gurdjieff

Hugely surprised to see Beelzebub's Tales to His Grandson by George Ivanovitch Gurdjieff on the list.

On the other hand, from Seymour-Smith's perspective, which was literary- and 20th century-centric, Gurdjieff may well belong on the list.

Maurice Nicoll: Psychological Commentaries On The Teaching Of Gurdjieff And Ouspensky, Parts 1-6 This book is probably the best introduction to the teachings of Gurdjieff that have quite literally changed my life.

A list of works and people influenced by Gurdjieff would not be very long.

It's weird to me that Gurdjieff is never mentioned when people talk about enneagram.

This reminds me of Gurdjieff and Ouspensky's teachings about self awareness [1].

George Gurdjieff wrote about this many, many years ago (1890 – 1912).

To my surprise, they started out as a Georgist reading group (!) that meandered into Gurdjieff and then Advaita Vedanta (via Maharishi's TM and his followers).

The work of George Gurdjieff is precisely about this.

I guess the personality stuff is inspired by Gurdjieff but deviates from it.

In Search of the Miraculous is also a great book, but I think the author was jaded and a bit cynical about Gurdjieff so should also be taken with a grain of salt.

I know Orwell used Zamyatin "We" as an inspiration, but not seen the Gurdjieff attribution before.

Somebody named GI Gurdjieff wrote a book "Meetings with Remarkable Men" in 1923, and in that book there was a kind of story in the introduction.

I guess the symbolism is that Gurdjieff was saying that the modern culture is deceptive in the sense that the "new" cork is not the same as the "old" porridge.

Gurdjieff recommendation, but maybe start with any one of the books of "Psychological commentaries" by Nicoll, or "In search of the miraculous" by Ouspensky.

Gurdjieff was a spiritual teacher whose approach is quite different from organized religions, new age gurus and such.

Gurdjieff said that the path to spiritual development is to like what it does not like.

Gurdjieff was influential for some 20th century folks, but it seems a little ridiculous to put him anywhere near, say, Marx or Mao.