A first quick note; it seems I use the word “spiritual” in the way you use the word “Soul”. It seems to me that what I describe with the word “soul” is something else entirely…which doesn’t seem to form a part of your themes.

Also I agree with you about the LoA; it’s modern interpretation is vague and meaningless. And it isn’t what I would say spirituality is about. In fact most popular modern “spiritual” ideas are not what I would describe as true spirituality.

You have mentioned a few times about a “realistic sobering effect”. I am not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that real = physical proof i.e a scientific method?

But surely everyone has different requirements for what they feel is physical proof? From my point of view I have experienced a lot of “unusual” things. Out of Body Experiences, witnessing objects in the environment shift from one thing into another. I have seen and communicated with entities that are non-human. I also have limited empathic (and occasionally telepathic) abilities. To me all these things are real…not just because I have experienced them, but because these things have been validated by other people around me.

For me it is very sobering to realise that our world is far more than just physical proof and physical systems. And that what is realistic is not easily defined.

In the machinist idea, it is considered that a human being is in a semi-sleep state. I agree with this. But the Spirit and Soul is still present. When you go to sleep you loose sensation of your body. But your body is still there. Indeed certain actions in your sleep and dreams can and do affect your physical body. It is the same with our Being, each and every action we do affects our Spirit.

If you spend a lot of time running, then your muscles will get stronger. Your breathing also gets stronger and your body’s oxygen usage becomes more efficient. But you don’t train your breathing strictly separately from your running or your muscles.

I find it interesting how you separate Personal Development and Spiritual Development. Though I don’t believe that one can happen without the other – as we are both Spiritual and Physical beings. However I do think your distinction is very important and very usable for the development process as a whole.

Yes, semantics can cause troubles. Also one blog post is not enough by far to present even the basics of the concept. But these comments are getting interesting for sure!

The concept doesn’t necessarily inspires to higher ideals. As I wrote before, there are two approaches here:

1. the factual, descriptive use of the concept

2. the perspective that regards the concept from its potential and possibilities in future development.

The academic version usually goes with the first one. The second one is closer to my liking. Here, in the 2nd one, the possibility of ending the ‘machine’ is stated from the beginning.

I always saw the distress caused by the concept when presented first. It is quite uncomfortable to look upon ourselves as machines. Even if is said that we are truly wonderful and most perfect machines. Still, I consider that one of the greatest positive impacts of the concept is its sobering effect. It really brings you down to a ground of intense realism.

On the contrary, as an example, the whole fuzz about the law of attraction these days states that there is no effort needed, one just have to let the imagination act for him and the miracle will be there shortly. Maybe it is not as simple, but essentially the LoA distorts the necessity of effort in quite a foxy way.

Thanks for clearing the Macro. This view of levels with the same pattern repeating is how I prefer to talk about Vertical Thinking, one of the “pillars” of this blog. So we are talking about the same thing here!

You suggest that getting rid of the modified state of sleep should be considered spirituality. A say yes and no. I like to picture it like here. So, this awakened state, let’s call it self remembering, is at the meeting point of personal and spiritual. So it could be both.

Because we see reality in a different manner and have a unique internal process going on this generates different paths for us – you say. I don’t disagree. Although I think we can talk of spirituality in terms of the ‘absolute’, all the rest that is not spiritual is ‘relative’. Relative is the field of individual, personal. So, when can we really say that there is spirituality involved?

Conscious thinking is a good point. It is vital in every effort towards “waking up”. Like in Vipassana for ex, or somewhat in Za-zen too. As a related thing here, it is said that self awareness is reached through self remembering. Self remembering is essentially the state of self consciousness, the state of “I am”. Realizing the “I am” and remembering this often, finally getting this as our natural state is the aim here. The system that Gurdjieff developed, has at its core the means to reach and maintain this self remembering.

I tend to find that in many cases it is the terminology in these subjects which causes the difficulties in understanding. Most of us have preconceptions about certain words. For me personally, the word “mechanistic” triggers a certain degree of bias. So rather than just react I find it better to work at comprehending what is meant by that word. Because your use of that word may well be different to mine. That seems to be the problem with nearly all perspectives on life and reality.

Anyway – I am starting to warm up to the idea of the mechanistic view, now that we have been discussing it. Although I am wondering if it inspires practitioners to higher ideals than simply being involved in the mechanical process? I mean is it made clear at the start, that an aim of this form of personal development is to end the association with the “machine”?

I meant macro as in macrocosm (perhaps I shouldn’t have used a capital M). You may well know this. The ancient Greek view that the same patterns of existence are repeated across all levels of reality. So essentially no single component is separable from the whole – because everything is a copy of the whole.

That people exist in a modified state of sleep has to be a truism! And yes awareness is the key to break away from this into expanded consciousness. This could be a process termed as spiritual development. You ask about how I view reaching spirituality. Well I think that there are many paths. Some paths work for one person but not another. Whilst other paths pretty much work for most people. No single path can work for everyone though because we all have a fairly unique internal process going on. And we all see reality in a different manner.

One process that I think is very good is “conscious thinking”. That is being aware of what is going on in your mind. This is good because it instantly creates that “spark of awareness”, which interrupts the internal mechanical thinking. It makes us less robotic. We don’t have to change anything – we only need to simply be aware enough to observe.

It is interesting that you mention synchronicity, intuition and other such occurrences. In a normal “modified sleep state”, experiences of these sorts of things do seem to happen by chance. But once you start observing your thoughts, things start to change. Synchronicity becomes far more common, as do other spiritual and paranormal phenomenon. I don’t know why this would be, but perhaps using the terminology we are discussing here, it is a case of stepping outside of robot existence. That us simply consciously choosing to become a willful observer of our own mind is enough for such a change.

How this perspective handles spiritual development? It doesn’t. And it doesn’t have to. Until the state of being falsely identified with the “machine” is not ended, there is nothing much to talk about. There might be glimpses, like intuitive moments of spiritual realities showing up, even just for moments. Those can have a variety of forms, one of them is synchronicity as far as I see it. These intuitions doesn’t appear according to an act of will, they seem to show up by chance. They can not be repeated, just remembered in some form, for a while.

The mechanistic concept as seen in Gurdjieff’s teachings says that man truly exists only when is fully self-aware. Until then, it is like a modified state of ’sleep’, sleeping while being awake. The effort to reach self-awareness is called here ’self remembering’. Only when one remembers oneself, then one can act truly according to one’s will. No more automatism and false identification.

Now I am curious about how you see the reaching of spiritual, as it seems to me you see it differently. Also, I am not sure what do you mean by Macro view. Is that related to the concept of expanding consciousness?

People do tend to appear to be essentially automated and mechanical until they reach a certain point of development. And I can see that the mechanical view of a human could help with personal development (I also agree that it should form a part of a personal development process) – up until a certain point is reached. But how does this perspective handle spiritual development once that point is reached? After all, once a certain level of personal development is reached, then the spiritual becomes a pertinent issue!

It seems to me that where our view is differing, is on the subject of spiritual and paranormal phenomenon. That part of reality which cannot be attributed with physical or mechanical notions.

Personally I don’t believe that an individual can develop to their full potential without a Macro view on reality. And that would have to include both the physical and non-physical aspects of reality.

Perhaps your perspective on what is realistic within reality is slightly different?

I understand your concerns, although I don’t necessarily agree. The concept can be looked upon as soulless, and such it is disturbing regarding common sense – which is built into us mostly through our cultural frames. But actually it is not soulless. It states that a soul is there as being something more than the machinery. It transcends it. And it also states that human being ends to be a machine when the soul is reached, developed.

Until then, man lives identified with the so many automatisms, more or less reflecting some form of intelligence. Until is completely self aware, man is subdued to automatisms. The soul in the state of automatisms is there just a possibility, just as a potentiality. waiting to be actualized.

Another interesting point here is that the common presence of the concept, like in cognitive sciences has only a descriptive side. And as far as I know it ends there (but I might be wrong here). Anyway, from the self developmental angle, the mechanistic concept is regarded as a set of possibilities. As what one can become. So I see this as being much more important for all honest seekers for self development. Also I consider the concept a sobering and realistic perspective.

I didn’t mean to make that sentence into quite such a statement…

Yes, as you say it is indeed true that the mind can be developed to higher and higher levels. As can our spirit, spirit-body, and other non-physical senses.

The mechanistic perspective is quite interesting for sure. Especially so, that it takes into account that there maybe an “essential” part of the being that isn’t initially apparent. I also agree that it isn’t the human’s natural state for one to have awareness of this “essential” part. And that our awareness needs to awaken to that aspect.

As a notion I find these concepts very interesting. Although in practical terms I always find myself feeling uneasy. Particularly because it doesn’t match with my personal experience.

For example, it is possible through various techniques to experience that there is in fact distinction between the mind and body. Just as there is distinction between the mind and spirit. And distinction between the spirit and soul. These things are possible to experience in a measurable manner. Although science may claim this to be an “illusion of the senses” perceiving separation where there really isn’t any separation.

But of course, nearly all perspectives hold an aspect of knowledge that is very usable and worthwhile – and I suspect that is true of the mechanical view of the human.

To make an analogy in the terms you are using I would put it like this:

The body is the hardware, the brain is the RAM or Hard Drive + OS. The mind is self writing software. The spirit would reside in a satellite – experiencing the body via wireless communication. The subtle body could perhaps be likened to the electric. Whilst the soul maybe the material that composes the electricity.

I find it somewhat strange to use such a materialistic perspective though, as it is fairly ill fitting. Or – to use another term, a bit too Ahrimanic.

You are making a distinction between the body and the mind. The mechanistic view of the human being doesn’t do that. The mind is also considered part of the machinery. As you say, the body can be developed up to amazingly intelligent manifestations. Isn’t that valid for the mind to? Maybe the mind can also be considered a sort of a body, obviously a more subtle one.

I agree that this mechanistic view of the human being can be disturbing. The very term ‘machine’ refers so intensely to lifeless, soulless forms. That sounds quite harsh and against the idealistic humanist perspective. I am not a fan of this view by all means, but I find it interesting enough not to disregard it. Especially when looking for pragmatism in self development. Maybe you can agree with me on that the mechanistic view is an original one, if nothing more.

Again your point on the Eastern perspective over the body compared to the Western one is a good one. Here I will say that the mechanistic view doesn’t separate the body from the mind, and regards them as both being part of the machine. This is important. Also, the major drive or aim of the intelligent machine is above all – survival. If not in the present shape, then through reproduction. And this can be seen as the major impulse towards developing its own extraordinary intelligence – still being considered a remarkable ability of the remarkable machinery.

The mechanistic perspective to which I somewhat tend to give some credit, also says that there is something essential there, part of the human being which is not mechanistic. Something essential that can be reached through intense efforts towards self awareness. That there is a self as a cause, more like a formative one, for the machine, but it is far underdeveloped in man, and that is not a natural condition to realize that. It states that man can obtain a condition where it is not a machinery only. Hopefully this idea brings some clarification and eliminates part of the discomfort caused by the purely mechanistic view.

In the first comment here, kulcsi refers to the cognitive science. At the origins of the cognitive science there was the analogy between the man and the computer, like hardware – body, software – mind and in details like RAM as the short term memory etc. By now it has evolved into several directions, but the analogy can be somewhat clarifying. Maybe kulcsi will want to comment in more details about this.

(html tags are working, just use angle brackets instead of square ones )

After all isn’t the body capable of learning? Practice martial arts long enough or play a musical instrument for any length of time and pretty soon the realization comes that the body learns, not the brain.

So a learning, adaptable, self-evolving machine? That’s where the mechanized concept gets stretched a little thin for me. (And yes I admit to some personal disturbance at the whole idea).

Again I agree that learning the body in the manner you describe has a lot of benefits. But then there are other approaches that contain the same principles – yet consider the body as an independent living organism. A living, learning being in its own right – quite separate from the mind.

When looking at the Eastern and Western beliefs of what the body is, there is a clear vast gulf between the two perspectives. What interests me is how much *more* the Eastern perspective is able to get from the body. Look at the Shaolin and Yogi for example.

There are forces and energies all around us – very few of which science has been able to discern (although both the body and mind are quite capable of perceiving them). But these energies are there nonetheless – and they are very much a part of what the human body is.

Now if you take away any notions of subtle energy, life-forces, self-learning and cellular intelligence. Then yes I guess you could indeed say Homo est machine. Though look how much has to be taken away to get to that view.

But then of course I maybe completely misunderstanding this entire concept!

Regarding the inspirational part, the links are there in the 2nd paragraph. Especially I recommend the first link with U. G. Krishnamurti. He recently died (in March this year), he was an extraordinary thinker of our times.

There might be some sort of autonomous deliberation even in complex machines too. Or the feeling of it. The level of complexity derives a plenty of output alternatives, which can be a kind of autonomous deliberation. Or at least the impression of it.