The German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer once said (according to Borges), “Many men mistake the buying of a book for the buying of the contents of the book.” As I look around my cluttered writing office and scratch my head thinking up something to write, I have to agree, being among the guilty.
If my poor memory serves me rightly, I believe it was the (Turkish? Greek? Armenian?) mystic Gurdjieff who said that to fully understand a book, one must read it three times. The first time it should be read straight through, as one reads a newspaper or periodical. The second time, much more carefully, slowly, methodically, pausing frequently, trying to soak in the author’s main ideas. And the third time, with the aim to teach the contents of the book to another without the aid of the book.
Unfortunately, I have yet to get even a quarter of the way into a first reading of any book by the (Turkish? Greek? Armenian?) mystic.
I am nearing the halfway point of Tertium Organum, a philosophical treatise by a disciple and companion of Gurdjieff, P. D. Ouspensky. What a truly fascinating book! Why isn’t this work more widely known? I originally cracked it in 2005, while writing my second novel, since it deals with a subject essential to my book: higher dimensions. I only managed twenty or so pages back then. But now I’ve slogged through over a hundred, and it’s quite rewarding. Ouspensky is describing our universe in a way which I have never quite had it described to me before. I’m not sure I understand it, and I am far from mastering it, but I feel intuitively that there may be something here. It jives with my physics readings, and seems compatible with Catholic teaching (so far – towards the end, according to the table of contents, he deals with “supermen” and such, so we’ll see, though I’m doubtful). Compatibility to both is a necessity for me to take any metaphysic seriously.
This is a book I want to read again. And possibly, a third time. There’s meat here, without a doubt, and it’s kept my intent interest over the past week or so. I’ll try to post on it later on, if I can be satisfied that I’m doing it any justice.
As an aside, Ouspensky speaks frequently of Kant, and from what little I’ve gleaned it seems that Kant’s metaphysics is remarkably prescient of quantum mechanics. I am so over my head here. I borrowed a small book on Kant from the library, a “Cliff’s-notes”-type of summary of his philosophy, as well as a slightly longer review of his work and theories. Oh to have more time! More time to read, to study, to learn, to think, to meditate, to create, to write, to teach! Oh indeed!
If my poor memory serves me rightly, I believe it was the (Turkish? Greek? Armenian?) mystic Gurdjieff who said that to fully understand a book, one must read it three times. The first time it should be read straight through, as one reads a newspaper or periodical. The second time, much more carefully, slowly, methodically, pausing frequently, trying to soak in the author’s main ideas. And the third time, with the aim to teach the contents of the book to another without the aid of the book.
Unfortunately, I have yet to get even a quarter of the way into a first reading of any book by the (Turkish? Greek? Armenian?) mystic.
I am nearing the halfway point of Tertium Organum, a philosophical treatise by a disciple and companion of Gurdjieff, P. D. Ouspensky. What a truly fascinating book! Why isn’t this work more widely known? I originally cracked it in 2005, while writing my second novel, since it deals with a subject essential to my book: higher dimensions. I only managed twenty or so pages back then. But now I’ve slogged through over a hundred, and it’s quite rewarding. Ouspensky is describing our universe in a way which I have never quite had it described to me before. I’m not sure I understand it, and I am far from mastering it, but I feel intuitively that there may be something here. It jives with my physics readings, and seems compatible with Catholic teaching (so far – towards the end, according to the table of contents, he deals with “supermen” and such, so we’ll see, though I’m doubtful). Compatibility to both is a necessity for me to take any metaphysic seriously.
This is a book I want to read again. And possibly, a third time. There’s meat here, without a doubt, and it’s kept my intent interest over the past week or so. I’ll try to post on it later on, if I can be satisfied that I’m doing it any justice.
As an aside, Ouspensky speaks frequently of Kant, and from what little I’ve gleaned it seems that Kant’s metaphysics is remarkably prescient of quantum mechanics. I am so over my head here. I borrowed a small book on Kant from the library, a “Cliff’s-notes”-type of summary of his philosophy, as well as a slightly longer review of his work and theories. Oh to have more time! More time to read, to study, to learn, to think, to meditate, to create, to write, to teach! Oh indeed!
"Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, and today is a GIFT!" -J
ReplyDeleteHi LE,
ReplyDeleteMy comment was meant for the previous post! DOn't know quite how it got here1 -J