I strongly suggest that this needs to be more adequately clarified in the article. As with articles on some other people whose nationality is complicated for historical and personal reasons, I suggest that his nationality is not mentioned in the opening sentence but the issues regarding this are mentioned further on in the article. Ontologicos (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:George_Gurdjieff&oldid=1099237266"