In this paper, I explore how two key practices in Beelzebub’s Tales (BT), practices that should facilitate the first and second conscious shocks in Work, are unintentionally blocked by our efforts. The first practice in BT is related to Gurdjieff’s depiction of the Foolasnitamnian and Itoklanos principles describing the modification and degradation of human attention. The second practice derives from Gurdjieff’s definition of “active mentation,” a higher level of thought inherently distinct from passive associative thoughtii. These two practices interconnect and effect self-remembering, the first conscious shock. They are also connected to the transformation of emotional life, the second conscious shock. The second conscious shock is mistakenly referred to in Work as the transformation of negative emotions.
The effort to remember oneself, to be self-conscious, or to self-remember, is the first fundamental practice of Work. To self-remember is the first conscious shock; I experience this so that I can then observe myself. The principle of Itoklanos, where my attention is taken by the association of any one of my centers, explains why self-remembering is so difficult and can only be done for moments at a time. Gurdjieff describes a practice in BT to correct our degraded attention.
There is little to be found in the Work library regarding the second conscious shock, i.e., the transformation of emotions. People in work think it is connected with “negative” emotions and believe they should “stop” what they consider to be “negative” emotions. It is time to reexamine our work and the implications of trying to achieve the transformation of human consciousness through “stopping” what we judge as being negative or wrong. Stopping unpleasant or painful emotions, or attempting to stop thoughts or stopping certain behavior is suggested as being a tool for transformation in many of the writings that we hold dear in the Work library. I am suggesting that the result of stopping such negative manifestations is not useful, nor is attempting to curtail habitual patterns of behavior. In fact, such stopping is extremely dangerous, causes increased dysregulation rather than any benefit, and paralyzes the creative forces of transformation. This “stopping” produces psychopathology.
In BT, Gurdjieff describes the implantation in the first humans of the infamous organ Kundabuffer. The organ keeps them from becoming aware of their objective purpose in their solar system. Subsequent to Kundabuffer’s implantation, Gurdjieff tells us Nature changed the psychological functioning of the human organism which was a three-brained system, to the psychological system characteristic of two-brained beings. The change was accomplished by modifying the human capacity of attention. Subsequently, this change decreased the useful lifespan of people and their lack “normal being-sensations whatever concerning any cosmic phenomenon.”iii
It will be important during our exploration to keep in mind the importance of the ability to pay attention. Just as it is allowing you to read the writing on this page, the force and energy of attention is present as the foundation of each and every human experience. Thus, if appropriately appreciated, you may find that attention is the cornerstone of your consciousness, the capacity utilized since birth that has created your consciousness. In this presentation, the operational definition of attention used is the human capacity to focus consciousness to receive impressions.
In BT, Gurdjieff introduces the change in the mechanism of human attention from the Foolastamnian Principle of being-existence to the new principle of Itoklanos. Beelzebub explains to his grandson the difference between two and three-brained beings:
“You must be told that there exist two ‘kinds,’ or two ‘principles,’ of duration of beingexistence. The first principle of being-existence, called ‘Foolasnitamnian,’ is proper to all three-brained beings arising on any planet of our Great Universe. And the fundamental meaning and aim of their existence is to serve as the vehicle for the transmutation of cosmic substances necessary for the ‘common-cosmic Trogoautoegocratic process.’ The second principle of being-existence is the one to which all one-brained and two-brained beings are subject, wherever they may arise. And the meaning and aim of the existence of these beings also consists in the transmutation through them of cosmic substances, which are required, in their case, not for purposes of common-cosmic character, but for that solar system alone, or even for that planet alone within which or upon which these one-brained and two-brained beings arise.” iv
The second principle of being existence Gurdjieff called Itoklanos. I remember being intrigued when I first came across the concepts of the “Itoklanos and Foolasnitamnian Principles” in BT. I noticed Gurdjieff referred to them as “systems.” It seemed to me he was justified in inventing such outlandish neologisms since he was describing something no one else had understood in quite the same way.
According to Gurdjieff, Nature originally designed three-brained beings (humans) to be governed by the Foolasnitamnian Principle. However, due to the unbecoming manner in which human beings behaved, Nature had to modify the human organism to follow the principle of Itoklanos. Under Itoklanos, attention could be activated by associations from just one center rather than by the associations received from all three simultaneously. Because of this, my attention is pulled about by associations from any center at any time. The implication is that when the Foolasnitamnian Principle originally functioned in us, the simultaneous reception of associations from each center allowed for a more complete and direct perception of objective reality.
When attention switched to functioning according to Itoklanos, humans lost the ability to receive and correlate impressions from all three centers at the same time. Thus, their interpretations and understanding of the world and their reactions to it do not correctly correspond to either their inner or outer environment. It should also be noted that such a system has the tendency to create people who favor one center’s input over another and remain unaware of the impressions from their other centers—men and women one, two and three are thus created.
Itoklanos represents a fundamental dysregulation of the human psyche. As such, Itoklanos is supremely important to understand experientially and gives me a key to the myriad of unbecoming manifestations I have developed. It also provides a reason why a person can only remember themselves for moments at a time, then forgets their existence. This is due to the formation of small individual “I’s” in my personality, which is fostered by my attention being pulled by associations of just one center at a time. In this way, my personality is constructed of many small “I’s” with no overall anchor for my consciousness. It is difficult to remember myself and I forget myself quickly. I can experience the first conscious shock of self-remembering, but then suffer from self-forgetting due to Itoklanos. A different effort is needed.
Gurdjieff clearly lays out a process for re-regulation of the human psyche, correcting for Itoklanos, and even delineates the method to be applied. He says, "In the common presence of every being existing merely on the basis of Itoklanos, ‘something’ similar to the regulator in a mechanical watch is present and is called ‘Iransamkeep’; this ‘something’ means: ‘not-to-giveoneself- up-to-those-of-one’s-associations-resulting-from-the-functioning-of-only-one-oranother- of-one’s-brains.’" v And, it is precisely in the above passage where we might find the cure for our unbecoming behavior, i.e. not to give oneself up to the association of just one brain, that we go astray.
I must admit, I never liked this formulation in BT. Gurdjieff is really describing an end state or more accurately a process— where I no longer give myself up to the associations of only one brain—not a behavioral action to achieve that result. And in actuality, the end state itself is really a continual state of being or process rather than an end—he refers to this process as “harmonious association.” vi
The goal in this case is to “not give oneself up.” It is critical to make a distinction between the goal and the method one may use to reach it. In other words, the goal is not the method itself. Gurdjieff does not actually describe the method to achieve “harmonious association.” What is the method or process that would allow me to “not give myself up”? How can one master the art of being in touch with the associations or impressions received from each of my three centers at the same time. Only then would I achieve what he calls “harmonious association.” And, I propose that this state or process would then gradually define both complete self-remembering and complete self-observation.
I believe we miss the boat of understanding due to our interpretation of the language Gurdjieff utilizes when he describes the desired end-state to “not give oneself up.” Such misinterpretation is endemic in understanding the Work and its principles. This misinterpretation inhibits and thwarts our efforts to become harmonious individuals. This particular glitch in interpreting Gurdjieff’s language has profound implications for personal and collective work—it concerns the impossibility of attempts to “not” do something—in this case ‘”not-to-give-oneself-up-tothose- of-one’s –associations…. This “not to give oneself up” that accompanies many different practices in religions creates a variety of problems that are almost always overlooked and which will be examined later in the section Psychological Paradoxes.