Other talks by Tim White
Starting the Octave with a Passive "DO"

The MI - FA Interval: Decision

A Talk Given by Tim White at Camp Caravan on 8/20/02


Why are we here?  I do not ask this as a rhetorical or philosophical question.  I want you to take a moment to look at this question for yourselves.  What answer comes to you, from your own experience, when you ask yourself the question, “Why are we here?”  …   There is little doubt in my mind that most of us will come up with different answers and that these answers, in large measure, depend on the way in which we understand the question.  Some will see the question as relating to our being here together, today, at this seminar.  Others will understand it on a more personal, existential level and ask themselves, “Why am I here on the Earth?”  In the book Making a Soul, Mr. Bennett approaches this question by asking “What is the reason and purpose for man’s existence?”[1]

I begin this talk with such questions because I am convinced that there is a reason and a purpose for our being here on the Earth and that it is possible for us to come to an understanding of this through our own experience.  While the question “Why are we here?” provides a starting point for discussion, it does not put us in front of the experience of the reason and purpose for our existence.  The experience of the reason and purpose for our existence begins with an understanding of our place in the structure and scale of the cosmos.  With this in mind, I can now ask the two questions that will serve as both introduction and theme for this talk.  Today, I want to look at the questions, “Why is it necessary for three-brained beings to be here on the Earth, to occupy the place in the scale of the cosmos that we occupy?” and “What is required of us in this place in the scale of the cosmos?”  

In order to answer these questions we must first come to know, “Where is here?” that is to say, “What place in the scale of the cosmos do we occupy?”  In a talk given at Sherborne House, Mr. Bennett spoke of a theme in Beelzebub’s Tales[2] where he said that “…creation was in a state of balance and the whole purpose of it could fail and because it was in a state of balance and the purpose of it could fail it was also possible for it to achieve more than was put into it.”[3]  This points out that there is a place of balance in the scale of the cosmos where the outcome of the purpose of creation is determined, where it either fails or becomes capable of accomplishing its purpose.  This reinforces the idea that the outcome of the creative process is hazardous, unpredictable and unknowable in advance.[4]  Because the outcome is unpredictable and hazardous, it is necessary for some agency to be active, to take some intentional and purposeful action at this precise point in the scale of the cosmos.  It is this place of balance in the scale of the cosmos where three-brained beings are brought into existence and where they are required to play their role in the world.

While man has a role to play in both the Involving and Evolving cycles of creation, it is his role in the Evolving cycle that allows creation to “achieve more than was put into it.”  Three-brained beings have been given the responsibility for providing a shock at the MI-FA interval in the Evolving cycle.  The shock that is required of man is decision.  It is decision, at the MI-FA interval of the Evolving octave that alters the balance of creation allowing something new to come in that was not present from the beginning.  Today, I want to speak about this place of balance – the MI-FA interval in the Evolving cosmic octave, the decisive and creative acts that occur there and the agencies through which these actions must manifest.

The shock necessary to “allow creation to achieve more than was put into it” must come at the place of balance because a shock applied at either side of the balance point can give only a predictable result.Only a shock at the balance point can allow the event to unfold in a non-mechanical way that allows the possibility for something new to enter.  The impulse to accomplish this must be a shock, delivered from outside, because any impulse that comes from inside the cycle itself, cannot add any possibilities to the event that were not present from the beginningThis is not to say that all outside shocks will give the right results.  It is possible for an outside shock to give only mechanical and predictable results.  An example of this type of result is found in the food diagram.  For example, air is an outside shock and it is necessary for the further digestion of ordinary food, however, the result of this shock – from the point of view of ordinary food – is mechanical and predictable.[5]In addition to coming from outside the cycle, the shock necessary for enabling creation to achieve more than was otherwise possible must also have the quality of being intentional.  As we have seen, while a mechanical shock can give significant evolutionary results, nothing new is created, there is merely a separation of course from fine.  The difference here is that the effect of an intentional shock at the MI-FA interval in the Evolving octave comes not only as a transformation of substance, but also as an increase in being.  In this way, decision, at the place of balance of creation accomplishes an increase in being on the cosmic scale. 

It is clear that man – as a three-brained being – is needed to perform intentional and decisive acts in the world.  Mankind’s place and role in the scale of the cosmos can be best illustrated in the context of the nature of shocks in general and their connection to the enneagram of Evolution.  A shock is an impulse that enters into the present moment of an event described by an enneagram, from outside the present moment of that event.  The triad within the enneagram shows the places where these shocks occur.  The shocks indicated by the different points of the triad have different purposes, qualities and experiences.  The shock that initiates an event occurs at DO as the result of the SI-DO interval of the previous cycle.  A second shock occurs between MI and FA and a third shock occurs between SOL and LA.  These shocks provide the points of connection between the Law of Three and the Law of Seven.

In Psychological Commentaries on Gurdjieff and Ouspensky, Maurice Nicoll says that “From the standpoint of this teaching, the Universe is created: we live firstly in a created and secondly in an ordered Universe.”[6]  He said that the Law of Three has to do with the way in which the cosmos is created.[7]  The Law of Three describes three fundamental forces, Affirming, Denying and Reconciling which are combined into six triads which form the fundamental laws of creation.

Gurdjieff spoke of Affirmation as “First Force,” Denial as “Second Force,” and Reconciling as “Third Force.”[8]  We usually speak about triads by listing the three forces in sequence, for example 1 – 2 – 3 or 2 – 3 - 1.  Putting the three forces in sequence introduces the idea that while the nature of the force is always the same no matter what position it is in, the position of each force in the triad has as much significance as the nature of the force itself.  When we speak about triads in this way we say that the force in the first position acts on the force in the second position and that the force in the third position is the result or manifestation of the first two.   I will caution you here that while this model seems to indicate that there is a linear, temporal or causal relationship between the forces in the triad, that is that these forces act in sequence and in time, this is not the case at all.  It is simply convenient to speak of triads in this way.  It is very important to remember that triads define relationships that are neither linear nor temporal.

Nicoll goes on to say that the Law of Seven shows the way in which the cosmos is ordered.[9] This order is constant and so the arrangement of the octave or the Law of Seven is also constant.  The figure of the enneagram shows the way in which the Law of Seven and the Law of Three interact with one another.

The triad within the enneagram represents the fundamental law of creation working within that cycle.  Today I want to take a close look at the triad within the enneagram of a cycle of transformation.  The triad within this enneagram is the 2 – 1 – 3 Triad or the Triad of Evolution.  I will start with a brief description of the Triad of Evolution followed by a discussion of the three shocks that this triad brings to an event.  From there we can look at how these shocks relate to the quality, nature and experience of the MI-FA interval, that is, the place of decision.

The Triad of Evolution is the triad that shows how cosmic purpose is realized through transformation.  In an event of transformation – that is an event driven by the Triad of Evolution – the possibility exists that something more, or something higher, may result than that which was present from the beginning.  It is this triad that enables the separation of the coarse from the fine, allowing the fine to rise ever higher in the scale of the cosmos.  It is possible, in this separation of coarse from fine, that something new can enter that allows for creation to achieve more than was put into it.  To better understand the shock that comes at the MI-FA interval, or the point of decision, it will be necessary first to understand the relationship between the shocks at the three points in the Triad of Evolution. 

The Triad of Evolution, or the 2 – 1 – 3 triad is one in which the Receptive or Denying Force acts on an Affirming Force resulting in Reconciling Force.  In an Evolving cycle, the event is initiated by the Receptive force in the first position.  Here the Receptive Force initiates or begins an event when it becomes connected with the SI-DO interval of the previous cycle.  One of the qualities of an event of transformation is that it is always initiated in response to a need.  The second shock in the Triad of Evolution is provided when the Affirming Force comes in between MI and FA and manifests as decision.  The third shock comes at point 6, where the Third Force enters as help to allow and enable transformation to take place.

To complete this description of the Triad of Evolution, I will need to introduce an idea from Mr. Bennett’s study of Systematics.  Mr. Bennett suggested that we could examine any triad more closely by looking at each shock in turn with the idea that the force at the point of each shock is, in itself, the initiating force for its own “triad within a triad.”[10]  That is to say that for each of the three forces that provides a shock in an enneagram, there is a corresponding triad initiated by the force that provided that shock.  In this way the Denying Force, which initiates the Evolving Triad, also initiates a subordinate triad at DO.  The Affirming Force, in the second position of the Evolving Triad initiates a subordinate triad at the MI-FA interval.  Finally, the Reconciling Force, in the third position of the Evolving Triad, initiates a subordinate triad at the interval between SOL and LA – the place that Gurdjieff calls the Harnel-aoot.[11]

If we apply this to the shock at the MI-FA interval of the Evolving Triad, we may be able to better understand the action of the Affirming Force there, especially as it relates to the role of human beings in the cosmic octave of creation.  There are two ways that Active Force can manifest here, that is to say that there are two triads that are initiated by Active Force.  The first is the 1 – 2 – 3 triad or the Triad of Involution.  This is a triad in which Active Force acts on a Passive Force to obtain a result.  The result obtained in this way is forced without choice or decision.  The second Triad initiated by the Active Force is the 1 – 3 – 2 triad or the Triad of Interaction.  Here the Third Force stands between Affirmation and Denial, between two opposing possibilities.  The Third Force in the center position of this triad allows for decision to be taken, for a choice to be made between the two opposing possibilities.  It is with the Triad of Interaction within the Triad of Evolution that we can see the action of decision at point three on the Enneagram.

Some of you will find this technical description of a triad within a triad within an enneagram helpful, while others will not.  At this point I would like to step away from the technical language of triads and enneagrams and try to describe these same ideas using a series of mental images or pictures.

In his book, Meetings With Remarkable Men, Gurdjieff writes about being blindfolded and guided though an unknown wilderness in his quest to reach the Sarmoung Brotherhood.  At one point along the way his progress is stopped by a nearly impassable gorge.  The only way across the gorge is over a flimsy, treacherous, suspended bridge with no handrails.  The gorge and bridge represent the place of decision.  It is here that Gurdjieff must decide the outcome of his quest – his life’s ambition to reach the Sarmoung Brotherhood.  On the one hand there is safety and relative comfort camped out by the rock next to the bridge.  On the other hand there is hazard both in crossing the bridge itself as well as in the lack of certainty about what he will find on the other side. He knows that he cannot stay camped out at the rock forever; he must decide either to risk it all and cross or give up the opportunity and go back.  He knows that if he chooses to go back, he will never be able to come this way again.  At the same time, he also knows that in order to pass this point, he must leave behind everything associated with his previous life even though there is no certainty that he will make it across the bridge or reach his goal. Gurdjieff makes his decision, crosses the bridge and, in the end, reaches the Sarmoung Brotherhood. 

There are a number of points to be drawn from this image.  The first point is that it is necessary to make a decision!  While this is an obvious point, we should all be aware by now that often, when we reach the point of decision, we become satisfied with our illusions and dreams of making a decision and never take any action at all.  We are often tempted to avoid making decisions by “camping out at the rock,” where it is safe and we never go any further for fear of the risk or hazard involved in the commitment of making a decision. 

Another important element that I want to bring out here is that it is impossible for Gurdjieff to cross the bridge until his blindfold is removed.  In other words, it is necessary to be awake in order to make a decision.  This means that we must be conscious and we must have intention in order to make a decision.  If we are asleep or if we lack intention, nothing at all is decided, and we fall back into mechanicallity and from where a mechanically predictable outcome or failure is certain.  It is only by being awake in the moment that we can understand and accept the hazards of our decisions.

Another way of illustrating the role of man in making decisions at the MI-FA interval in an event of transformation is by using a sequence of images from Mr. Ouspensky’s description of the Tarot deck.  The first image in this sequence is that of the Fool.  The Fool is pictured as a young man with his possessions bundled on a stick on his shoulder shown walking along with one foot on the edge and other foot about to step off a cliff into the void.  He appears to be paying no attention to where he is going, looking up and away with a carefree expression.  There is a small animal nipping the heel of the foot that is still on solid ground.  In Ouspensky’s description of the Fool, there is an alligator, at the bottom of the cliff waiting to eat him when he falls.[12]  The Fool stands at the place of decision.  If he makes his decision in the wrong way, he steps off the cliff, falls to the bottom and becomes lunch for alligator.  If he makes his decision in the right way, he will not fall at all; he will be transformed into the figure of the Juggler.

The Juggler is able to walk across the void without falling.  In crossing he must walk on air as if he was walking on a tightrope because if he takes one wrong step, he too will fall and become lunch for the alligator.  The Juggler must step carefully keeping all of his balls in the air, even as pieces of him are being torn away – because he cannot cross the void without losing a part of himself.  There are many ways in which the Juggler can fail.  If he becomes discouraged and loses his determination or if he tries to go back, he will fall into the abyss and be eaten by the alligator.[13]  On the other hand, if he becomes satisfied with what he has gained along the way, he is changed into the figure of the Chariot – this is an image that shows someone taking a gain that they are not entitled to.  The Chariot soars off the path and seems to go in an upward direction at first.  The path of the Chariot leads to destruction,[14] as seen in the figure of the Tower.  Here we see lightening striking a castle, breaking it in two and a man falling from the top in complete ruin.[15]  But, if the Juggler perseveres, bears the pain as the false and useless parts of himself are torn away in his passage over the abyss, he finds himself at SOL, point 5 on the enneagram.  Here, if he is pure at heart, he may be transported directly across to LA, point 7 on the enneagram, and is transformed into the figure of the Hermit.

The image of the Hermit is that of an old man, high on a cliff, looking down at a small figure crawling upward toward him.[16]  The Hermit stands at point 7, the point of transformation, where he is looking back at his old self with the new eyes of his experience.  On the enneagram this is represented by the line from LA, point 7, looking back to the beginning at MI, point 2.

These images may be helpful, but it remains necessary for us to connect with the place of decision in our own personal experience. In the Dramatic Universe, Mr. Bennett says that “…an ordinary man may act from deliberate choice – including here the most trivial instances – perhaps 10,000 times during the course of a whole life…”[17]  He goes on to suggest that decisions are few in childhood and in old age, leaving the ordinary man, in adulthood, an average of only 2 or 3 opportunities for choice or decision in the course of each day.  How many of our daily choices or decisions can be said to be in any way conscious choices or decisions?

This should be very simple, yes?  But can you remember the experience of the moment of your last decision?  Can you find yourself in the moment of that decision once again?  Was it a decision of consequence or was it a trivial choice?  I know that all of you have some experience with decision because each of you has already made at least one significant decision.  At some point you decided to come here, to step into this Work, to see if it held something of value for you.  Take a moment now to see if you can remember the moment when you decided to come to the Work…

When you are able to make contact with this (or any other) moment of decision, you will see that there is a second aspect involved the experience of decision and that is time.  You will see that it is impossible to “see” the moment of decision.  There was a moment when the decision was not made, then there was a moment in which the decision was made.  This is because the act of making a decision takes place outside of time.  This is connected with the nature of shocks in general, which are moments “outside of time.”  We can re-live,

re-experience these moments of decision because we are able to expand our present moment to include any moment that we have experienced “outside of time” no matter how far in the past.

I will conclude by speaking about the experience of the moment of decision in terms of what Mr. Bennett calls the Fundamental Triad of Experience: Function, Being and Will.[18]  In this case, the Functional aspect of the triad is related to the decision itself and is composed of three elements.  The first functional element of decision is a strong dyad.  A dyad is formed by the separation of two completely opposing possibilities.  Yes and no, like and dislike, pleasure and pain are all examples of dyads.  If one side of the dyad is accepted, the other side must be completely rejected.  Energy is generated when the two possibilities of the dyad are held apart.  When the tension within the dyad has generated enough energy – and it requires a great deal of effort to maintain that tension long enough to generate enough energy – there comes a moment when decision is possible.  A second functional element of decision is hazard.  If there is no hazard in the choosing of one possibility over the other, then it is not a decision at all, but simply the following of the only course available.  When there is hazard involved, there is an opportunity for something new to come into the process.  A final element is carrying the decision out to the very end.  If any one of these elements is not present, if a strong dyad is not formed, if there is no hazard in the decision or if the decision is not followed through to the end then all of the possibilities of the event will be lost. 

 If the Functional aspect is related to the decision itself, what can be said about the aspect of Being?  Rather than trying to speak about this directly I will try to illustrate it in the context of a decision that I recently faced.  A moment of decision came for me when we were preparing for the seminar that was held in Massachusetts last summer.  We had made all usual “decisions” already: when the seminar was to be held, where it was to be held, who was in charge of the food and a general idea of the activities that would take place.  The only question left, the only question to be decided was “who would be ‘in charge’ of the seminar, set the schedule, be responsible for the themes and decide the course that the seminar would take on a daily basis?”  For some reason, no one stepped forward to do this.  We discussed it for a long time without resolution.  Many suggestions were made, but it became clear to me that none of the suggestions were right.  There was a great deal of tension in the meeting as this question had to be decided now – there would not be time later – and yet there was no clear solution.  For me, the theme and direction of the seminar was clear, but I was afraid that I was completely unqualified and unprepared to take on the role.  The choice in front of me was to either let it fall to chance, or to take it on myself, even though I knew that it was beyond my capability and I had no clear idea of how to accomplish it.  I knew that if I took this role, that I would be on my own to succeed or fail.  At the same time I also knew that I could not do it alone, that I would need help in order to accomplish the aim of the seminar.  After a long inner struggle, I decided that the right thing for me to do was to take on the role.

Later, when I looked back at the decision that I had made, I asked myself, “What was my intention in the moment?”  I had to sort carefully through the answers that came in response to this question.  It was clear that I did not think that I was going to “do” the role of running the seminar.  I had taken the role because I knew that “it was up to me to do it.”  I saw that I was “called” in some way, to take on this task and role, in the face of my uncertainty about being able t accomplish it.  I saw that there was intention in this decision, but that it was not intention in the way that I ordinarily think about it.  It became clear that this intention was not something that I wished or wanted, but rather it was a connection, in me, with the Will of the higher.  In this way, I found myself at the MI-FA interval of the octave of the seminar with the intention to carry out the task of running it. 

Through this experience I slowly came to see the third element connected with decision.  As I pondered on the question of intention the clearer it became that something more was present that just decision and intention.  I knew that I had taken the role with the intention of accomplishing it, to the best of my ability, in “the right way.”  I slowly began to realize that this third element had to do with conscience.  The connection between decision and conscience was very difficult to understand at first.  It only made sense to me when I began to see how conscience is a manifestation of the presence of “that which is higher in myself.”

In the first ruku or ritual bow that we perform at the end of our morning exercise, we acknowledge “that which is higher in ourselves.”  What is this?  What is “that which is higher in ourselves?”   Mr. Bennett says, in one of his talks, “…there is this third part of man, which is his will or his I or his spirit.”[19]  It is this third part of man, his Will, which corresponds to  “that which is higher in ourselves.”  This Will is not something that we possess, or that we are, but it exists in us as a “particle” of the Divine Will.  It is this Will, or our I, or our Spirit that is the manifestation of the cosmic Third Force within man.It is through conscience that this higher part in man, his Will, manifests in the world.  It is through the action of conscience that man is able to step out of time and space and to come into contact with the Will of the higher.  It is connection with this impulse of Will, through conscience, that guides us in making the right decision in the moment.

This experience of the moment of decision can be spoken about in terms of the Fundamental Triad of Experience: Function, Being and Will where the function is the decision, being corresponds to intention and conscience is the manifestation of Will.  When these elements are in place, we can experience a decision to take the right course of action in the face of uncertainty and hazard.  The shock of decision at the MI-FA interval is the result of a relationship between the three elements of the triad of Decision, Intention and Conscience.  The working of this triad is a covenant, a sacred promise that is spoken of in the phrase, “Thy will be done.” This covenant is not a contract or a bargain or an exchange, it is a sacred promise that is given in both directions.  Mr. Bennett spoke of decision as “the committing the whole of oneself to action.”[20]  Man’s part in the covenant of decision is “committing the whole of oneself to action.”  It must be understood that the higher powers are already wholly committed to action and will provide help when man reaches the point where such help is necessary.

In Beelzebub’s Tales, Gurdjieff says that, in the beginning, the cosmos was mechanical, and because it was mechanical, it was found that it was slowly wearing away to nothing.  Because of this, he says, His Endlessness caused certain changes to be made in the laws governing the creative process.[21]  While these changes left the outcome of the cosmos hazardous, they also made it possible for creation to “achieve more than was put into it.”  This was accomplished by leaving “holes or gaps”[22] in the creative process where the application of an outside shock would cause the necessary result.  It is the responsibility of human beings to provide the shock of decision at the gap that occurs at the MI-FA interval of the Evolving Cycle.  We must wake up, find intention in the moment, bear the spark of conscience and make a conscious decision.  The decisions that we make in this way will be hazardous, but without that hazard, the outcome of creation will be predictable and without value.  Only by our consciously facing hazard in this way will it be possible for creation to “achieve more than was put into it.”

Tim White
Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic
January 2002
Camp Caravan, Royalston, MA
August 20, 2002
Decision Edit11.doc
December 17, 2005

References:


[1] Bennett, J. G.  Making a Soul.  Bennett Books.  Santa Fe, New Mexico.  1995.  Pgs. 1 – 21.

[2] Gurdjieff, G. I.  Beelzebub’s Tales to His Grandson.  E. P. Dutton & Co.  New York, New York.  1964.

[3] Theme discussion.  Bennett, J. G.  Sherborne House, Sherborne England.  Circa 1972.  Private  recording.

[4] Bennett, J. G.  Hazard.  Bennett Books.  Santa Fe, NM.  1991.  Pg. 5.

[5] Ouspensky, Piotr Demionovich.  In Search of the Miraculous.  Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.  New York, NY.  1977.  Pg. 184.

[6] Nicoll, Maurice.  Psychological Commentaries on the Teaching of Gurdjieff and Ouspensky.  Samuel Weiser, Inc.  York Beach, Maine.  1996.  Pg. 108.

[7] Nicoll, Maurice.  Psychological Commentaries on the Teaching of Gurdjieff and Ouspensky.  Samuel Weiser, Inc.  York Beach, Maine.  1996.  Pg. 109.

[8] Ouspensky, P. D.  The Fourth Way.  Vintage Books (Random House).  New York, New York.  1971.  Pg. 189.

[9] Nicoll, Maurice.  Psychological Commentaries on the Teaching of Gurdjieff and Ouspensky.  Samuel Weiser, Inc.  York Beach, Maine.  1996.  Pg. 108.

[10] Bennett, J. G.  Elementary Systematics.  Bennett Books.  Santa Fe, NM.  1993.  Pg. 40.

[11] Gurdjieff, G. I.  Beelzebub’s Tales to His Grandson.  Penguin Arkana.  New York, New York.  1999. Pg. 754.

[12] Ouspensky, P. D.  The Symbolism of the Tarot.  Dover Publications, Inc.  New York, NY.  1974. Pg. 23-24.

[13] Ouspensky, P. D.  The Symbolism of the Tarot.  Dover Publications, Inc.  New York, NY.  1974. Pg. 21.

[14] Ouspensky, P. D.  The Symbolism of the Tarot.  Dover Publications, Inc.  New York, NY.  1974.  Pgs. 35-37.

[15] Ouspensky, P. D.  The Symbolism of the Tarot.  Dover Publications, Inc.  New York, NY.  1974.  Pgs. 48-49.

[16] Ouspensky, P. D.  The Symbolism of the Tarot.  Dover Publications, Inc.  New York, NY.  1974.  Pgs. 53-54.

[17] Bennett, J. G., The Dramatic Universe.  Volume I, Bennett Books.  Santa Fe, NM.  1997.  pp. 401-402.

[18] Bennett, J. G., The Dramatic Universe.  Volume I, Revised Edition. Claymont Communications. Charlestown, WV.  1987.  Pg. 27.

[19] Theme discussion.  Bennett, J. G.  Sherborne House, Sherborne England.  Circa 1972.  Private recording.

[20] Theme discussion.  Bennett, J. G.  Sherborne House, Sherborne England. 1974.  Private recording.

[21]  Gurdjieff, G. I.  Beelzebub’s Tales to His Grandson.  Penguin Arkana.  New York, New York.  1999. Pg. 748-751

[22] Theme discussion.  Bennett, J. G.  Sherborne House, Sherborne England.  Circa 1972.  Private recording.