Yesterday we had a party for people who have left our stream over the years. This unprecedented event seemed to go very well. We didn't have a huge turn out (about 20 people, plus children), but everyone who came seemed really happy to be there.
For some reason, though, I felt sad and melancholic. I couldn't really put my finger on it during the event, but I believe that it was because yesterday represented the end of an era. Old Mr MacLaren would never have countenanced such an event - he took a pretty hard line on "leavers" - and when it finally happened, at the School's Waterperry home, it seemed to hit home that he really is gone now.
A few years ago I read a book called "Built to Last", which was a study of businesses that have lasted a long time, and why. One of the case studies was Disney, a company that went through a period of drifting immediately after the death of its founder. The authors of the book said that the problem with Disney was that for 15 years the first question everyone asked was "What would Mr Walt have said?" The company only began to revive itself when the management stopped asking this question and started to think for themselves. In fact what they did was restate the company's objective, which is to create happiness. Whether or not one likes Disney films, it will be evident that "How can we make people happy?" is a better question than "What would Mr Walt have said?" ... click "Read More"
Mr MacLaren's passing in 1994 was a dramatic event. I well remember the journey to Waterperry that night. Although we didn't yet know it, the elements seemed to express what had just occurred: it was the biggest electrical storm for years in the south of England. In the papers the next day I read how a girl playing football had been killed by the lightning. He was a force of nature, and I can't resist recalling here what Andrew Marvell wrote of Oliver Cromwell:
And like the three-fork'd lightning, first
Breaking the clouds where it was nurst,
Did thorough his own side
His fiery way divide:
...
Then burning through the air he went
And palaces and temples rent;
And Cæsar's head at last
Did through his laurels blast.
'Tis madness to resist or blame
The face of angry Heaven's flame
And if we would speak true,
Much to the man is due
Or perhaps it goes back even further - to the original genesis of the School in the teachings of Gurdjieff and Ouspensky. Gurdjieff, too, was a titan, and one with iron in his soul. He taught that unless someone had come under discipline, he did not really exist as a human being. Cruel stories cluster around him: how he made a fortune defrauding small-town mayors while working for the Russian railway; how he tortured horses so that they would obey no-one but him while he made his escape from Russia in 1917; his admiration for a Corsican bandit who would stare through his gunsight at a stretch of road for hour after hour, attention never wavering, waiting for the next victim.
Of course, there is much more to Gurdjieff, but if I overemphasize the cruel and harsh, it is because I think it's that element that passed out of the School yesterday. No longer will someone who leaves the School be ostracized; no longer will the fear of ostracism scare people into staying; and no longer need we see ourselves as superior in order to justify such behaviour.
This is, of course, a great day for the School. But if it also marks in some way the passing of Mr MacLaren, then perhaps it is natural to feel a certain sober regret. For all his foibles and his hardness, much to the man is due.
It would be interesting to hear what others felt yesterday, or in general about the recent developments.
Monday, March 19, 2007
In Memoriam
Posted by Kevin at 5:38 pm
Labels: Developments, Principles, School Principles
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
This is one of those occasions when a post is not enough. What actually happened?
That's the trouble with people who've left the School - it stops there for them, like a clock stopping, and all their memories stop at that point. Were they nostalgic too?
Or were you feeling, dare I say it, a little over the hill? Recollections of gilded youth?
Your comments about yesterday's meeting at Waterperry House are interesting. I was struck by what it revealed about self image and perceptions. The school's perception of "leavers" may have changed, I wasn't sure. I suppose I wasn't really bothered about that so may not have really noticed. I did notice how wonderfully friendly everyone was and what a pleasure it was to meet and talk with old friends and a few new ones.
So what do I mean by self image and perceptions. I was recently at a Spiritual retreat run by Barbara Mason, a Roman Catholic woman with an amazing testimony and an interesting and refreshing angle on Catholicism. During a question and answer session, the nature of evil was briefly discussed and original sin was mentioned. Now whenever my Catholic friends start talking about original sin or the like I experience a kind of "oh dear, bless them " emotion which is not very helpful. It did however, put me in mind of the story of the fall of Satan and its related story of the fall of Adam and Eve in the Garden. Where Satan really went wrong was not that he was the brighest Angel in the firmament but that he didn't realise it was not his but was simply divine grace coming through him. He claimed these powers and fell immediately. Not satisfied with his own fall he wanted to bring others down too. He tempted Adam with the fruit of the tree of Knowlege ie he could know what God knew. So we have the real original sin as that of Lucifer ie to claim it all for himself, the power was his. The second sin - not the original really- was to think you could know what God knew. Now I suddenly realised we all had original sin - not a black mark on some fictitious window of the soul- but the believe that we could do it ourselves. In the extreme form, like Lucifer, we think we are better than anyone else. It can be a danger in any spiritual seeker and organisation that he/she or they think they are better than anyone else. What must follow is the inevitable fall from grace. If we think we are the sole or most superior source of Truth then we have a pretty fundamental or "original" problem. This sort of self image then guides all our actions and influences everything we do. The interesting thing is that as long as we remain outside a natural state of humility and openness, the source of the Truth and Grace that we crave remains outside us - unable to penetrate through our self image. An antidote to this comes in the words of Christ when he says quite unequivocally that by himself he can do nothing. He knows that the source of life is his father and he refuses to claim a position of knowing more or superiority. His "Self" gate is truly open. Of course, we know how God was able to use Him and shape a whole civilisation.
I know the school has been trying to open its gates in recent years and it would be good to persevere with this but I suspect this will be difficult until its own Self image changes and this then no longer informs its perception of everyone and everything else. Abandoning any thoughts of the school's superiority might release a very powerful force for good in society. By myself I can do nothing has the power and humility to transform individuals and organisations.
Laura,
It was just a party really. There was an optional tour of the frescoes, which some went on, but otherwise it was just lunch, drinks and a get-together. It was great to see some old faces ... including one chap I hadn't seen since he stormed out of Room 15 at 2 AM muttering "It's just a load of SES dogma" (I'm afraid I had been giving him my views last thing at night).
Wilfrids,
I suppose my only problem with "original sin" is that it puts too much emphasis on the sin. In the same way, the School has always put too much credence into "Ahankara". I think that in many ways "Ahankara" is in the School the same idea as "original sin" in the old-style Catholic church. We didn't get this from India.
For any organization wanting to keep members, it is vital to have such a concept. It keeps the members (or congregation) worried and needy of grace and absolution (or, as we call it, discipline).
That's not to say that there is no sin or ego, or no need for grace or absolution or discipline (all at their own level) but that organizations twist these things to their own ends.
Wilfrids - I am interested in the concept - and need for - humility in the School. One never hears this word spoken, although it is fundamental to the teaching of all Churches.
Rather the opposite is recommended - a search for power.
So, although there are practices to lessen identification and encourage sacrifice - without humility the School will always regard itself as, in some way, the chosen people.
Laura
I agree. It doesn't come over as a search for power, but when you think about many of the words we use, ie "useful", "efficiency", "helpful", "powerful", "practical", "effective" ... a lot of our emphasis is on "doing" and things that help that.
This goes back to karma yoga being the School's 'thing'. Humility is part of karma yoga, because one has to put aside the personal, but it isn't the main focus. There is a difference between being personally absent, and being present in humility.
This is one area where we can, each of us, be... er... effective. By witnessing the uses and abuses of power, and by keeping humility in our hearts, and by speaking up, we can make a difference.
I see humility as really the natural state of man not really something to be practised. Feeling that you are special and therefore inevitably separate from everyone else does seem to me to be very much a practice or rather an easy trap for the unwary. However, I wasn't really thinking about the member's of the school: even though it is probably a good thing for an individual to recognise. I was thinking of the idea in relation to the school itself ie the idea that the school is special. Every member could be truly humble but if he/she carries the idea that the school is special then the same barriers apply as apply to the individual. Of course, all this only exists in the minds of individuals but it is a collective idea so ......
I just feel that abandoning this idea of being special could release a very powerful force for good through the school because then the truth is loved for what it is, not through whom it came. It melts away the barriers....
Yes, it would melt barriers, you're quite right.
It's also a question of to what am I of service?
We've just been asked to fill in a survey on our experience of group. One form of humility is asking real questions (ie not "is this not so?"!!) and this will release a lot of people from the belief that they don't matter to the organization.
Wilfrids, it would be interesting to hear of your own experience in School?
Their concerns - if they express them - will also need to be noted and taken seriously, otherwise it will be a futile exercise. I'd be interested to hear what questions are being asked?
On the subject of questions I've just spent an interesting day at a Mandeville symposium on creativity.
Although the whole day was bright and enjoyable, for me the best part were the 'releasing' (my word) practices. These started with 5 minutes continuous writing of whatever came into your head. This clears a lot of junk out of the way. You then throw the paper away and never, ever re-read it. It's a good plumbing exercise for unblocking.
The 2nd exercise was to solve a mystery: 'Opposite your house is another house with a garden and in that garden you see a lady burying 3 red socks in different parts of the garden. Why?' Working in small groups people offered varying interpretations of murder mysteries, treasure hunts, annoying the husband and Feng Shiu practices. The most recognisable was that she was no longer an Arsenal fan and was now supporting Chelsea!
Other exercises included an Edward de Bono one. Any situation you write down in I minute the pluses, next minute the minuses and the 3rd minute what's interesting.
The 4th exercise was to design a car made by Nokia and describe its features.
The great thing about these exercises was that there was no right or wrong to any of the offerings, there was no product as such, it was very quick and it was freeing. Lots of laughter, lots of interest and a delight in the process.
Could be very easily adaptable to philosophy teaching on the 'show, don't tell' principle of good teaching.
Post a Comment