Reference: Tertium Organum
My friend Ivan presented me with this book Tertium Organum by P D Ouspensky. The title refers to THE THIRD CANON OF THOUGHT, A KEY TO THE ENIGMAS OF THE WORLD.
The work is concerned with the nature of the universe and cosmic consciousness – anyone who hobbies to struggle with those matters will find this book to be most insightful and helpful. Download Tertium Organum here free, unabridged and yours forever:
Tertium Organum by P D Ouspensky
P.D. Ouspensky starts out with the implicit belief that something cannot come from nothing. He says,
“Knowledge must start from some foundation, something must be recognized as known; otherwise we shall be obliged always to define one unknown by means of another.”
My thought is that the desire to know brings about expectation. Expectation brings about speculation. Speculation brings about assumptions. And assumptions bring about beliefs. And, thus, knowledge expands.
The seed of all knowledge seems to be the DESIRE TO KNOW. Where this desire comes from is anybody’s guess.
Here is my favorite Hymn.
The Creation Hymn of Rig Veda
The basic questions are: “Where?”, “When?”, Who?” or “What?”
Neither such questions, nor their answers are there in the beginning.
There is only manifestation and awareness of that manifestation.
In case of absolute beginning, there is no “prior.”
In the “after,” there are these questions, and speculations for answers.
The questions manifest, and the speculations manifest
There is awareness of these further manifestations.
This awareness then generates more questions and speculations.
Such speculations then going forward, as well as going backwards
Hide the unknowable.
Note added 11/24/25
The unknowable can be known only through postulates. The first postulate is that the universe has substance that can be sensed.
.
Comments
Wha?!? Another homework assignment? For the luv of . . . .*&^%$#@!
LOL! You have picked up only very few assignments.
.
Desire has something to do with conditioning. It seems to be a good area to investigate with mindfulness.
Scientology auditing can lead one into conditioning in the absence of mindfulness.
What is missing in the basic Scientology TRs is mindfulness.
.
When we simply look at what is there, either with closed, or with open eyes, without any preconceived notion, we really don’t know what we are looking at. This is because we have nothing to compare it to.
In normal course of events, we recognize what is there, based on our preconceived notions. These preconceived notions come about by being taught the name and form of what see to be there.
Gradually, we build up logical associations among these name and forms in our mind to “understand” what is there.
Somewhere along the way, we start seeing what we wish to see, or, at least, what we see is influenced by what we wish to see.
It seems that we really don’t know what is out there. All we know is the name and form that we assign to them through logical associations.
.
We really don’t know about NOTHING. So, it can very well happen that things may at first seem to be appearing out of nothing.
.
Vin: We really don’t know about NOTHING. So, it can very well happen that things may at first seem to be appearing out of nothing.
Chris: When they might really be appearing from out of sight.
I think I have gotten stuck on the first page, where Ouspensky says,
“In relation to our cognition of the world and of ourselves the conditions would be ideal if it were possible to accept nothing as data and regard everything as requiring definition and proof. In other words, it would be best to assume that we know nothing, and take this as our starting point.
“Unfortunately, however, it is impossible to create such conditions. Something has to be laid down as a foundation, something must be accepted as known; otherwise we shall be constantly forced to define one unknown by means of another.”
.
When we look mindfully we notice that
ONE: There is looking and perceiving.
TWO: There is something to be looked at and perceived.
THREE: Thus there is manifestation and perception.
So, we must accept that there is manifestation, and there is also perception of manifestation. We cannot go any more fundamental than that.
We have to start from the above assumption.
.
Mindfulness is the state where nothing is being assumed. One is simply looking at what is there non-judgmentally and without any filters. If there is a filter, one will discover it sooner or later as one continues to be mindful. At that point the filter will no longer act as a filter.
I define a “filter” as the assumption one is using unconsciously to view things with. My contention is that it does not matter what assumptions one starts from. If one is being mindful, such assumptions will gradually drop out.
.
Maybe anticipating and using the other person’s filters is all there is to “communicating with reality.”
Good point!
No filters = no personal reality = all reality is out there.
.
Ouspensky asks:
“What do we actually know? The existence of consciousness in us and of the world outside us. Dualism or monism?”
I would simply say that there is manifestation; and that there is perception of that manifestation. That pretty much covers everything one may think of.
Dualism and monism applies to somethingness and not to nothingness.
.
Communicating this to someone not well drilled and grooved into this conversation would sound cryptic. The dualism and monism? Those aren’t the only choices. Check out “Pimples On The Skin Of Consciousness.”
From Wikipedia:
DUALISM: Was coined originally to denote co-eternal pair of related terms or concepts that are opposite in meaning. Dualism holds to the belief that there are two elements of existence: Physical and Spiritual.
I believe that physical and spiritual are two aspects of the same system.
MONISM: Argues that the variety of existing things can be explained in terms of a single reality or substance. The wide definition states that all existing things go back to a source which is distinct from them. The common, restricted definition implies also a unity of substance and essence.
Dulalism and Monism are based on the assumption that there is “something” as ultimate reality. Is that assumption true? Inconsistencies occur among “somethings” and these may be regressed forever indefinitely. The ultimate reality could theoretically be “nothing.” NOTHING cannot be defined because there is nothing to define.
.
Ouspensky says,
“The most difficult thing is to know what we do know and what we do not know.”
I guess what he is trying to say is that it is very difficult to differentiate between “what we do know” and “what we do not know.” We already create an outline of what we desire to know, and think that we know to some degree.
.
Ouspensky asks,
“Subjective and objective cognition. Where do the causes of sensations lie? Kant’s system. Time and space. Mach’s observation. What the physicist actually works with.”
Per mindfulness, there is no subjective space. There is only the objective space wherein lie mental and physical objects.
.
What is the ultimate cause of any manifestation is unknowable.
.
Vinaire: Per mindfulness, there is no subjective space. There is only the objective space wherein lie mental and physical objects.
Chris: Profound, especially so if correct.
I am listening to
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KXk_8_8oLY&feature=endscreen&NR=1
.
Unknowable…
Enlightened mystics have been trying to describe all this for centuries, millennia…including Gautama Siddhartha…
It is just mindfulness. Whatever happens happens.
MINDFULNESS
.
.
“Learn to discern the real from the false.”
~ The Voice of the Silence, H.P.B.
REAL = What is there.(existence)
FALSE = What you put there (creation)
.
Ouspensky says,
“The most difficult thing is to know what we do know and what we do not know.”
.
The desire to know fixes something in our mind that we wish to know. And this gets mixed up with what we know to be there.
Thus, we start assuming that we know some datum, when, in fact, we do not know it. Thus, it becomes very difficult to differentiate between what we know, and what do not actually know.
This is the case with the concept of God.
.
.
Ouspensky writes.
“Therefore, if we wish to know something, we must first of all establish what we accept as data, and what we consider requires definition and proof, that is, we must determine what we know already, and what we wish to know.”
.
(1) Mindfulness simply looks at what is there and accepts it as data. It does not need to establish anything.
(2) We know this already because it is already there.
(3) It is our conjecture that requires definition and proof. This is what we wish to know.
.
Ouspensky writes.
“In relation to our cognition of the world and of ourselves the conditions would be ideal if it were possible to accept nothing as data and regard everything as requiring definition and proof. In other words, it would be best to assume that we know nothing, and take this as our starting point.”
.
(1) When one is being mindful, one is not assuming anything or making any judgement.
(2) Both the inner and outer worlds (mental and physical objects) are being perceived. Thus, everything is out there. There is nothing subjective.
(3) One has to accept as data what is there. If there are no physical objects then there still could be mental objects. One cannot assume that nothing is there.
(4) Thus, the starting point cannot be nothing.
(5) Then it is only our conjecture that requires definition and proof. This is what we wish to know.
.
How shall we define subjective?
It seems that subjective would be looking at mental objects from a viewpoint that is identified with some idea of self.
The consideration attached with subjective is “it is a process peculiar to me.”
.
Ouspensky writes.
“Unfortunately, however, it is impossible to create such conditions. Something has to be laid down as a foundation, something must be accepted as known; otherwise we shall be constantly forced to define one unknown by means of another.”
.
(1) It is not a matter of having to lay down some foundation for knowledge. It is a matter of simply accepting what is there.
(2) Thus, “known” is what is already there.
(3) “Unknown” is our conjecture for which we require definition and proof.
.
Ouspensky writes.
“On the other hand, we must be chary of accepting as known -as data things that, actually, are completely unknown and merely presupposed –the sought for. We have to be careful not to find ourselves in the position occupied by positivist philosophy in the nineteenth century. For a long time the basis of this philosophy was the recognition of the existence of matter (materialism); and later, of energy, i.e. force or motion (energetics), althoughin actual fact matter and motion always remained the unknown quantities, x and y, and were always denned by means of one another.”
.
Things like matter, energy, force, motion, God, etc. are conjectures that have never been defined fully or proved completely.
.
Ouspensky writes.
“What then do we know?
“We know that, from the very first step towards cognition, a man is struck by two obvious facts: The existence of the world in which he lives, and the existence of consciousness in himself.
“Neither the one nor the other can he prove or disprove, but both of them are facts for him, they are reality.”
.
Mindfulness tells us that, at a minimum,
(1) There is manifestation.
(2) There is perception.
.
Ouspensky writes,
“One may speculate about the mutual relationship of these two facts. One may attempt to reduce them to one, that is, to regard the psychological or inner world as a part, or a function, or a reflection of the outer world, or look upon the outer world as a part, or a function, or a reflection of the inner world. But this would mean a digression from facts, and all such concepts would not be self-evident for an ordinary, non-speculative view of the world and of oneself. On the contrary, the only fact that remains self-evident is the antithesis of our inner life and the external world.”
(1) Ouspensky is using the terms “inner world” and “outer world,” but these concepts seems to be relative to the idea of self. And what is self? Is it the interface between the inner and outer worlds?
(2) The inner world is made up of mental objects. The outer world is supposed to be made up of physical objects. What is the difference between the two? The mental objects seem to be more malleable than the physical objects.
(3) But could there be a spectrum from mental to physical objects instead of a sharp divide? That seems to be evident in schizophrenics. So “self” may not be something fixed. Maybe self can be spread over this “spectrum of objects.”
(4) Could same be suspected of manifestation and perception? That there is not a sharp divide between the two, but a gradual transition. I think that this idea is radical.
I have long suspected that manifestation and perception are possibly the two sides of the same coin. It could be the thought that is aware of itself. Ultimately, it is the manifestation that perceives itself. Again, this is a radical idea.
.
I’m almost following you. Have to warm up to the language.
Ouspensky writes,
“Later, we shall return to this fundamental proposition. But meanwhile we have no grounds for arguing against the obvious fact of our own existence that is, the existence of our inner life – and the existence of the external world in which we live. This, therefore, we must accept as data.
“But this is all we have the right to accept as data. All the rest requires proof of its existence and definition on the basis of these two data we already possess. Space with its extension; time, with the idea of before, now and after; quantity, mass, materiality; number, equality, inequality; identity and difference; cause and effect; ether, atoms, electrons, energy, life, death -all that is laid down as the basis of our usual knowledge, all these, are unknown quantities.
“The direct outcome of these two fundamental data – the existence in us of a psychological life, i.e. sensations, representations, concepts, thinking, feeling, desires and so on, and the existence of the world outside us -is a division of everything we know into subjective and objective, a division perfectly clear to our ordinary perception. ”
.
I do not accept the assumption of ‘inner’ and ‘outer’ worlds. I prefer to look at the fundamental data to be ‘manifestation’ and ‘perception’.
I do not accept the assumption of ‘subjective’ and ‘objective’. I prefer to look at the division in terms of ‘mental’ and ‘physical’ objects, which is diffused at best.
I suspect the division between ‘manifestation’ and ‘perception’ to be diffused too.
I do agree that rest needs to be defined and proved, such as,
Space with its extension; time, with the idea of before, now and after; quantity, mass, materiality; number, equality, inequality; identity and difference; cause and effect; ether, atoms, electrons, energy, life, death, sensations, representations, concepts, thinking, feeling, desires and so on.
.
Ouspensky writes,
”Everything we take to be the properties of the world, we call objective, and everything we take as properties of our inner life, we call subjective.
“The ‘subjective world’ we perceive directly; it is in us; we are one with it.
“The ‘objective world’ we represent to ourselves as existing outside of us, apart from us as it were, and we take it to be exactly or approximately such as we see it. We and it are different things. It seems to us that if we close our eyes, the objective world will continue to exist, just as we saw it, and that, if our inner life, our subjective world, were to disappear, the objective world would go on existing as it existed when we, with our subjective world, were not there.”
.
The physical objects of the “external world” seem to exist in a physical space. The mental objects of the inner life seem to exist in a mental space. Both are manifestations. Both are perceived. There seems to be an arbitrary and undefined reference point of “we”, “us”, or “I” added to these fundamental facts.
This reference point of “I” is assumed to be separate from the physical objects of the external world, but somehow identified with the mental objects of “inner life.” However “I” seems to be a convenient point of reference like “zero” on a number line. “Zero” separates positive from negative numbers. “Zero” may be similarly identified with the negative numbers but it is not necessary.
The mental and physical objects may form part of a single spectrum like the positive and negative numbers in mathematics. The assumption of “I” seems to be there like “zero” for the sake of convenience for further construction.
.
Excellent.
From Ivan (who plays the devil’s advocate):
The comment in bold is a speculation.
Maybe Outspensky will clarify his view of “I” later in the book.
.
I would call that “comment in bold” a conjecture per MINDFULNESS.
For me the criterion is consistency. All previous ideas and beliefs to do with “I” are on the table for critical examination. Let’s see where this all will lead us to.
.