It goes slightly against my grain to get behind the notion of a thoroughly ‘materialistic’ universe. On initial perusal the idea seems reductionist and I would envisage, is liable to gloss over some of ‘our reality’s’ most fundamental aspects; The ones that make it all work.
Looking further into Gurdjieffs ‘materialistic’ system , though, i feel myself warming.
He detailed a system where everything in the universe is ‘material’, even ‘qualities’ such as thought and emotion!
He spoke of a grand scale from the grossest to the finest material.
We, in our human world, have access/ are able to perceive/ can be affected by only a small section of this scale. There are therefore subtler and grosser materials/ substances/ forces that have no bearing on our world.
This seems quite different from the ‘materiality’ our current science describes. It is an outlining of some kind of contemporary alchemy.
He uses the handy ‘scientific’ terms, Carbon, oxygen, Nitrogen and hydrogen to signpost these forces and materials, when once upon a time the symbols fire, earth, air and water might have been used; But it is the same.
These terms do not describe the appearance of things, they denote qualities, purposes; Groupings pertain to what the materials do, the purposes that they serve; A sort of ‘cosmic ordering’
We eat food to support our physical bodies; this material is named h768 in this system. He also postulated that we take in subtler foods, The materials h192 and h48 (The air we breathe and the ‘sensory’ impressions we receive)
Hence we are closed systems, linked to the ‘outside’ at three ‘points’ by the three foods we consume.
These materials ‘feed’ (‘coat’ and ‘perfect’) other unknown parts of ourselves.
He stated, the more subtle materials h24, h12 and h6 are matters of our psychic and spiritual life on different levels and are unknown to modern science.
Earlier this year Christopher Brown and I discussed this and he was interested in what the theory suggests about ‘energy’
Ordinarily I would think of matter and energy as opposite poles of a polarity, e.g., masculine/feminine, day/night, good/bad. Does it envision such manifestations as fire, light, gravity, electricity, magnetism as all being not just matter generated, but nothing but matter?
I think we are currently in a great position, now that ideas pertaining to simulated and computer generated worlds are so commonplace; It gives us a great tool for analogy.
I don’t necessarily believe our world is a digital simulation, but to grasp its possibility is so easily within our reach that it is now quite straightforward to gain some sort of new perspective.
In a simulation the only difference between matter and energy are the rules governing how they interact with the other ‘elements’ in the simulation and the degree of freedom that they have. (freedom from what?) Possibly freedom from certainty, a degree of chaos.
In a simulation, energy has much more freedom and scope to interact. Matter is limited, not as mutable and more predictable. The most important thing about an element in a simulation is not what it is made from, but its purpose. What it does and where does it stands in relation to the purpose of the simulation.
I quite like Gurdjieffs idea of ‘hydrogens’. It feels like a totally different way of looking at these things.
He looked on inanimate matter such as minerals and metals as h3072 and biological matter as h1536.
Food consumable by humans is designated h768 (the beginning of the food octave in humans)
Breathable air as h192 (the beginning of the air octave in humans)
Things like fire and rarified gas as h96. He saw our normal impressions, our ‘’internal’ sensory world as a substance h48 (the start of the impression octave in humans)
The nub of it appears to be, that we are some sort of ‘food factories’!
We take in three types of substance (foods), h768, h192 and h48 and process them into more refined materials; A contemporary alchemy.
These more rarified substances can be accumulated and used to ‘coat’ what Gurdjieff called ‘higher being bodies’.
Of course, I don’t necessarily ‘believe’ or ‘disbelieve’ this stuff, but I definitely find it a fresh and interesting perspective from which to approach some of the themes thrown up by ‘the supernatural’ world.
