linuxmafia.com 2016/linuxmafia.com.tar/linuxmafia.com/pub/skeptic/files-to-classify/tertium-organum.txt

Text File | 1996-02-19 | 125KB | 1,951 lines

   Review/Condensation of Tertium Organum by P.D. Ouspensky.
   This review/condensation by Brian Redman. Distribute this if you like.
   Part 1 -- Chapters 1 - 3.


                   Chapter 1
                   =========
   Ouspensky starts by saying we must determine what we know. "Something
must be accepted as known; otherwise we shall be constantly forced to define
one unknown by means of another." (page 1). Thus the position taken by
nineteenth century positivist philosophy -- that "Matter is that in which
the changes called motion take place: and motion is those changes which
take place in matter." (page 2) -- is circular and defines nothing.
   Ouspensky next points out that for the average man there are two obvious
facts: 1) The existence of the world in which he lives; and 2) the exist-
ence of consciousness in himself. Note that Ouspensky is not saying
necessarily that these two facts can be proved, only that for the average
man these are facts.
    "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." (page 2)
   Ouspensky's "two obvious facts," the objective world and the inner, or
subjective world, seem to us to be different in one important way. "It
seems to us that if we close our eyes, the objective world will continue
to exist....[and if] our subjective world were to disappear, the objective
world would go on existing." (page 3). We perceive the objective, external
world as existing in time and in space.
   Yet our cognition of the subjective and the objective world may be false.
"We know nothing about things separately from ourselves; and we have no means
of verifying the correctness or incorrectness of our cognition of the
objective world *apart from sensations.*" (page 3).
   Ouspensky next invokes Kant who (according to Ouspensky) "...established
that our sensations must have causes in the external world, but that we
are unable, and shall never be able, to perceive these causes by sensory
means." (page 4). "...everything perceived by the senses is perceived in
time and space....outside of time and space we can perceive nothing through
the senses." (page 4).
   "The very fact of perceiving things ....through the senses *imposes*
on them the conditions of time and space." (page 4).
   Ouspensky thinks that we use space and time as a framework with which
we organize reality into convenient categories and slots. "We have got to
divide things somehow, and we divide them according to categories of space
and time." (page 5). "We do not know whether, for a differently constituted
organism, our world would not present an entirely different picture."
(page 6).
   "When we think in concepts, we already think outside of time and space."
(page 6). For example, if we think not of a particular table, but rather of
the idea of a table, we are thinking outside of time and space.
   Due to our reliance on our senses "....our experimental knowledge is not
a hazy representation of the real world; it is a very vivid representation
of an entirely unreal world." (pages 6-7).

   According to Ouspensky:
       Deep down a physicist may feel the real worthlessness of all
       these new and old scientific theories, but he is afraid to be
       left hanging in mid-air with nothing but a negation. He has no
       system to take the place of the one whose falsity he already
       feels....lacking the courage to admit openly that he no longer
       believes in anything, he continues to wear all these contradictory
       theories, like some official uniform, for the sole reason that
       this uniform is connected with rights and privileges...

   "The systematization of that which we do not know may provide more for
correct knowledge of the world and ourselves than the systematization of
what, in the opinion of 'exact science,' we do know. (page 10).

                   Chapter 2
                   =========
   Ouspensky begins this chapter by recommending two books by the English
writer, C.H. Hinton: A New Era of Thought and The Fourth Dimension. Hinton
declares that Space is an instrument of the mind; it is through Space "that
we apprehend what is." (page 12). Hinton thinks that we should develop our
"space sense." "....if our intuition of space is the means by which we
apprehend, then it follows that there may be different kinds of intuitions
of space....This intuition of space must be coloured....by the conditions
(of the mental activity) of the being which uses it." Geometers such as
Gauss and Lobatchewski have shown us that we are quite capable of conceiving
different kinds of space. (page 12).
   Hinton suggests that "....it might be possible for there to be beings
living in a world such that they would conceive a space of four dimensions."
(page 13).
   Ouspensky then asks, "What is space?"; he then answers that space is "...
...the form of the universe or the form of matter in the universe." page 15).
We say that our space is three dimensional; we say that space can be measured
in three independent directions only -- length, breadth, and height. By in-
dependent direction we mean a line lying at right angles to another line.
"But we say that space is infinite. Therefore....we must assume that space
has an infinite number of dimensions." (page 15)
   "There are different kinds of existence....A house exists, and the idea of
good and evil exists....A house is a physical fact, an idea is a metaphysical
fact." (page 16). Physical facts and metaphysical facts both exist, but they
exist differently. Physical things have an outer aspect and an inner concept.
There is the book and there is the contents of the book; there is the coin and
there is the purchasing power of the coin. We sometimes assume that the
contents of the book, the purchasing power of the coin, etcetera, have no
real existence -- yet perhaps this inner content merely does not exist in
our Space. Perhaps it exists in a higher space.
   Ouspensky next quotes an article by a Mr. E. Douglas Fawcett: "Matter
(like force) does not present any difficulty at all. We know all about it,
for the very good reason that we have invented it....'Matter' is a creation
of our conceiving; a mere way of thinking about sensible objects; a mental
substitute for concrete but unmanageably complex facts...." (page 18).
Matter and Force are only concepts "...just as abstract as....the purchasing
value of a coin, as the contents of a book." (page 19).
   So the question remains: Is Space a property of the world or is Space a
property of our cognition of the world?

                   Chapter 3
                   =========
   By examining the "....difference that exists between a point and a line,
between a line and a surface, between a surface and a solid, i.e. ....the
difference of phenomena which are possible in a point, a line, a surface, we
shall realize how many things, new and incomprehensible for us, lie in the
fourth dimension." (page 21). By studying the mutual relations between objects
of one, two, and three dimensions, we can improve our grasp of four dimension-
al space. "We begin to learn what it can be as compared with our three dimen-
sional space, and what it cannot be." (page 21).
   A line is the trace of the movement of a point. A surface is the trace of
the movement of a line. A solid is the trace of the movement of a surface.
"...is it not possible to regard a 'four dimensional body' as the trace of
the movement of a three-dimensional body?" (page 22).

   According to Ouspensky:
       A point, moving in space and leaving the trace of its motion in
       the form of a line, moves in a direction not contained in itself,
       for in a point there is no direction.

       A line, moving in space and leaving the trace of its motion in
       the form of a surface, moves in a direction not contained in
       itself, because should it move in a direction contained in itself,
       it would always remain a line.

       A surface, moving in space and leaving the trace of its motion
       in the form of a solid, also moves in a direction not contained
       in itself.....In order to leave a trace of its motion in the form
       of a 'solid' or a three-dimensional figure, it must move away
       from itself, move in a direction which does not exist within it.

       By analogy with all this, a solid, in order to leave the trace
       of its motion in the form of a four-dimensional figure, must
       also move in a direction not contained in itself. (page 22).

   "We regard a line as an infinite number of points; a surface as an infinite
number of lines; a solid as an infinite number of surfaces.....it is possible
to assume that a four-dimensional body should be regarded as an infinite number
of three-dimensional bodies." (page 22).
   Because a line is limited by points, a surface is limited by lines, and a
solid is limited by surfaces, it is possible that four-dimensional space is
limited by three-dimensional bodies.
   It is possible that "...four-dimensional space is the distance between a
number of solids, separating yet at the same time binding into some in-
comprehensible whole, those solids which to us appear to be separate from
one another." (page 23).
   Borrowing an idea from the theosophical writer, C. W. Leadbeater:
       If we touch the surface of a table with our five fingertips of
       one hand, there will be then on the surface of the table only
       five circles, and on _this surface_ it is impossible to have any
       idea either of the hand or of the man to whom the hand belongs.
       (page 24).



   Review/Condensation of Tertium Organum by P.D. Ouspensky.
   This review/condensation by Brian Redman. Distribute this if you like.
   Part 2 -- Chapters 4 - 6.


                   Chapter 4
                   =========
   A four-dimensional body may be regarded as the trace of the movement of
a three-dimensional body in a direction not contained in it. Time is the
direction not contained in the three-dimensional body.
   Every movement in space is accompanied by movement in time. In addition,
even without moving in space, everything that exists moves in time. Any
motion or absence of motion takes place in time.
   "Kant regards time in the same way as he regards space, as a purely
subjective form of our perception. He says that, conditioned as we are by
the properties of our perceiving apparatus, we _create time_ as a convenience
for perception of the outside world." (pages 25-26). For us the idea of time
is essentially connected with the idea of cause and effect; without time there
is no cause and effect.
   We consider the past as _no longer_ existing. The future does not exist for
us either; it is _not yet_. By the present we mean the moment of transition
from the future into the past, in other words, the moment of the transition of
a phenomenon from one non-existence into another. But in actual fact this
brief moment is a fiction. It has no dimension. In a sense, we can say that
the present does not exist.
   Our five sense organs are merely _feelers_ by means of which we touch the
world around us. We regard as really existing only the circle which our
feelers can grasp at a given moment. We think that beyond this circle is non-
existence.
   The past and the future cannot be _non-existent_, for, if they do not
exist, the present does not exist either. They must exist together _somewhere_,
only we do not see them. The present, as opposed to the past and the future,
is the most unreal of all realities.
   Our concepts of the past and of the present, though vague, are uniform. But
as regards the future there is a variety of views. The two main theories are
of a predestined future and of a free future. The dispute between the theory
of a predestined future and the theory of a free future is an endless dispute.
Both theories are too literal; each excludes the other. Both theories say:
'Either this or that.'
   At every given moment all the future of the world is predestined and
existing, but it is predestined conditionally. The condition is that no
_new factor_ must appear. This new factor can only come in from the side of
consciousness and the will resulting from it.
   In addition, our poor understanding of the relation between the present
and the past hinders us from having a right understanding of the relation of
the present to the future. Our relation to the past and to the future is more
complex than we realize. The past, like the future, is not fixed. In the past
lies not only what was, but also =what could have been=. In the same way, in
the future lies not only what will be =but also all that may be=.
   =Time= contains two ideas: the idea of a certain space unknown to us (the
fourth dimension), and the idea of movement in this space. Yet motion in this
space would require a =new= time. If we imagine this new extension of space
(i.e. the fourth dimension) and the =possibility of movement along this new
extension=, then immediately time confronts us once more declaring itself just

as unexplained as before. But in actual fact 'movement in this space'
(i.e. the fourth dimension) does not exist. Our ideas of motion are evolved
by us from our sensation of time, or that is to say, our time sense. Our
imperfect time sense gives to us the sensation of motion; it creates an
illusion of motion. There is no motion but only extension in a direction we
are unable to imagine.
   We shall not be able to understand the fourth dimension as long as we do
not understand the fifth dimension. Imagine time as being a line extending from
an infinite future into an infinite past. =Eternity= is not an infinite
extension of time, but a line perpendicular to time. The line of time proceeds
in the order of sequence of events according to their causal interdependence -
first the cause, then the effect: before, now, after. The line of eternity
proceeds in a direction perpendicular to this line.
   Our perception seems to be chained to some kind of plane above which it is
unable to rise. These =conditions= or this =plane= we call matter. Perception
rising above the plane of consciousness on which it usually lives would see
simultaneously phenomena which for ordinary perception are separated by
=periods of time=. These would be phenomena which ordinary consciousness
=never= sees together as cause and effect. This rising perception will be
unable to separate before, now, and after; for it, =now= will expand.
   Our time sense is in reality a nebulous sense of space; with our time sense
we feel dimly those new characteristics of space which transcend the sphere
of three dimensions. And to reiterate, our sense of motion is derived partly
from our sense of time. Moreover, within our inner life there is also constant
movement. This movement in us creates the illusion of movement around us.
   Ouspensky next quotes Hinton on 'the law of surfaces': "This relationship
of a surface to a solid or of a solid....to a higher solid, is one which we
often meet in nature. A surface is nothing more nor less than the relation
between two things. Two bodies touch each other. The surface is the relation-
ship of one to the other." (page 35). Our space may well be really a surface,
or in other words, the place of contact of two spaces of a higher order.
   [Now please hang on to your hats. Ouspensky is about to propose the existence
of =ether= (a.k.a. =aether=).]
   Considering a surface as the medium lying between two bodies, said medium
would transmit vibrations from one body to another. And no matter how much of
a vacuum one might try to create between the one body and the other, this
surface would still remain. Thus, this medium, or surface, would be unlike any
other type of matter, in that it could exist within an apparent vacuum. This
unusual type of matter is ether. The ether is the surface of contact between
two higher dimensional bodies. [Note: I had difficulty here. This paragraph is
my paraphrasing of what Ouspensky says at the end of chapter 4. It is possible
that I may have misunderstood, or not grasped entirely, what Ouspensky was
trying to say. For more explanation, see the last two pages of chapter 4.]
   Ether is not a substance but only a 'surface', the 'boundary' of
=something=.

                   Chapter 5
                   =========
   Four dimensional space is the infinite repetition of three dimensional
space, just as a line is the infinite repetition of a point. Every three
dimensional body moves in time and leaves the trace of its motion in the form
of a time body. Because of the properties of our perceiving apparatus, we
never see or sense this fourth-dimensional time body; we see only its section,
and this we call a three dimensional body.

   To narrow this down a bit, let us consider the physical body of a man. The
physical body is inconstant; particles come and go; it is in a perpetual state
of interchange with its surroundings. After seven years, it is an entirely
different body. Yet =something= always remains from birth to death; its aspect
may change, but it remains the same. This is the LINGA SHARIRA of Eastern
philosophy. If we try to form a mental picture of a man, stretched out in
time from birth to death, with all the features of childhood, maturity, and
old age intertwined -- this will be LINGA SHARIRA.
   In this world of three dimensions, nothing is constant. Everything is
variable because every moment a thing is no longer what it was before. We
never see the body of LINGA SHARIRA, we always see only its parts, and they
appear to us variable. But if we look more closely we shall see that this is
an illusion. It is three-dimensional things which are unreal and variable. And
they cannot be real, because in actual fact they do not exist. Only four
dimensional bodies are real.
   Comparing the third and the fourth dimensions, it is necessary to understand
that here it is not a question of =two= spatially different domains, but of
two modes of perception of the same =one= world of one space. Further, it is
necessary to understand that all the objects known to us exist not only in the
categories in which we perceive them, but in an infinite number of others in
which we do not know how to sense them.
   Another approach to understanding all of this is to seek everything in the
surrounding world that is =not= included in the framework of three dimensions;
everything, therefore, which we are accustomed to regard as non-existent. If
variability is the sign of the three-dimensional world, we must seek for that
which is constant. Moreover, we are accustomed to regard as really existing
only that which can be measured in length, breadth, and height. But
measurability is too crude a criterion of existence, because measurability
itself is too conditioned a concept. It is necessary to widen the boundaries
of the =really existing=, for many things that cannot be measured still have
a real existence -- more real indeed than many things that can be measured.

                   Chapter 6
                   =========
   Imagine a one-dimensional world. It will be a line. For the beings living
in this one dimensional world, only two points will exist -- ahead and behind.
If we suppose that the line on which the one-dimensional being lives passes
through various objects of =our= world, then in all these objects the one-
dimensional being will see only one point. The intersection of these objects
with his one dimensional world will be seen by the one-dimensional being only
as the appearance, the more or less prolonged existence, and the disappearance
of a point. This appearance, existence, and disappearance of a point will be
a =phenomenon=.
   Then, if we suppose that the one-dimensional being possesses memory, he
will call all the points he has seen =phenomena= and he will refer them all to
time. The point which =was= is a phenomena no longer existing, and the point
which may appear tomorrow is a phenomenon =not yet= existing. The whole of
=our= space, with the exception of one line, will be called time. And the
one-dimensional being will say that he got the idea of time from the
observation of motion; i.e. from the appearance and the disappearance of
points. Points will be regarded as a time phenomena, i.e. as coming into
being at that moment when they become visible and ceasing to exist at that
moment when they become invisible.

   Next, let us consider a two-dimensional world and a being living on a
plane. On this plane there will be beings in the shape of points, lines, and
flat geometrical figures. These beings will not sense the plane on which they
live as being a plane. Approaching some figure, a being on this plane will
say that something has appeared. Gradually however, this being will come to
the conclusion that the figures that he encounters exist =on something= or
=in something=. So he may decide to call his two-dimensional plane 'ether.'
He will call the various lines 'matter.'
   Thus, being able to sense only the lines, if something happening outside
his plane reaches his consciousness, he will be apt to deny it.
   When sensing the various lines and flat geometrical figures, the plane
being will not sense any angles. It is easy to verify this in practice. If we
hold on a level with our eyes two matches placed on a horizontal surface at
an angle to one another, we will see one line. To see the angle we must =look
from above=. The two dimensional being will regard the angle as a strange
property of the line which at times appears and at other times does not
appear. In other words he will refer the angle to time; he will regard the
angle as a change in the state of the 'solid' -- or as motion.
   Imagine a plane being faced with one of the angles of a square. From a
distance, approaching the outside of this square, this angle and the two lines
(or rays) proceeding out from it will appear to be a line. As he comes
nearer to this 'line', the angle itself will appear to remain in its place.
But the two lines proceeding out from this angle will =recede backwards=. The
plane being will say that the line moves.
   Three dimensional bodies intersecting with his plane will not exist for
the two dimensional being. He will be able to sense only their surfaces of
contact. But if these surfaces move (because of movement in the three dimen-
sional bodies intersecting with the plane) the two dimensional being will
think that the =cause= of this motion lies only within these surfaces
themselves.
   The center of a circle would be inaccessible to a two-dimensional plane
being. Moreover, the two-dimensional being would be incapable of even
understanding about a center.
   In the rest of this chapter, Ouspensky gives a number of situations
and how he thinks a two-dimensional being would perceive them. Basically
he seeks to show that to a two-dimensional plane being, it would be more
or less impossible to imagine anything like the three-dimensional world.
For example, a tree top intersecting his world would seem to be a lot of
separate branches; the idea that these branches were all part of the same
tree would be incomprehensible to this two-dimensional being.



Review/Condensation of (ch. 7-8) Tertium Organum by P.D. Ouspensky
This review/condensation by Brian Redman
Distribute freely if you like


                   Chapter 7
                   =========

   What really are the dimensions of space and why are there three of them?
   For every mathematical expression there is a corresponding relation of
certain realities. It should always be possible to substitute some reality
for the algebraical 'a,' 'b,' and 'c.'
   Usually, dimensions are designated by powers. For example, if a line is
called 'a,' then a square is called 'a^2' (i.e. 'a' squared) and a cube is
called 'a^3' (i.e. 'a' cubed).
   Yet the designation of dimensions by powers is purely conventional. All
powers of a number may be represented on a line. If 'a' equals 5, then 'a^2'
equals 25, and 'a^3' equals 125; all of which numbers can be represented on
a line.
   Each of the three dimensions may be regarded as the first, the second, the
third, or vice versa.
   If the three dimensions =really= corresponded to the three powers, we
should have the right to say that only three powers refer to geometry, and
that all the other relations between higher powers, beginning from the fourth,
lie beyond geometry.
   However geometry is an artificial construction designed for the purpose of
solving problems based on conditional data. Geometric axioms are the laws of
a given =surface= (i.e. plane, sphere, etc.). But what is a surface?
   Students of non-Euclidean geometry could not bring themselves to relinquish
the surface. They could not bring themselves to abandon the 'surface'
completely and imagine that a line need not necessarily be on a surface.
   The examination of possible properties of lines lying outside our space,
their angles, and the relations of these lines and angles to the lines,
angles, surfaces and solids of our geometry constitutes the subject of
metageometry. Metageometry regards the sphere of three dimensions as a
=section= of higher space.

                   Chapter 8
                   =========

   The basic unit of our perception is a =sensation=. A sensation is an
elementary change in the state of our inner life, produced, =or so it appears
to us=, either by some change in the state of the outer world in relation to
our inner life, or by a change in our inner life in relation to the outer
world. It is sufficient to define sensation as an elementary change in the
state of the inner life.
   The sensations experienced by us leave a certain trace in our memory. And
gradually, out of these memories of sensations there are formed
=representations=. Representations are, so to speak, group memories of
sensations. Representations can be classified according to either (1) the
character of the sensations or (2) the time of receiving the sensations. For
example, sensations of yellow color linked with other sensations of yellow
color would be according to (1) the character of the sensations. An example
of (2) would be a particular tree: i.e. the color of the leaves, their smell,

the sound of the wind in the branches, all combine to form the representation
'this tree.'
   Memories of representations give rise to concepts. Out of the various
representations of particular trees would emerge the concept of a tree in
general.
   The formation of concepts leads to the formation of words and the appearance
of speech.
   On the lower levels of intelligence certain sensations may be expressed
by certain sounds. In the area of representations, the 'words' that correspond
to each particular representation consist, as it were, of proper names. There
still are no generic nouns to match the representations. The appearance of
words of =general meaning= indicates the appearance of concepts in the mind.
   The =word= (i.e. the concept) is the =algebraic sign= of a thing.
   Ideas are broader concepts. Ideas embrace groups of dissimilar
representations, or even groups of concepts. An idea is a complex or an
abstract concept.
   The content of emotional experiences can never be wholly fitted into
concepts or ideas and, therefore, can never be correctly and exactly ex-
pressed in words. The interpretation of emotional experiences and emotional
understanding is the aim of art. Thus, in art we find the first experiments
in a language of the future.
   As stated, our current mental apparatus contains sensations, representa-
tions, and concepts. If we were able to alter our mental apparatus and
observe that the world around us changed with these alterations, this would
prove to us the dependence of the properties of space on the properties of
our mind.
   Kant's idea that space with its properties is the form of our sense-
perception could be proved experimentally if we were able to ascertain that
for a being possessing nothing but sensations the world is one dimensional;
for a being possessing sensations and representations it is two-dimensional;
and for a being possessing, in addition to concepts and ideas, also higher
forms of perception, the world is four-dimensional.
   Beings whose mental life is below our own in this required sense (i.e.
not capable of concepts and ideas) exist. They are animals.
   We distinguish in living beings 1) reflex actions, 2) instinctive actions,
3) rational actions, and 4) automatic actions. Reflex actions are simply
responses by motion, reactions to external irritations, always occuring in
the same manner (e.g. the eye blinks if some object quickly approaches it).
Instinctive actions are expedient, yet are performed without any conscious-
ness of choice; they are connected with the pleasure/pain principle. By
rational action is meant an action known to the acting subject =before it
is performed=; whose cause and purpose the acter can point out =before it
has taken place=. By automatic actions are meant actions which have been
rational for a given subject but have since become customary and unconscious
through frequent repetition.
   Reflexes, instinctive actions, and 'rational' actions may be regarded as
reflected, i.e. as not independent. They come not from man himself but from the
external world. A man is merely a transmitting or transforming station of
forces; all his actions =belonging to these three categories= are produced
by impressions coming from the external world. In these three kinds of actions
man is actually an automaton.
   Only the highest category of actions, conscious actions (which we confuse
with rational actions) depend not only on the impressions coming from the
external world, but on something else besides. The capacity for conscious
actions is very rarely met with and only very few people have it. These

people may be defined as the =higher type of man=.
   All the actions of animals can be explained without assuming the existence
in them of concepts, reasoning, and mental conclusions. If we could represent
to ourselves the =logic= of the animal, we might understand the conditional
and relative character of our whole idea of the world.
   Our own usual logic can be brought down to the simple scheme formulated
by Aristotle published by his students under the general title of ORGANON
('Instrument' [of thought]):
       'A' is 'A'
       'A' is not 'not-A'
       Everything is either 'A' or 'not-A'
This logic is sufficient for observation, but not for experiment. Experiment
takes place in time, whereas Aristotle's formulae do not take time into
account.
   Francis Bacon remedied the aforementioned shortcoming in his treatise
NOVUM ORGANUM ('New Instrument' [of thought]). Bacon's formulation may be
reduced to the following:
       That which was 'A', will be 'A'
       That which was 'not-A', will be 'not-A'
       Everything was and will be either 'A' or 'not-A'

   If we were able to represent to ourselves the 'logic' of an animal, we
would understand its relationship to the external world. Our chief mistake
as regards the inner world of an animal lies in our ascribing to it our own
logic. We think that =there is only one logic=, that our logic is something
absolute, something existing outside us and apart from us.
   The first difference between our logic and that of an animal is that the
latter is not =general=. It is a particular logic in every case, for every
separate representation. For animals there exists no classification according
to common properties. Generally speaking, we recognize objects by their
similarity; an animal must recognize them by their differences.
   Having once seen an object, we refer it to a certain class, variety, and
species, attach it to one or another concept and connect it in our mind with
one or another 'word', i.e. with an algebraic sign. An animal has no concepts,
it has no mental algebra with the help of which we think. It must know
=a given object= and remember it with all its characteristics and peculiar-
ities. It is clear from this that an animal's memory is more burdened than
ours; its mind is much more occupied.
   The logic of an animal, if we attempt to express it in formulae similar
to those of Aristotle and Bacon, would be as follows:
       The animal will understand the formula 'A' is 'A'. But it will not
understand the formula 'A' is not 'not-A', for 'not-A' is a =concept=. The
animal will say:
           This is this.
           That is that.
           This is not that.
       or
           This man is this man.
           That man is that man.
           This man is not that man.

   Even among the animals themselves, psychological differences are great.
A goose will put its foot on a piece of food, pull at the piece of food with
its beak, and it will never occur to the goose to lift its foot off the piece
of food so as to be able to get at it. Thus, its mental processes are vague;

it has a very imperfect knowledge of its own body and does not properly
distinguish it from other objects.
   A dog lying on a rug that has become rucked up and uncomfortable to lie
on will understand that the discomfort is =outside him=. And the dog will
worry the rug with its teeth, twisting it and dragging it here and there.
But he will not be able to straighten the rug by himself.
   With a cat such a question could never even arise. A cat knows its body
perfectly well, but everything =outside itself= it takes as something given.
To =correct= the outside world, to accomodate it to its own comfort, would
never occur to a cat. Therefore, if there were something uncomfortable about
the rug, a cat would turn and twist =itself= many times until it became
comfortable; or it would go and settle down in another place.
   A monkey would spread out the rug quite easily.
   Thus we have four beings all quite different. Yet for us all this is
=an animal=. We mix together things that are quite different.
   Moreover it would be incorrect to assert that the differences mentioned
are 'evolutionary stages.' If one is to speak in terms of evolution it would
be more correct to say that these are animals of different evolutions, just
as, in all probability, not one but several evolutions go on in mankind.



Review/Condensation of ch. 9 - 10 of P.D. Ouspensky's Tertium Organum
This review/condensation by Brian Redman
Distribute freely if you like

                   Chapter 9
                   =========

   In previous chapters we have shown the difference that exists between
the mentality of man and that of animals.
   For us, our perception as regards the external aspect and form of the
world is extremely incorrect. We know that the world consists of solids, but
we always see and touch =only surfaces=. We never see or touch a solid. A
solid is a concept. Behind the surfaces we =think= the solid. But we can
never =represent= a solid to ourselves; we cannot represent a cube or a
sphere from all sides at once. We represent solids =in perspective=.
   Yet the world does not exist =in perspective=. Still, we are unable to
see the world in any other way; in perceiving the world, we distort it with
our eye.
   A child tries to touch everything he sees -- the nose of his mother, the
moon, reflected light on the wall. He learns only gradually to distinguish
between the near and the far =by sight alone=. Our eye distorts the external
world in a certain way to enable us to determine the position of objects
relatively to ourselves.
   In practice, we are constantly introducing corrections into what we see.
These corrections are made by reasoning, which is impossible without concepts.
For example, consider the strange behavior of a cornfield as seen through the
window of a railroad car. As the train moves, you 'see' the cornfield run
up to your window, stop, turn about slowly, and run to one side. Or consider
the sun which still continues, in all languages, to rise and set. This is
how it all appears to us.
   How many more illusions would we see if we were unable to mentally un-
ravel the causes which produce them, and were to regard everything as
existing exactly as we see it.
   =I see it, therefore it is.=
   This assertion is the main source of all illusions. The right way to
put it would be: =I see it, therefore it is not so.= We can say this, but
animals cannot. For them whatever they see -- is.
   Animals live in a two-dimensional world; their universe has the appearance
and properties of a surface. But =we= know that the world is not a surface,
whereas animals cannot know this. Seeing only surfaces, animals can represent
to themselves only two dimensions. The third dimension can only be =thought=,
i.e. this dimension must be a concept. But animals have no concepts.
   How do animals orientate themselves in our three-dimensional world?
Many properties of objects which we remember as the =general= properties
of species and varieties have to be remembered by animals as the =individual=
properties of objects. An animal knows, say, two roads as two entirely
separate phenomena having nothing in common. =We= say that both the one and
the other are roads, one leading to one place, the other to another. For
the animal the two roads have =nothing in common=. It remembers all the
sequence of emotional qualities connected with the first road and the second
road and so remembers both roads with their turnings, ditches, fences, and
so on.
   Thus the memory of the definite properties of objects which they have seen
helps animals to orientate in the world of phenomena. Animals see two
dimensions. They constantly sense the third dimension but do not see it.
They sense it as something =transient=, as we sense =time=. Consider the
following example:
       Suppose that a large disc is placed before an animal and, beside it,
       a large sphere of the same diameter. Facing them at a certain dis-
       tance, the animal will see two circles. If it starts walking round
       them, the animal will notice that the sphere remains a circle but
       the disc gradually narrows and becomes a narrow strip. As the
       animal continues to move round it, the strip begins to widen and
       gradually becomes again a circle.
   Because of the way in which an animal must remember the =individual=
properties of objects, the following may be said:
       For an animal a =new sun= rises every morning, just as for us a
       =new morning= comes every day, a =new spring= every year.
   The motion of objects which, for us, is not illusory but real, such as
the motion of a rotating wheel or a moving car and so on, must, for an
animal, differ greatly from the motion it sees in the objects which are
motionless for us. Such motion (i.e. a rotating wheel, a moving car, etc.)
must appear to the animal to be spontaneous, =alive=. If an animal senses
and measures =as motion= that which is not motion, it is clear that it
cannot apply the same measure to that which is and that which is not motion.
A kitten plays with a ball or with its own tail because the ball or the
tail =runs away from it=.

   Now let us summarize our deductions.
   Man possesses sensations, representations, and concepts; higher animals
possess sensations and representations; lower animals possess only sensations.
Because they have no concepts, animals cannot comprehend the third dimension
and see the world only as a surface. Seeing the world as a surface, animals
see on this surface a great many 'movements' that do not exist for us. For
example, an angle must appear to them as motion. Thus, in all its relations
to the world an animal is analogous to the unreal two-dimensional plane being
which we have supposed lived on a plane.
   So we can say that we have established the following: that with a certain
limitation of the mental apparatus which perceives the external world, for a
subject possessing such an apparatus (e.g. a dog, a cat, etcetera) the whole
aspect and all the properties of the world must change. In other words we
have established that the three-dimensional extension of the world depends
for us on the properties of our mental apparatus; or, that the world's
three-dimensionality is not its own property, but merely the property of
=our= perception of the world.
   If all this is so, it is clear that we have really proved the dependence
of space on =space-sense=. And, since we have proved the existence of a
space-sense =lower= than ours, we have also proved the =possibility= of a
space-sense =higher= than ours.
   If we were to acquire a =fourth unit= of thinking, simultaneously with
this there would appear for us in the surrounding world a =fourth character-
istic=. The multi-dimensionality of space is far from being an hypothesis;
it is a =fact= and implies the unreality of everything three-dimensional.

                   Chapter 10
                   ==========
   That which is =time= for a one-dimensional being, becomes =space= for
a two-dimensional being. The =time= of the two-dimensional being becomes
=space= for a three-dimensional being. Recall how for the being moving forward
on a line, the space in front of it is regarded by that being as =the future=.
Likewise, the movement of an angle as perceived by the two-dimensional
being would be seen as a characteristic property of the angle by the three-
dimensional being.
   Our idea of time actually contains =two ideas= -- the idea of a certain
space and the idea of movement in that space. Instead of the idea of time
having arisen from the observation of motion existing in nature, the actual
sensation of motion and the idea of motion have arisen from the 'time-sense'
we possess, which is nothing but an imperfect =space-sense=.
   Every being feels as space all that is embraced by his space-sense;
everything else is referred to time. In other words, everything =imperfectly
felt= is referred to time. Every being feels as space that which, by means
of his space-sense, he can =represent to himself= as being outside himself
in forms. SPACE-SENSE IS THE FACULTY OF REPRESENTATION IN FORMS.
   Previously, we have established that a higher animal (a horse, a cat, a
dog) must perceive three-dimensional motionless angles as moving, i.e. as
time-phenomena. The question arises: May not =we= also perceive as movements,
i.e. as time-phenomena, the four-dimensional angles? Maybe our consciousness,
incapable of grasping these 'things' by means of sense organs and of re-
presenting them as they are, builds up the illusion of motion. Maybe our
consciousness =imagines= that something moves outside it, i.e. that it is
the 'things' that move.
   Our relationship to time is that time gradually comes as though arising
=out of nothing=, and then disappears again =into nothing=.
   We perceive as sensations and project into the external world as phenomena
the motionless angles of the fourth dimension.
   The life of a man is like a complex circle. It always begins at one point
(birth) and always ends at one point (death). We have every right to suppose
that it is =one and the same point=.
   What is a biological phenomenon, the phenomenon of life? A living organism
contains =something= undefinable, which distinguishes 'living matter' from
dead matter. We know of this =something= only through its functions. Of these
functions, the chief one lacking in a dead organism is =capacity of re-
production=. A living organism multiplies endlessly, absorbing and subjugating
dead matter.
   If we take each individual life as a four-dimensional circle, this will
explain to us why each circle inevitably disappears from our space. This
happens because a =circle= inevitably ends at the point where it had begun.
And so the 'life' of an individual being, having begun at birth, must end
at death, which is the return to the starting point. But during its passage
through our space, the circle emits certain lines which, by connecting with
others, produce new circles.
   In reality all this happens quite differently; nothing is born and nothing
dies; but this is how it appears to us, because we only see the sections of
things. Actually, =the circle of life= is only a section of =something=, and
this =something= undoubtedly exists before birth and continues to exist after
death.
   Life phenomena are very similar to phenomena of motion, as they appear to
a two-dimensional being; therefore they may be 'motion' in the fourth
dimension. Recall that we have seen that the two-dimensional being will
regard as movements of bodies the three-dimensional properties of motionless
solids; and as phenomena of life the actual movements of bodies.
   Thus, it is possible to presume that those phenomena which we call
=phenomena of life= are motion in higher space. Phenomena which we call
mechanical motion are =phenomena of life= in a space lower than ours, whereas
in a higher space they are simply properties of motionless bodies.
   The two-dimensional being needs =time= for the explanation of the simplest
phenomena such as an angle. We do not need time to explain such phenomena, but
we need it to explain phenomena of motion. In a still higher space our
phenomena of motion will probably be seen as properties of motionless bodies.
In this higher space, birth, growth, reproduction, and death will be regarded
as phenomena of motion. Thus we see how expansion of consciousness makes the
idea of time recede.
   For a one-dimensional being all the characteristics of the 2-D, 3-D, 4-D,
and still higher space lie in time -- all this is =time=. For a two-dimensional
being time includes characteristics of 3-D, 4-D, and still higher space. For
a three-dimensional being such as man, time includes characteristics of 4-D
and higher space. Thus, as consciousness and forms of perception rise and
expand, the characteristics of space increase and those of time decrease.
In other words, the growth of space-sense proceeds at the expense of time-
sense. Or it can be said that time-sense is an imperfect space-sense.
   A very great power of imagination is needed to escape, even for a brief
moment, from the limits of =our= representations and to see the world mentally
in other categories.
   What is 'man' outside time and space? It would be the whole of mankind,
man as a 'species,' but at the same time possessing the characteristics,
attributes and peculiarities of =all= individual men; all fused into one
indivisible being of man. The idea of such a 'great being' inspired the
artist or artists who created the =Sphinx=.
   When we travel in a train and trees rush past our window, we know that
this motion is only =apparent=, that the trees are motionless and the
illusion of their motion is created by =our own motion=. As in this case,
so also in general in relation to all =motion= in the material world --
while recognizing this motion as illusory, we must ask whether the illusion
of this motion is not created by some motion inside our consciousness.
   Everything said about a new understanding of time relations is bound to
be very obscure. This is so because our language is entirely unadapted to
a =spatial expression of time concepts=. The expression of these relations,
new for us, requires some quite new, different forms -- a language without
verbs. We can speak of 'time' only by hints. The true essence of it is
=inexpressible= for us.
   We must never forget this inexpressibility. =This is the sign of truth=,
the sign of reality. That which can be expressed cannot be real.
   All systems speaking about the relation of the human soul to time -- all
the ideas of LIFE AFTER DEATH, THEORIES OF REINCARNATION, OF THE TRANS-
MIGRATION OF SOULS, all these are symbols, striving to transmit relations
which cannot be expressed =directly= owing to the poverty and the weakness
of our language.



Review/Condensation of ch. 11 - 13  of P.D. Ouspensky's Tertium Organum
This review/condensation by Brian Redman
Distribute freely if you like.

                   Chapter 11
                   ==========

   In December 1911 the Second Mendeleev Convention was opened by a paper
read by Professor N. A. Oumoff under the title: "The Characteristic Features
and Problems of Contemporary Natural-scientific Thought." Ouspensky had a
talk with this same Professor Oumoff in January of 1912. In this chapter,
Ouspensky quotes extensively from Oumoff's paper and offers us his analysis
of this same paper.
   [All of the material which follows, *when contained within double quotes*,
is directly quoted from Oumoff's paper of December 1911.]
   "Let us remember the profession of faith of the natural scientist: ....To
know the architecture of the world and, in this knowledge, to find a basis for
creative foresight....This foresight inspires confidence that natural science
will not fail to continue the great and responsible work of creating, in the
midst of old nature, a new nature."
   "The need for stability in daily life and the brevity of personal experience
as compared with the evolution of the earth, lead men to faith, and create the
mirage of the stability of the surrounding order of things....The creators of
natural science do not share this tranquil point of view."
   "At the present time, the constellations in the sky of our science have
changed, and a new star has shone forth, having no equal in brilliance."
   "Persistent scientific investigation has expanded the volume of the
knowable to dimensions which were inconceivable even a short while ago."
   "The new that has been discovered provides a sufficient number of images
for the construction of the world, but they destroy its old architecture....
and can only be incorporated in a new order, the free lines of which extend
far beyond the limits not only of the old external world, but also beyond
the fundamental forms of our thinking."
   "I have to lead you to the summits from which open up perspectives which
fundamentally re-form our idea of the world."
   "The ascent toward [these summits], amid the ruins of classical physics,
presents considerable difficulties."
   "The axioms of mechanics [classical Newtonian mechanics] are but fragments,
and making use of them is equivalent to judging about the content of a whole
chapter by means of a single sentence."
   In this new, post Newton world, "....Matter has disappeared....In the place
of the customary, material world, there takes shape before us the vastly
different electro-magnetic world."
   "But even the recognition of the electro-magnetic world has not disposed
of many insoluble problems and difficulties; the necessity of a unifying
system was felt."
   The deductions of Lorentz, made in 1909 and referring mainly to electro-
optical phenomena, gave impetus to the publication by Albert Einstein of
this new unifying principle, the *principle of relativity*.
   "We are approaching the summit of modern physics: it is occupied by the
principle of relativity, the expression of which is so simple that its all-
important significance is not immediately evident. It says: the laws of
phenomena in a system of bodies, for an observer connected with it, appear
to be the same whether the system is at rest or is moving uniformly and

rectilinearly."
   "It follows hence that, by the aid of phenomena taking place in a system
of bodies with which he is connected, an observer is unable to discover
whether this system possesses a uniform progressive motion or not."
   "Thus, no phenomenon taking place on earth enables us to discern its
progressive motion in space."
   "The principle of relativity includes in itself the observing intellect,
which is a circumstance of the greatest importance. The intellect is connected
with a complex physical instrument -- the nervous system. Consequently, this
principle gives indications concerning things which take place in moving
bodies, not only in relation to chemical and physical phenomena, but also in
relation to phenomena of life, and therefore also to the quest of man."
   "All spatial measurements involve time. We cannot define the geometrical
form of a solid moving in relation to us; we always define its kinematic
form. Therefore our spatial measurements actually take place....in a four-
dimensional manifold."
   "When the cult of a new god is born, his word is not always clearly
understood; the true meaning becomes revealed in time. I think that the same
is true also as regards the principle of relativity."
   "Matter represents a highly improbable event in the universe. This event
[matter] came into being because improbability does not mean impossibility."
   "We are present at the funeral of old physics," says Professor Oumoff. The
new physics will be the physics which does not contain *motion*, i.e. in
which there is no dualism of matter and vacuum. By taking the universe as
*thought* and *consciousness*, we become free of the idea of vacuum.

   [Thus ends Ouspensky's references to Professor Oumoff and his ideas. I
wish to point out that the preceding synopsis has been filtered through my
own imperfect understanding of higher physics. In other words, I have tried
to select those items which seemed to *me* to be the special highlights of
what Ouspensky had extracted from Professor Oumoff's original paper. Anyone
seeking amplification of the ideas expressed by either author is referred to
their original works.]

                   Chapter 12
                   ==========

   We distinguish three kinds of phenomena according to our method of
perception and the form of their transition into other phenomena: *physical
phenomena* (i.e. physics and chemistry), *phenomena of life* (i.e. biology),
and *psychological phenomena* (e.g. thoughts, feelings).
   We perceive physical phenomena by means of our sense organs or by means
of instruments. Physics also recognizes the existence of phenomena which have
never been observed either by sense organs or by instruments.
   Phenomena of life are not observed as such. Certain *groups of sensations*
make us presume the presence of phenomena of life behind the groups of physical
phenomena. A sign of the presence of phenomena of life is the capacity of
organs to reproduce themselves.
   Psychological phenomena -- feelings and thoughts -- we know in ourselves
by direct sensation, *subjectively*. We deduce their existence in others by
analogy with ourselves; on the grounds of their manifestation in actions, and
on the grounds of what we learn through communication by means of speech.
   Physical phenomena pass one into another completely. Heat may be transformed
into light; pressure, into motion, and so on. *But physical phenomena do not
pass into phenomena of life*. By no combination of physical conditions can

science create life. In the same way, physical, chemical, and mechanical
phenomena cannot, by themselves, produce psychological phenomena. Were it
otherwise, a rotating wheel, in the course of a certain period of time,
would *generate an idea*. We see therefore that phenomena of motion are
fundamentally different from the phenomena of life and consciousness.
   Phenomena of life pass into other phenomena of life, multiply in them
infinitely and *transform themselves into physical phenomena*. Psychological
phenomena are experienced directly and, having enormous potential force,
pass into physical phenomena and into manifestations of life.
   Positivist philosophy asserts that phenomena of life and psychological
phenomena arise from one cause *which lies within the sphere of physical
studies*. Seriously analysing this assertion, it is impossible to avoid
seeing that it is completely arbitrary and unfounded. Within the scope of
our being and observation, physical phenomena never produce phenomena of
life and consciousness. Therefore we are *more* justified in assuming that
phenomena of life and phenomena of consciousness contain something which is
absent in physical phenomena.
   Phenomena of life and phenomena of consciousness cannot be measured by us at
all. It is only the physical phenomena that we can assume to be measurable,
though even that is very problematic.
   At times, an insignificant amount of physical force can set free an enormous
amount of physical energy. But all the amount of physical force we can gather
together will not set free a single drop of life energy necessary for the
independent existence of a microscopic living organism.
   The force contained in *living organisms* is capable of liberating infinitely
great quantities of energy.
   Concerning the amount of latent energy contained in the *phenomena of
consciousness* (i.e. thoughts, feelings, desires) we see that the potentiality
is still more immeasurable, still more limitless. An idea, a feeling or a desire
can release boundless quantities of energy, create infinite series of phenomena.
Each thought of a poet contains enormous potential force -- infinitely subtle,
imponderable, and potent.
   The further a given phenomena is removed from the visible and the tangible --
from the physical -- the further it is from matter, the more it contains of
hidden force, the greater the number of phenomena it can produce and involve,
the greater the amount of energy it can liberate, and the less it is dependent
on time.
   What do phenomena represent, taken by themselves, independently of our
perception and feeling of them? A phenomena is known to the extent that it is an
*irritation*, i.e. to the extent that it causes a sensation.
   The positivist philosophy, that mechanical motion or electro-magnetic energy
lies at the root of all phenomena, is only an hypothesis based on a totally
artificial and arbitrary assumption that the world exists in time and space. If
we find that the conditions of time and space are only properties of our sense
perception, we absolutely abolish any possibility of the hypothesis of 'energy'
as the foundation of everything; because energy requires time and space.
   In reality, we know nothing about the *causes of phenomena*.
   Can we, by studying the *phenomena*, arrive at an understanding of the thing
in itself? Kant said definitely: *No*, in studying the phenomena we do not even
come *nearer* to the understanding of a thing in itself.
   If we wish to come nearer to understanding things in themselves, we should
seek an entirely new method, a way completely different from the one followed by
positivist science which studies events or phenomena.


                   Chapter 13
                   ==========

   There are visible and hidden causes of phenomena, there are visible and
hidden effects.
   In the matter of studying the *action* of nature positivist methods go very
far, as is proven by all the innumerable achievements of modern technical
sciences. Positivism is very good when it seeks an answer to the question *how*
something operates in given conditions. But when it attempts to go beyond its
definite conditions (time, space and causation), or begins to assert that
outside the given conditions nothing exists, it trespasses on alien territory.
   In relation to nature a positivist scientist is in the same position as a
savage in a library. For the savage a book is a *thing* of a certain size and
weight; he will never understand a book by its appearance, and *the content of
the book* will remain for him the *unfathomable noumenon*.
   But if a man *knows* of the existence of the *noumenon* of life -- if he
knows that a mysterious meaning is hidden under visible phenomena, it is
possible that he will get to the essence of the thing. Thus it is necessary to
understand the *idea* of the inner content.
   The scientist who finds tablets with hieroglyphs in an unknown language,
deciphers and reads them after a great deal of work. And in order to read them
he needs one thing: he must know that these signs *represent writing*. Every
cipher can be read -- *but one must know that it is a cipher*.
   There can be no greater mistake than to regard the world as *divided* into
phenomena and noumena -- to take phenomena and noumena as separate from one
another, existing independently one from another and as capable of being
perceived apart from one another. The division of phenomena and noumena exists
only in our perception. The 'phenomenal world' is merely our incorrect
representation of the world.
   As Karl du Prel has said, *the world beyond is only this world strangely
perceived*. It would be more correct to say that *this world is only the world
beyond strangely perceived*.
   Just as it is impossible for a savage to come nearer to understanding the
nature of a watch by studying the phenomenal aspect of it, i.e. number of
wheels, number of teeth in each wheel, so in the case of a positivist scientist
studying the external, *manifesting* side of life, its secret RAISON d'ETRE and
the purpose of separate manifestations will remain forever hidden.
   Two-dimensional perception exists not only on a plane. Materialistic thought
tries to apply it to real life. As a result, curious absurdities arise. One of
such results is 'economic man' -- quite clearly a two-dimensional plane being
which moves in two directions -- those of production and of consumption.
   Positivist science affirms that by studying phenomena we gradually approach
noumena. This science regards the universe as a whirl of mechanical motion or as
a field of manifestation of electro-magnetic energy.
   Positivism asserts that the phenomena of life and consciousness are merely
the functions of physical phenomena and are no more than a certain complex
combination of the latter. If this were indeed true it would have been proven
long ago. All that is needed is to obtain *life* or *consciousness* by
mechanical means. The truth is that the infinitely greater potentiality of
phenomena of life and mental processes as compared with physical phenomena
points to exactly the opposite.
   Positivist theories admit the possibility of explaining the *higher* by means
of the *lower*, they admit the possibility of explaining the invisible by means
of the visible. But as was pointed out in the beginning, this is an attempt to
explain one unknown by means of another unknown. The 'lower' (matter and motion)
by means of which the positivist theory attempts to explain the 'higher' (life

and thought) *is itself unknown*.
   Since thought can evoke and release physical energy, whereas motion can never
evoke or release thought (a rotating wheel can never evoke thought), it follows
that we must strive to define the lower by means of the higher. Since the
invisible, such as the contents of a book or the purpose of a watch, defines the
visible, we must also strive to understand not the visible, but the invisible.
   Starting from the false assumption of the *mechanical* character of the
noumenal aspect of nature, positivist science makes yet another mistake in
examining the law of cause and effect or the law of function -- namely it
mistakes what is cause for what is effect.
   The positivist view studies the visible world or the phenomena of the visible
world, refusing to admit that causes not contained in this world could have
penetrated into it or that phenomena of this world could have functions outside
it.
   If we take into consideration the phenomena of life and thought, we are
forced to admit that the chain of phenomena very quickly passes from a purely
physical sequence into a biological sequence. We must admit too that in the
reverse transition into the physical sequence from the biological and the
psychological spheres, actions proceed precisely from those sides which are
hidden from us, i.e. that the cause of the visible is the invisible. We are
bound to admit that it is impossible to consider chains or sequences solely in
the world of physical phenomena. To be more concrete, physical phenomena, in
becoming the object of sensations of sight, hearing, touch, smell, provoke
physiological phenomena and then psychological phenomena. And phenomena of
consciousness are accompanied by physiological phenomena which in turn gives
rise to a series of physical phenomena. Again, we cannot consider chains or
sequences solely in the world of physical phenomena.
   Since events, even the most distant from one another in time, *are in contact
with the fourth dimension*, this means that in reality they take place
simultaneously, as cause and effect.
   Today's events were yesterday's ideas and feelings, and tomorrow's events lie
today in some person's suffering or dreams.
   The world of physical phenomena represents a section of another world, which
also exists *here* and the events of which take place *here*, but invisibly to
us.
   Each thing has an infinite variety of meanings, and to know all these
meanings is impossible. In other words, 'truth' as we understand it, i.e. *the
finite definition*, is possible only in a finite series of phenomena. In an
*infinite* series it is bound, somewhere, to become its own opposite. This means
that *every knowledge* is conditional. We can never embrace *all the meanings*
of any one thing. *All that is highest* in the understanding, to which we may
come, of the essence of a given phenomena, from another still higher point of
view will *again* have a different meaning. **And there is no end to it!**
   Side by side with our view of things, another view is possible -- a view as
it were from another world, from *'over there'* -- but 'over there' signifies
not another place, but another method of perception.



Review/Condensation of Tertium Organum by P.D. Ouspensky (ch. 14 - 16)
This review/condensation by Brian Redman
Distribute freely if you like

                   Chapter 14
                   ==========

   At times we dimly feel in things the difference resulting from their
functions; in other words, their *real* difference.
   Only positivism is convinced that a stone is a stone and nothing more. But
any uneducated person can tell you that a stone from the wall of a church and a
stone from the wall of a prison are different things. Objects identical as
regards the material of which they consist, but different as regards their
functions, are *really different*. We regard the chemical composition of a thing
as its *most real* attribute, whereas real attributes should be sought in the
functions of a thing.
   Wishing to understand the *noumenal world*, we must seek a *hidden meaning*
in everything. At present we are too deeply rooted in the positivist method with
its tendency to seek in everything a *visible* cause and a *visible* effect.
   A poet understands that the mast of a ship, a gallows and a cross *are made
of different wood*. He understands the difference between a stone from the wall
of a church and a stone from the wall of a prison. He hears *the voice of the
silence*, understands the psychological difference of silences, realizes that
*silence may be different*.
   The difference between the 'hangman', the 'sailor' and the 'saint' is not an
accidental difference of position, status and heredity, as materialism
endeavours to persuade us, but a deep and unbridgeable difference, such as
exists between murder, labor and prayer, belonging to entirely different worlds.
The representatives of these worlds can appear to us similar men only because we
actually see not them but merely their shadows.
   All art consists in understanding and representing these elusive differences.
Art sees more and further than we do. Art is already a *beginning of vision*. It
sees much more than the most perfect apparatus.

                   Chapter 15
                   ==========

   There is no side of life which does not reveal to us an infinity of the new
and the unexpected if we approach it with the *knowledge* that it is not
exhausted by its visible side.
   In Hindu mythology Love and Death are the two faces of *one deity*. Strange
as it may seem, *the face of death* has had a greater attraction for the
mystical imagination of men, than *the face of love*. The problem of love is
usually accepted in modern philosophies of life as something given, something
already understood and known. In reality, love is for us as great a mystery as
death -- yet for some reason we notice it less forcibly. We have evolved a
series of stereotyped views on love, and we meekly accept one or another of
these stereotyped views.
   Love is a *cosmic phenomenon*, in which people, mankind, are merely
accidental; a cosmic phenomenon as little concerned with either the lives or the
souls of men as the sun is concerned in shining so that, by its light, men may
go about their trivial affairs and use it for their own ends. Love, in relation
to our life, is a Deity.
   Both positivist and spiritual morality equally admit only one possible result
of love -- children, the propagation of species. But this objective result,
which may or may not happen, is in any case only the result of the external,
objective side of love. For science, which studies life as if it were apart from
life, the purpose of love consists in the continuation of life. But if we regard
love from this standpoint, we shall have to admit that there is *more of this
force than is necessary*.
   Where, then, does the main part of the force go? If only a negligible
fraction of energy goes towards the creation of the future *by means of birth*,
the remaining part must also go towards the creation of the future, but by other
means. The superfluous energy is passed into other forms of energy; is passed
into instincts, into the power of ideas, into creative force on different planes
of life. Thus, what appears as a collateral function of love, from the point of
view of an individual, may serve as a principal function of the species.
   The most important thing in love is *that which is not*, which is completely
non-existent from an ordinary everyday materialistic point of view. In this
sensing of that which is not, and in the contact thus reached with the world of
the *truly real*, lies the principal meaning of love in human life.

                   Chapter 16
                   ==========

   Analogy with ourselves is our only criterion and method of judging and
drawing conclusions about the psychological phenomena of other people, if we
cannot communicate with them or refuse to believe what they tell us about
themselves. Supposing I were to live in the midst of people, without any means
of communicating with them or drawing conclusions by analogy; I should then be
surrounded by moving and acting automatons, the meaning, significance and causes
of whose actions would be totally obscure for me.
   I have two means of knowing a man in himself -- analogy with myself and
communication with him, *exchange of thoughts*. Without this a man for me is
nothing but a *phenomenon*. The *noumenon* of man is his psychological life.
   *Noumenal* means *perceived by the mind* and the characteristic feature of
the things belonging to the *noumenal world* is the fact that *they cannot be
perceived by the same method as things of the phenomenal world*. We cannot see,
hear, touch, weigh or measure the things belonging to the noumenal world.
   We also must remember that the noumenon and the phenomenon are not different
things, but merely different aspects of *one and the same thing*. Every
phenomena is the finite expression of something infinite. For us, a phenomena is
a three-dimensional expression of the infinite.
   We can regard man's 'mind' as his function in a section of the world
different from the three-dimensional section in which man's body functions. We
can also regard as true that the unknown function of the 'world' outside of this
three-dimensional section is as its own kind of 'mind'.
   Our ordinary positivist view regards *mind as the function of the brain*.
Positivism, always and everywhere trying to apply the rule of three dimensions,
is a blind alley in itself.
   In what relation does the psychological life of man stand to his brain? This
question has been answered differently at different times. Psychological life
was regarded as a direct function of the brain ("Thought is a motion of
matter"), thus denying any possibility of thought or feeling without a brain.
Then there were attempts at establishing the *parallelism* of mental activity
and the activity of the brain. But the character of this parallelism has always
remained obscure. Yes, a break-down or a disorder in the activity of the brain
brings about an apparent break-down or disorder in mental functions. Still, the
activity of the brain is *nothing but motion*, i.e. an objective phenomena,
whereas mental activity is *objectively* undefinable -- hence, a subjective
phenomena.
   The brain is that necessary prism passing through which a part of the mind
manifests itself to us as *intellect*. Or putting it in a slightly different
way, the brain is a mirror, reflecting the mind in our three-dimensional section
of the world. It is clear that if the *mirror* is shattered, the *reflection*
must also be shattered. *But there are no grounds for supposing that when the
mirror breaks the OBJECT it reflects also becomes broken*.
   In our three-dimensional world, because our brain acts as a prism through
which passes the mind, it follows that on this plane *not the whole of mind is
seen*.
   The mind cannot suffer from disorders of the brain, but its *manifestations*
can suffer greatly.
   The positivist remains unsatisfied. He will say: Prove to me that thought can
take place without the brain, then I will believe.
   There are no proofs and there cannot be any. The existence of mind *without
the brain* cannot be proved like a physical fact.
   We have established earlier that we can make conclusions about the mind of
other beings by means of exchanging thoughts with them and by analogy with
ourselves. Now we can add that because of this we can only know about the
existence of minds similar to ours and can know no others *until we find
ourselves on their plane*.
   Things which are basically similar cannot result from dissimilar causes.
   The positivist view of the world asserts that *the beginning of everything*
is unconscious energy, produced by unknown causes at some unknown time. Having
passed through a long series of processes, this energy manifests itself in
visible and tangible motion. Positivism would be quite right and its picture of
the world would not have a single defect *if there were no REASON in the world
anywhere or at any time*. Yet positivism cannot deny the fact of *mind*. If it
were able to disregard this fact completely, the universe could pass for an
accidentally formed mechanical toy.
   Mind is something different from motion. However much we may persist in
calling thought motion, we know that they are two different things. Thought can
exist without motion, whereas motion cannot exist without thought, because the
necessary condition of motion -- *time* -- comes from the mind. If there is no
mind, there is no time. If there is no time, there is no motion. Motion is an
illusion of thought.
   Our language depicts to us a false, dual universe. In reality it is one. It
is important to establish the *monistic character* of the universe.

   What then is matter? On the one side it is a logical concept, a form of
thinking. On the other hand it is illusion taken for reality. Matter is a
section of *something*. Matter is only an artificial definition by our senses of
some undefinable cause which infinitely transcends the thing, matter.
   How could we learn about the existence of the mind of other sections of the
world? Again, by two methods: through communication, exchange of thoughts *and*
by means of conclusion by analogy.
   In every *whole* of our world we see a great many *opposite* tendencies,
inclinations, strivings, efforts. Each whole is as it were a battleground of a
great number of opposite forces. The interaction of these forces constitutes the
life of the whole.
   If *the whole* possesses mental life, then separate tendencies of forces must
also possess a life of their own. A body or an organism is the point of
intersection of the lines of these lives, a meeting-place, perhaps *a
battlefield*. Our 'I' -- this is *the battlefield* in which, each moment, one or
another emotion, one or another habit or tendency takes the upper hand,
subjugating the others for that moment and identifying itself with the 'I'. But
the 'I' is also a *being*, possessing *its own* life.
   All the beings in the *world of many dimensions* may not know one another,
i.e. they may not know that we are connecting them together into various wholes
in our phenomenal world, just as in general they may have no knowledge of our
phenomenal world and its relationships.
   Our ordinary perception and thinking is too absorbed in the sensations of the
phenomenal world and therefore does not reflect impressions coming from other
beings, or reflects them so feebly that they do not become fixed in it in any
perceptible form. If, however, the impressions coming from other beings are so
strong that our mind senses them, it immediately projects them into the external
phenomenal world and seeks a cause for them in the phenomenal world.
   Our mind is limited by its phenomenal perception. The world of phenomena
encloses it like a wall. Our mind does not see anything apart from this wall.
   We must define what the noumenal world *cannot* be; and then what it *can*
be, i.e. which relations are impossible and which are possible in it. First of
all we can say that the world of noumena cannot be three-dimensional and cannot
contain anything three-dimensional. The noumenal world cannot contain anything
having extension in space and changing in time. And, it cannot contain anything
dead, inanimate, *unconscious*, although the level of consciousness may be
different. In the world of causes everything must be conscious.
   That which appears ordinary to us can never be real. *The real* appears
miraculous to us; we do not believe in it, do not recognize it. Consequently we
do not feel the *mysteries* of which life is full. Only the unreal is ordinary.
The real must appear miraculous.
   The mystery of *time* permeates everything. The mystery of *thought* creates
everything. As soon as we understand that thought is not a function of motion
and that motion itself is only a function of thought we shall see that the whole
world is a kind of vast hallucination. The mystery of *infinity* is the greatest
of all mysteries. It tells us that the whole visible universe has no dimensions
as compared with infinity; that they are equal to a point, a mathematical point
which has no extension whatever, and that, at the same time, points which are
not measureable for us may have a different extension and different dimensions.



Review/Condensation of P.D. Ouspensky's  Tertium Organum
This review/condensation by Brian Redman
Distribute freely if you like

                   Chapter 17
                   ==========

   To us, inanimate objects and mechanical phenomena are lifeless and devoid of
intelligence. But we are wrong. We recognize as animate beings only those
possessing a mind accessible to our observation in the three-dimensional section
of the world, i.e. beings whose mind is analogous to ours. Everything that
lives, thinks and feels in a manner not completely analogous to ours appears to
us as dead and mechanical.
   Yet sometimes we dimly feel the intense *life* which goes on around us. In
electrical discharges, in lightning, in thunder, in the gusts and howling of the
wind are felt flashes of sensory-nervous tremors of some gigantic organism.
   There can be nothing dead or mechanical in Nature. If life and feeling exist
at all, they must exist in everything. Every phenomena; every object has a mind.
A mountain, a tree, a river, the fish in the river, drops of water, rain, a
plant, fire -- each separately must possess a mind of its own. And between the
*mind* of a mountain and the *mind* of a man there must exist the same
difference as there is between the *mountain* and the *man*.
   The *activity of life* of separate units may be quite different. The degree
of activity of life may be judged from the point of view of reproductivity. In
minerals this activity is so small that it appears to us that minerals do not
reproduce themselves. Yet this may be only due to the insufficient breadth of
our view in time and space. Perhaps if our view embraced hundreds of thousands
of years we would be able to see the growth of minerals.
   Yet a stone can be split in two and the result will be simply two stones,
whereas if a snail is cut in two the result will not be two snails. This means
that the mind of a stone is very simple, primitive. The mind of a snail is
infinitely higher than that of a stone.
   Anything indivisible is a living being. Each cell in an organism is a living
being and must possess a certain kind of mind. A combination of cells, such as
an organ, is again a living being; this time with a higher type of mind.
   Indivisibility in our sphere is a sign of a definite function. The
intelligence of the divisible can manifest itself only in a collective non-
individual intelligence. We admit consciousness only in a *whole* organism.
   But even a whole organism is merely a section of what we may call the life of
this organism from birth to death. This *life* may be represented as a four-
dimensional body stretched out in time. The physical three-dimensional body is
only a section of the four-dimensional body, LINGA SHARIRA.
   We may presume in man three minds -- the mind of the body or instincts, the
personality or the complex and constantly changing "I", and finally, the mind of
the whole life or the greater "I." These three minds know very little about each
other and communicate with one another only when we are in various "altered
states." (i.e. dreams, trance, hypnosis, etc.)
   Family, community, nation -- any aggregate to which we belong -- possesses
its own larger mind, of which we form a part. A nation is a living being.
Mankind is also a living being; it is the *Great Man*, the ADAM KADMON of the
Kabalists.
   The three minds of man, the mind of instincts, the mind of sensations,
representations, concepts, thoughts, emotions and desires, and the mind of the
greater "I", are not mutually inimical -- they coexist. But usually, in saying
"I", a man means not all three domains, but that which is at the moment in the
focus of his consciousness. As a rule, when a man says "I" he refers to some
very small and insignificant facet which *at the given moment* fills the focus
of consciousness and subjugates all the rest (until it is driven out by another
equally insignificant facet). "I am hungry." "I read a newspaper." "I expect a
letter." Only rarely does the "I" touch higher regions.
   This continuous movement which goes on in our mind, this constant shifting
from one "I" to another, may perhaps explain the phenomenon of *motion* in the
external visible world. Movement goes on inside us and it produces the illusion
of movement around us.


   A birch tree is a living being. The birch tree in general -- the species --
is a living being. A forest containing birch trees as well as other types of
trees is also a living being. Following this line of thought, we eventually
arrive at the idea of an animate universe which in turn leads us to the idea of
a "World Soul" -- a being whose manifestation is the visible universe.
   Since every living body has a mind, so every mind must possess a body. But it
does not follow that all bodies must be alike, and that the bodies of beings of
a higher order should be like ours. The vaster orders of mind go with vaster
orders of body. The entire earth on which we live must have its own collective
consciousness; so too must the planets and the entire solar system. The earth
soul is our special guardian angel and we can pray to the earth as religious
people pray to their saints.
   Ideas of the world as *animated and intelligent* are in no way new or
paradoxical. They are a natural and logical necessity, springing from a wider
view of the world than that which we normally permit ourselves.

                   Chapter 18
                   ==========

   All explanations of the meaning of life suffer from one defect -- they all
try to find the meaning of life *outside it* -- either in the future of mankind,
or in the problematical existence after death, or in the evolution of the ego
through long successive reincarnations -- always in something *outside* the
present life of man.
   The meaning of life consists in knowledge. The strongest emotion in man is a
yearning for the unknown. Even in love, the strongest attraction to which
everything else is sacrificed, is the attraction of the unknown. The function of
the inner life may be defined as the realization of the existence of the outer
world as well as of one's own existence.
   All the mental faculties of man are instruments of knowledge. These mental
faculties include feelings. Feelings are *means of knowledge*. Only to our
narrow human view do feelings seem to serve other purposes.
   We do not realize, we do not see the presence of intelligence in the
phenomena and laws of nature. This happens because we always study not the whole
but a part, and we do not see the whole we wish to study.
   *Life* is the manifestation in our sphere of a *part* of one of the
intelligences of another sphere. When a man dies, one eye of the universe
closes. Every separate human life is a moment of the life of the *great being*
which lives through us.
   Usually *the emotional* is opposed to *the intellectual*: "heart" is opposed
to "reason". "Cold reason" is placed on one side and feelings are placed on the
other. Yet really, between intellect and emotion there is no sharp distinction.
In us there is nothing but emotions or their harmonious co-existence. This was
clearly realized by Spinoza when he said that an emotion can be overcome only by
another, stronger emotion, and by nothing else.
   *Reason* cannot conquer feeling, because feeling can only be conquered by
feeling. Reason can only provide thoughts and images which would evoke feelings,
*and these* conquer the feeling of the given moment.
   We know a great many things through emotions. Emotions are in no way
instruments of feeling *for the sake of feeling*; they are all instruments of
knowledge. There are things and relations which can be known only emotionally
and only through a given emotion. To understand the psychology of gambling it is
necessary to feel the emotions of a gambler; to understand the psychology of the
hunt it is necessary to feel the emotions of the hunter.
   The reason why we understand one another so little is that we always live by
*different* emotions. We understand one another only when we happen to
experience identical emotions simultaneously. In this idea of the simultaneous
experiencing of identical emotions lies the secret of the power of alcohol over
human beings; alcohol produces the illusion of communion of emotions and
stimulates fantasy *simultaneously* in two or more people.
   Nothing gives one such a clear idea of things as the emotions, and nothing
misleads one as much as the emotions. The *cognitive value* of emotions is
different. There are emotions which are indispensable for a life of knowledge --
and there are emotions which hinder rather than help understanding.
   Emotions are connected with the different "I's" of our mental life. An
emotion which looks exactly the same at the first glance, may be connected with
very small "I's" or with very big "I's" -- may be connected with selfish
personal elements or with the larger, more permanent "I".
   The liberation from personal elements enhances the cognitive power of
emotions. The cognitive power of an emotion is proportionately greater when a
given emotion contains less *self-element*, i.e. when there is a stronger
realization that the given emotion is not "I". It is an error to evaluate the
world and people from the point of view of some one accidental "I", the self of
a given moment.
   Not all emotions are capable in equal measure of being freed from self-
elements. There are emotions which by their nature *divide*, estrange, alienate,
make one feel themself to be apart, separate. Also, there is difficulty in
dividing emotions into categories because emotions of the higher order can also
be personal -- and then their effect is no different from that of the lower
category.
   There are no emotions which are impure *in their nature*. Every emotion may
be either pure or impure according to whether it contains an admixture of other
emotions or not. A "pure" emotion gives a clear, pure image of the knowledge
which it is intended to transmit. There may be pure desire to know, a thirst for
knowledge for the sake of knowledge, and there may be a pursuit of knowledge led
by considerations of *profit* and *gain* to be derived from this knowledge. The
former would be an example of a pure emotion while the latter would be an
example of an impure emotion.
   The word "aesthetic" is derived from the Greek word "aisthetikos" which means
"of sense perception." Thus the purifying of the emotions leads to improved
perceptions, or in other words, morality is a form of aesthetics. That which is
not moral is not aesthetic.
   Nowhere do delusions spring up more easily than in the domain of morality.
Engrossed in *his own morality* and moral preachings a man forgets the *aim* of
moral perfection, forgets that the aim consists in knowledge. He begins to see
the aim in morality itself. No tyranny can be more fierce than the tyranny of
morality.
   The organized forms of intellectual knowledge are *science* and *philosophy*.
The organized forms of emotional knowledge are *religion* and *art*. The purpose
behind the pomp of religious rituals, the processions, the sacrifices, the
singing, the music, the dances -- the aim of all these things is to incite a
certain emotional state, to evoke in man certain definite feelings. Their
purpose is to make accessible to the participant a definite knowledge of the
hidden side of the world.
   Art, too, is a powerful instrument for knowledge of the noumenal world. Yet
when art begins to enjoy the beauty already *found, instead of seeking new
beauty*, all progress is checked, and art becomes transformed into a useless
aestheticism surrounding man with a wall and preventing him from seeing further.
*The search for beauty* is the aim of art, just as the search for God and
*truth* is the aim of religion. Like art, religion no longer progresses when it
ceases to *seek* God and truth and begins to think that it has found them.
   Science, philosophy, religion and art really begin to serve *true knowledge*
only when they begin to manifest intuition, i.e. the sensing and finding of some
inner qualities in things. Actually one may say that the aim of even purely
intellectual scientific and philosophical systems is not at all to give to one
certain information, but to raise one to a height of thought and feeling where
she can pass to the new and higher forms of knowledge.
   Moreover, it should be born in mind that the very division of science,
philosophy, religion and art into separate categories shows their
incompleteness. When we see the whole of which these four categories form a
part, then we will approach a complete knowledge.



Review/Condensation of Tertium Organum by P.D. Ouspensky  (ch. 19 - 20)
This review/condensation by Brian Redman
Distribute freely if you like

                   Chapter 19
                   ==========

   Science studies phenomena; as soon as it tries to pass on to the study of
causes, it is confronted by the wall of the unknown and, *for it*, the
unknowable.
   At present this is the situation: the number of unknown facts in every domain
of scientific knowledge is increasing rapidly. The progress of science,
especially in recent times, may be defined as a very rapid growth of the regions
of ignorance. Of course in the past there was no less ignorance than there is
now. But in the past it was not so forcibly felt -- then science did not know
what it is ignorant of. Now it knows this more and more, it realizes more and
more clearly its own conditional nature.
   Positivist thinking, which draws general conclusions from the knowledge
gained by the separate departments of science, will find itself obliged to draw
a conclusion from that which the sciences do not know. And then we will be
confronted by a colossus (positivism) with feet of clay.
   Philosophy has seen for a long time that this colossus has no feet, but the
greater part of cultured humanity is still under the hypnosis of positivism. The
greater part of humanity still sees just the colossus and not the feet of clay.
   I [Ouspensky] call positivism that system which asserts, in opposition to
Kant, that the study of phenomena *can* bring us nearer to things in themselves.
Positivism affirms that through studying phenomena we can come to the
understanding of causes.
   The usual positivist view denies the existence of the *hidden side of life*,
or rather it finds that this hidden side consists of electro-magnetic phenomena
and is being gradually revealed to us. This assertion would be correct if
science moved uniformly in all the directions of the unknown; if a multitude of
fundamental questions did not remain just as obscure as in the times when no
science existed at all. However, we see that whole vast regions are closed to
science, that it has *never* penetrated them and indeed has made *no step* in
the direction of these regions.
   As regards questions of life and death, of the mystery of consciousness, and
others of that ilk, our scientific method is of no value. The scientific method
can establish the chemical composition of distant stars and photograph the human
skeleton invisible to the eye -- but it cannot tell us what the man sitting next
to us is thinking.
   The mistake of positivism consists in the fact that it has recognized as
really existing only that which can be perceived by the senses. Yet this small
group of perceived existences by no means represents everything that exists.
   What then is objectivity? We may define it in this way: owing to the
properties of *our* perception or owing to the conditions under which our mind
works, we segregate a small number of facts into a definite group. This group of
facts represents for us the objective world. But this group does not by any
means represent everything existing.
   Materiality means the conditions of existence in time and space, i.e.
conditions of existence under which "*two identical* phenomena cannot take place
at the same time and in the same place." It is clear that in the conditions
known to us, two identical phenomena taking place at the same time and in the
same place would constitute one phenomenon. But this is obligatory only for the
conditions of existence we know, i.e. for such matter as we perceive.
   If we can imagine a being living outside of the conditions of materiality,
such a being will be able to possess simultaneously things which, from our point
of view, are mutually exclusive; he will be able to be in several places at
once; to assume different aspects; to perform at the same time contradictory and
mutually exclusive actions.
   Objective knowledge can grow indefinitely with the perfection of apparatuses
and methods of observation and investigation. The only thing it cannot step over
is -- the limits of the three-dimensional sphere, i.e. the conditions of space
and time, because it is created in those conditions, and the conditions of
existence of the three-dimensional world constitute its own conditions of
existence. Objectively, knowledge will be always subject to these conditions,
because otherwise it would cease to exist.
   Our objective knowledge is confined within the limits of an *infinite three-
dimensional sphere*. It can advance *ad infinitum* along the radii of that
three-dimensional sphere, but it will not pass over into the domain of which our
three-dimensional world represents *a section*.
   [Note: Ouspensky finishes this chapter with ideas on the expansion of
consciousness as a means of widening our cognitive abilities, thereby liberating
us from the confines of three-dimensional representations. For example: "A drop
of consciousness merging with the ocean of consciousness, perceives the ocean
but does not, through this, cease to be." I assume that the reader has some
familiarity already with ideas of this type.]

                   Chapter 20
                   ==========

   When we come upon the fact of INFINITY in any mode of our thought, it is a
sign that that mode of thought is dealing with a higher reality than it is
adapted for. Infinity is the only reality and at the same time it is the abyss,
the bottomless pit into which our mind falls after having risen to a height
where it cannot keep a foothold.
   We have previously examined the way in which a two-dimensional being might
come to the understanding of the third dimension. But we have not asked
ourselves what such a being would *feel* when it begins to sense the third
dimension.
   Let us imagine an animal in which flashes of human understanding begin to
appear. The first sensation of this being would be that its old world, the
world of two dimensions, *the only world* it represents to itself as real, is
crumbling away and falling into ruins all around. Until such a being learns to
perceive realities of another, higher order, the sensation of the unreality of
everything from its old world would be very strong. This hypothetical being
would pass from one negation to another -- it would be forced to repudiate
everything in its old, two-dimensional world.
   Formerly, when it was an animal, it reasoned thus:
       This is this          This house is mine.
       That is that          That house is strange.
       This is not that      The strange house is not mine.
   Thus a strange house and its own house an animal regards as *different
objects* having nothing in common. And now it will suddenly understand that both
the *strange* house and *its own* house are equally -- houses.
   This hypothetical being will begin to sense dimly some *new properties* in
houses. As a result it will feel in need of some system for the generalization
of these properties. But because this two-dimensional being awakening to the
third dimension has no concepts, it will express its sense of these new
properties in the form of the proposition: *This is that.*
   If we were to tell this hypothetical being that two different houses, its own
house and a strange house, both represent the same thing, that they both are
*houses*, this being will never credit their sameness. For it the two houses --
its own where it is fed and the strange one where it is beaten, will remain
*totally different*. They will remain totally different, that is, until this
being begins to dimly sense the sameness of these different objects. When this
happens, because this being does not possess concepts, it will translate the
idea of the sameness of these two different objects as *this and that are the
same object* -- this is that.
   To understand the new three-dimensional world, the animal would have to
understand the *new logicality* of that world.
   The system of logic developed by Aristotle and Bacon, and elaborated and
supplemented by their numerous followers, operates *soley with concepts*. LOGOS,
the word, is the subject of logic. To become the subject of logical reasoning an
idea must be expressed in a word. What cannot be expressed in a word cannot
enter into a logical system.
   At the same time we know that not everything can be expressed in words.
Therefore, not everything can be logical to us; a great many things are
essentially outside logic. Feelings, emotions, and religion are outside of the
domain of logic. All art is a complete illogicality.
   If we compare the axioms of logic with the axioms of mathematics, we see that
they are basically identical:
       The axioms of logic --
           'A' is 'A'
           'A' is not 'not A'
           Each thing is either 'A' or 'not A'
       The fundamental axioms of mathematics --
           Every magnitude is equal to itself
           The part is less than the whole
           Two magnitudes, equal separately to a third, are equal to each other.
   This similarity between the axioms of these two disciplines allows us to draw
the conclusion that they have the same origin. Just as logical axioms can
operate only with concepts, so mathematical axioms can operate only with
*finite* and *constant* magnitudes. This means that the axioms of logic and
mathematics are deduced by us from the observation of *phenomena* and represent
a certain conditional incorrectness. In other words, these axioms are tied to
the conditional, phenomenal world.
   In fact we have *two mathematics*. One -- the mathematics of finite and
constant numbers, represents an entirely artificial construction. This
mathematics studies an artificial universe and is unable to penetrate *beyond
phenomena*. The other -- the mathematics of infinite and variable magnitude, is
something entirely real and refers to the world of noumena.
   An example of the other mathematics, the mathematics of infinite and variable
magnitude, is the mathematics of transfinite numbers. Transfinite numbers are
numbers that are *beyond infinity*. Infinity, represented here by the sign 00,
is a mathematical expression. It is possible to raise infinity to the power of
infinity (00^00). This magnitude is an infinite number of times greater than a
simple infinity. And at the same time they are equal: 00 = 00^00. This violates
the laws of mathematics of *finite* numbers.
   Moreover, transfinite numbers are entirely real. To give an example from the
phenomenal world, let us take a segment of a line. Let us say that our segment
is an inch in length. We know that the number of points in this segment is
infinite, because a point has no dimensions. Now let us imagine a second line
segment, this time a segment a mile long. Because the number of points in *each*
segment is infinite, each point in the smaller segment will have a corresponding
point in the larger segment.
   The fundamental axioms of finite mathematics are valid only for finite
numbers and *constant* magnitudes. In other words, each magnitude is equal to
itself at a given moment; if we take a variable magnitude, and take it at
different moments, it will not be equal to itself. Of course, one may say that,
in changing, it becomes another magnitude, that it is a given magnitude only so
long as it does not change. *But that is exactly the point*. To our *finite*
point of view, it is a different magnitude; from an infinite point of view, it
is the same magnitude.
   The greatest magnitude of finite mathematics is equal to nought in comparison
with *any* magnitude of infinite mathematics. And, because 00 = 00^00, all the
various magnitudes of infinite mathematics *are equal among themselves*. Thus
here, as well as in logic, the axioms of the *new mathematics* appear as
absurdities:
       A magnitude can be not equal to itself.
       The part can be equal to the whole or can be greater.
       One of two equal magnitudes can be infinitely greater than the other.
       All *different* magnitudes are equal to each other.
   We observe a complete analogy between the axioms of mathematics and those of
logic. The logical unit -- the concept -- possesses all the properties of a
finite and constant magnitude. The fundamental axioms of logic and mathematics
are correct only so long as logic and mathematics operate with artificial,
conditional units that do not exist in nature. The truth is that there are no
finite, constant magnitudes in nature, just as there are no concepts. Both are
only abstractions.
   The idea of constancy or variability is the outcome of the incapacity of our
limited mind to know a thing as it actually is. But if we achieve the knowledge
of a thing in four dimensions it will then be a whole and constant magnitude, a
*section* of which we mistakenly call the thing *changing in time*. The infinite
magnitude of this thing is something that we currently are not aware of. We know
only a section of it, and to this imaginary section belong our present
mathematics and logic.



Review/Condensation  of Tertium Organum  by P.D. Ouspensky  ch. 21 - xx
This review/condensation by Brian Redman
Distribute freely if you like

                   Chapter 21
                   ==========

   As soon as, instead of concepts, we begin to think in other terms, we must be
prepared to meet with an enormous number of absurdities *from the point of view
of existing logic*. There is no reason whatever for hoping that in *the world of
causes* relations can be logical from our point of view. On the contrary, we may
say that everything logical is only phenomenal.
   The attitude of human thought toward "the world beyond" has been entirely
wrong. In positivism people have denied the world beyond altogether. And the
world beyond of the spiritualists is merely a naive and primitive representation
of the unknown. In spiritualism they attempt to build a noumenal world on the
pattern of the phenomenal, i.e. they try to prove that the world beyond is
logical from our point of view -- that the world beyond is nothing more than a
continuation of ours.

   (Mathematics is a sort of telescope by means of which we may begin to
investigate the space of many dimensions. Mathematics grows, widens, and passes
beyond the boundaries of the visible and measurable world. There cannot be any
mathematical relations for which there are no corresponding realities.
Mathematics goes in the vanguard of our thought -- it already calculates
relationships which we are incapable of imagining.)

   The recognition of the reality of the world of many dimensions is an *already
accomplished* transition to the recognition of the world of the 'miraculous.'
And a transition to the miraculous is impossible without admitting the reality
of new logical relations, absurd and impossible from the point of view of our
existing logic.
   If we want to leave the three-dimensional world we must first of all throw
off the fetters of our logic. If we enter the world of many dimensions with
logical principles from the three-dimensional world, these principles will drag
us back. Suspecting the existence of the multi-dimensional world, we attempt to
penetrate it without realizing that the chief obstacle in our way is our own
division of the world into *this world* and the *world beyond*. The world is
one, but the methods of perceiving it are different.
   Approaching the world of causes with nothing but a knowledge of the world of
phenomena, and armed only with a three-dimensional logic, one is bound to
experience a terror beyond limits. Terror at the loss of the old would be mixed
with a fear of the new, terrifying in its infinity.
   In order not to experience the terror of the new world, it is necessary to
know it beforehand, either emotionally -- through faith and love, or
intellectually -- by reason. And in order not to experience terror at the loss
of the old world, one should renounce it voluntarily beforehand, also either
through faith or reason.
   Our current logic and mathematics must renounce themselves in order that the
new logic and mathematics can be understood. Higher logic existed before
deductive and inductive logic was ever formulated. Higher logic may be called
intuitive logic, the logic of infinity. I [Ouspensky] have called this system of
higher logic TERTIUM ORGANUM, because *for us* it is the *third instrument* of
thought after Aristotle and Bacon. The first was ORGANON, the second NOVUM
ORGANUM. But the third existed before the first.
   The axioms which Tertium Organum contains cannot be formulated in our
language. But if we still try to formulate them, they will produce the
impression of absurdities. We may express the principle axiom of the new logic
in our poor earthly language in the following way:
   * 'A' is both 'A' and 'not A'
or
   * Every thing is both 'A' and 'not A'
or
   * Every thing is All.
But in fact these formulae are completely impossible. And they are not *axioms
of higher logic*; they are merely attempts to express the axioms of this logic
in concepts. In reality the ideas of higher logic are *inexpressible* in
concepts. To hope to find anything in the world of causes that would be logical
from our point of view is just as useless as to think that the *world of things*
can exist in accordance with the laws of the *world of shadows*.
   Again, let us imagine a two-dimensional being coming into contact with our
three-dimensional world. It must first get rid of its "idols", i.e. of its
accepted ways of feeling and thinking, which have become axiomatic and are
creating for it the illusion of two-dimensionality.
   What exactly must a two-dimensional being get rid of?
   1) It must get rid of the conviction that what it sees and senses actually
exists.
   2) It must become aware of the incorrectness of its current representation of
the world.
   3) It must become aware of the idea that the real, new world must exist in
some quite different forms, new, incomparable, incommensurable with the old.
   4) The two-dimensional being must get rid of the assurance that its
*divisions* are correct. It must understand that things which appear to it
totally different and separated may be a part of some *whole* incomprehensible
to it.
   The mental growth of the two-dimensional being must proceed along the line of
the recognition of the common properties of certain objects. By understanding
the common properties of certain things, the two-dimensional being will have
come near to our logic; it will have begun to understand the use of a
*collective noun*, i.e. a word which is not a proper name but a common noun; in
other words, a word expressing a concept.
   The "idols" of the two-dimensional being which obstruct the development of
its consciousness are *proper names* which the being itself gives to surrounding
objects. For example, consider that the two-dimensional being has heretofore
known two men named John and Peter. Up until now, the two-dimensional being was
incapable of understanding the concept "men." The sentence "John and Peter are
both men" would be an absurdity to it. In its own representation, this sentence
would be the same as saying "John and Peter are both John and Peter."
   Because it has no concepts, because it has no *plurals* (because proper names
have no plurals), the plurals of our speech will seem to the two-dimensional
being to be an absurdity.
   The logic of Aristotle and Bacon is fundamentally *dualistic*. If we are
deeply imbued with the idea of *monism*, i.e. the fundamental unity of
everything existing, we shall conquer the "idol" of our current logic. The
fundamental axioms of our current logic may be reduced to the general idea that
every given *something* has *something* opposite to it. The recognition of the
*unreality* of these divisions and of the unity of all opposites is necessary
for the beginning of understanding of the higher logic.
   Duality is the condition of *our* perception of the phenomenal world; it is
the *instrument* of our perception of phenomena. But when we come to the
perception of the noumenal world this duality begins to stand in our way.
*Dualism* is the chief "idol" we have to get rid of.
   But an application of monism to practical thinking comes up against the
insurmountable obstacle of our language. Our language is incapable of expressing
the unity of opposites, just as it is incapable of expressing *spatially* the
relation of cause and effect. Consequently, all attempts to express *super-
logical* relations in our language will appear absurd, and actually will only
*hint* at what we wish to convey.
   Let us try to enumerate the properties of the *world of causes* which may be
derived from everything said so far. (Before beginning, it is necessary to
reiterate that it is impossible to express *exactly* in our language the
properties of the world of causes.)
   1) In this world "time" must exist spatially. What we call *the law of
causation* cannot exist there, because the necessary condition for it is --
time. And, again, all the *possibilities* of a given moment, even those opposed
to one another, together with all their results *ad infinitum*, must become
realized simultaneously with the given moment.
   2) There is nothing there measurable by our measures. Different points of our
space divided for *us* by long distances, must be adjacent there. Proximity or
distance are determined there by inner affinity or divergence, by sympathy or
antipathy, i.e. by properties which seem to us subjective.
   3) There is no "matter" there, nor is there motion.
   4) There is *nothing* dead or unconscious there.
   5) Axioms of our mathematics cannot be applied in that world, because there
is nothing *finite* there.
   6) Laws of our logic cannot operate there. From the point of view of our
logic that world is *outside logic*.
   7) The multiplicity of our world cannot exist there. Everything is the whole.
   8) In that world there can be none of the duality of our world. *Being* is
not opposed to *non-being* in that world. On the contrary, the one includes the
other. That world is the world of the unity of opposites.
   9) No difference between the real and the unreal can exist there.
   10) *That world* and *our world* are not two different worlds. That which we
call *our* world is only our incorrect representation of the world.
   11) Even in comprehending that world, we will not embrace it in its vast
entirety, i.e. in all the variety of relations existing within it, but will
think of it only in one or another aspect.
   12) Between the world of causes and the *All* there may be many transitional
stages.

                   Chapter 22
                   ==========

   [In this chapter, Ouspensky gives us what he calls a "...survey of systems
referring to the world of causes." Basically, he outlines the mystical
experiences and writings of various well-known visionaries and religious sects,
such as the author(s) of the Upanishads, Plotinus, Jacob Boehme, Theosophists,
and followers of Sufism. He quotes extensively from these sources. Rather than
again quote from these same sources, as it is possible that many readers are
more or less familiar with some or all of these ideas, I instead refer the
reader to the original sources or to Ouspensky's books themselves. A brief
synopsis of this chapter follows.]

   If we ask what was the highest purpose of the teaching of the Upanishads, we
can state it in three words -- Tat tvam asi -- Thou art that. "Thou art that"
means: *thou art both thou and not thou* and corresponds to the super-logical
formula -- 'A' is both 'A' and 'not A'.
   The results of mystical experience are totally illogical from our ordinary
point of view. They are super-logical. The illogicality of the results of
mystical experience made positivistic science repudiate them. However we now
establish that *illogicality* (from our point of view) is the condition
necessary for knowing the real world. This does not mean that everything
illogical is real, but it certainly means that everything real is, from a three-
dimensional viewpoint, illogical.
   If we examine ancient scriptures from this point of view, we shall understand
that their authors were looking for a *new logic*, and were not satisfied with
the logic of things of the phenomenal world. Then we shall understand the
apparent *illogicality* of ancient philosophical systems in which systems of
*higher logic* are often concealed.
   Mystics of different centuries and nations speak the same language and use
the same words. In their writings we see the agreement of the results of their
experiences with our own theoretically deduced *conditions of the world of
causes* -- the sensation of the unity of all, a new sense of time, the sense of
infinity, joy or terror, the knowledge of the whole in the part, and infinite
life and infinite consciousness.

                   Chapter 23
                   ==========

   People have despaired of finding answers to the principal questions and have
given up bothering about them. We feel this hopelessness of ever arriving at an
answer when we regard man as something finite and complete, when we see nothing
beyond man and think that we already know everything there is in man. There is
cold comfort in all social theories promising us various blessings upon earth.
*Why? What is all this for?* All right, everybody will be fed, no one will have
to toil. Excellent. *But what next?*
   We can arrive at an answer to the question of the purpose of our existence,
but people will not accept it -- they will want the answer to be in a form that
they like. They will demand the solution of the question of the destiny of man,
but of man such as they imagine him to be, and they will refuse to recognize the
fact that man can and must become something quite different. To think of the
future of man as he now is would be as senseless as to think of the future of a
child, thinking that he will remain a child forever.
   At the present time the general concept "man" is too undifferentiated and
embraces completely different categories of men, those capable of development
and those incapable of it. The new view of humanity repudiates the idea of
equality -- which does not exist anyway -- and strives to establish the signs
and facts of the differences between men. Some are capable of going forward
while others are incapable of going forward. [Note: Ouspensky does not spell out
exactly what he means by "going forward." As to the idea of inequality, this
apparently refers to the obvious difference in talents, skills, cleverness,
etcetera, amongst any random group of people. However, this is only how I am
interpreting it.]
   If we feel that we do not yet know our destiny, if we still doubt and are
afraid to part with the hopelessness of the positivist view of life, we do so,
first, because we take together, without differentiation, men of totally
different categories, with a totally different future, and second, because the
ideas we *need*, through which we could understand the real correlation of
forces, have not won a place in *official knowledge*, do not represent any
recognized department or branch of knowledge and are rarely to be found together
in one book.
   We fail to understand many things, because we specialize too easily and too
drastically. The creation of specialized disciplines and literatures is the
chief evil and chief obstacle to right understanding of things. Each
"literature" evolves its own terminology, its own language, incomprehensible to
representatives of other literatures. What we have needed for a long time is
*synthesis*; we need a *new* literature which cannot be referred to any of the
accepted library classifications.
   The further evolution of man (if it takes place) can no longer, as before, be
the result of primordial and *unconscious* causes, but will depend on
*conscious* efforts towards growth. Also, man's new faculties of understanding
and feeling (again, if any of us achieve them), will not be the product of the
evolution of the *existing* faculties. Imagine that a scientist from another
planet, who knows nothing of the existence of man, studies a horse and its
"evolution" from a foal to a riding horse, and sees the highest degree of its
evolution in a horse with a man on its back. From our point of view it is clear
that it is impossible to regard the man in the saddle as a fact of *equine*
evolution. In a like manner, the new man, if he arrives, will be more than
merely the further development of the old man.

   It is more correct to regard the different forms of consciousness in the
different parts and strata of living nature not as separate and evolving from
one another, but as belonging to *one organism* and fulfilling functions which,
although different are interconnected. Not understanding the existing variety of
forms and their interconnections, and not knowing how to think of it all *as a
unity*, people seize upon the evolutionary view and regard the variety of forms
as an ascending ladder. This view is derived from a desire to systematize what
we observe. We think that because we have constructed a system this means that
we know something. But in reality absence of a system is often nearer to true
knowledge than an artificial system.


                   Conclusion
                   ==========

   In the Apocalypse, the Angel swears that *there shall be time no longer*.
This and similar phrases give us a glimpse of the philosophical content of many
Gospel teachings.
   The apostle Paul's words are also striking: "That ye, being rooted and
grounded in love may be able to comprehend with all saints what is the *breadth*
and *length* and *depth* and *height*." This could be restated as "Sanctity will
give you a knowledge of space." Is this what St. Paul was trying to say? We do
not know.
   But let us look at these words of the Apocalypse and the Epistles from the
point of view of our ordinary positivist thinking. What shall we see?
   *We shall see nothing*.
   The glimpse of *mystery*, revealed for a moment, will immediately vanish.
Thus positivism robs us, and deprives our lives of all beauty, all mystery, and
all meaning.
   THE METHOD IS NO GOOD.
   In its time, positivism came as something refreshing, something
*progressive*, blazing new trails for thought. But now we see that it inevitably
leads to materialism. And in this form it arrests thought. From being
revolutionary, positivism has now become the basis of official science. It wears
a uniform. It is recognized. It teaches. It rules over thought.
   Having attained prosperity and success, positivism put an obstacle to the
further development of thought. A Chinese wall of positivist sciences and
methods confronts free investigation. Everything rising above this wall is
declared to be "unscientific."
   And in this form positivism, which before was a symbol of progress, has
become *conservative, reactionary*. In the realm of thought the *existing order*
has become established, and struggle against it is punished.
   But free thought cannot be confined within any limits.
   The true *motion* which lies at the basis of everything is the *motion of
thought*.  *Truth* itself is motion and can never come to rest.
   The real progress of thought exists only in the widest possible striving
towards knowledge, a striving which does not rest upon any forms of knowledge
already found.


===============================================================================
================================== The End ====================================
===============================================================================


A note from the reviewer: Synopsis! That's the word I was looking for. This has
been a synopsis of Tertium Organum by P.D. Ouspensky.
   1) I do not necessarily agree with all of Ouspensky's ideas. However, I like
his ideas because they are different. If you do not agree with some or all of
Ouspensky's ideas, take it up with Ouspensky and not with me. I don't feel like
debating Tertium Organum for the next twenty years.
   2) However, generally I would be interested in what you think about
Ouspensky's ideas. If you think they suck, if you think they are the greatest,
drop me a line. You can reach me at Compu$erve (72567,3145) or at GEnie (I think
my mail address there is Brian Redman). Also I visit many BBSs so you might run
into me on one of them.
   3) It has been a pleasure for me to write this *synopsis*. By writing it, I
feel that I have become more strongly familiar with some of Ouspensky's ideas.
My hope is that you enjoyed reading it.

                                                 Happy motoring!

                                                     Brian Redman