💾 Archived View for tilde.club › ~oldernow › 2023-11-30-14-40-24.gmi captured on 2023-12-28 at 17:17:06. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Gurdjieff/Ouspensky wrote/spoke much about so-called "identification" in a "crux of the problem" kind of way.
Others describe a sudden appearance of "mind", whose contents seems to be "objects" opposite a "subject", the latter supposedly "conscious" of the former. In Gurdjieff/Ouspensky terminology, one might say that <can't be said> (I've referred to that as "behind the within") somehow imagines/creates and identifies with said subject/object scenario. That is when "we" are *conceived* - which word is more in the *mind* sense, although that sense has been further discriminated down to an "emerging from a womb" sense as said notional/conceptual scenario has gained momentum, as it were.
The "subject" in that scenario might be called a "first order identification". But it can seemingly dig itself even deeper away from <can't be said> into higher orders of identification by identifying even more specifically (read: restrictively), e.g. "I'm a male", "I'm a Beatles fan", "I'm a Christian" - the last even more deeply a la "I'm a *Catholic* Christian", etc., etc.
From that "identification as The Problem" point of view, the modern fervor over identifying this way and/or that seems, well, like tugging on the straight-jacket ropes more earnestly than ever before....