Ben's Work Notes

05/13/2026

ATHENIAN: Consider, then, to whom our state is to be entrusted. For there is a thing which has occurred times without number in states—
CLEINIAS: What thing?
ATHENIAN: That when there has been a contest for power, those who gain the upper hand so entirely monopolize the government, as to refuse all share to the defeated party and their descendants—they live watching one another, the ruling class being in perpetual fear that someone who has a recollection of former wrongs will come into power and rise up against them. Now, according to our view, such governments are not polities at all, nor are laws right which are passed for the good of particular classes and not for the good of the whole state. States which have such laws are not polities but parties, and their notions of justice are simply unmeaning. I say this, because I am going to assert that we must not entrust the government in your state to anyone because he is rich, or because he possesses any other advantage, such as strength, or stature, or again birth: but he who is most obedient to the laws of the state, he shall win the palm; and to him who is victorious in the first degree shall be given the highest office and chief ministry of the gods; and the second to him who bears the second palm; and on a similar principle shall all the other offices be assigned to those who come next in order.

Plato: Laws, Book 4

05/04/2026

We just republished Bennett’s Sunday Talks at Coombe Springs. A copy is in front of me. I observe the subtitle “Practical themes for human transformation”. There is also a monograph titled “Transformation” (although this title was chosen by editor Ken Pledge.) My question is: what is meant by transformation, and why do we accept as axiomatic that it is necessary or even desirable? In Gurdjieff’s model of human psychology, everything is either essence or personality, with nothing left over. Once again, I am amazed that so few people remark or comment on the connection between Gurdjieff and Plato. Transformation of the personality—if it occurs—is the result of education, environmental conditioning and maturation. What about the transformation of essence? How is it possible to transform what one is? And what are the factors that determine what one is? I am not self-created and did not make myself according to a decision or plan. My parents? They could—and did—attempt to shape my personality, like most parents. But did they have any notion of procreating WHAT I would be? The principles of astrology—the “meaning of the stars”—even though researched and developed over centuries and millennia—are definitely speculative, but are considered to be an indication of what the master-plan, the matrix, of a human being is, and therefore what MAY be. What is it that determines WHAT a person will be, and if this is predetermined, WHY is it so? Why are siblings, raised together, so different?

Bennett’s insistence on transformation implies that he was not happy or satisfied with what he was, and wished to change. The old joke: How many psychotherapists does it take to change a lightbulb? Answer: one, but the lightbulb REALLY has to want to change. In Herman Hesse’s Siddharha, the end of the prince’s journey is that he is content to be what he is—reminiscent of the T.S. Eliot poem I quoted some time back. Bennett often referred to the Christian teaching of original sin. I first learned about this when my little sister was a newborn, and I remember looking at her and thinking, how can such a little helpless child be considered to be in a state of sin? I cry “Bullsh*t!”—but doubts persist. Genesis chapter 3, the story of the Fall of Adam and Eve suggests that, as soon as we begin to observe, think, and process our observations, the possibility and even the certainty of sin enters us. But this is happening after we are already formed. If I am autistic, for example, this is a lifelong condition, and cannot be transformed, only mitigated. Is this a result of random selection, or predetermined, and if so according to what laws? This puts a different spin on the first of the Beatitudes: Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Those who have little preconditioning are worthy to be rulers of higher worlds. Where does that leave the rest of us?

04/10/2026

Workmanship is a term used as a kind blue-collar equivalent of professionalism. Riffing on this theme, a British writer named Stephen Potter published a book in 1947 which he titled “The Theory and Practice of Gamesmanship, or The Art of Winning Games Without Actually Cheating”. His book was a great success and led to various spinoffs and certain words entering the popular vocabulary – such as ‘one-upmanship’, ‘brinkmanship’ etc. Potter wittily drew attention to ways in which we ordinarily manipulate one another in our ordinary interactions, (a darker and more depressing take on this was given in R.D. Laing’s “Knots”.) Now in the 21st Century, “Work”manship has taken on a more specialized significance, which in turn is a spinoff of Gurdjieff-manship, as we try to outdo one another in our attempts to unearth ever deeper and deeper meanings to Work and Fourth Way teachings. Back in the 90s, some wag put up an April 1 gag inviting entries for the Fourth Way Olympics, in which events included Practical Work timed trials, X-treme Movements, Self-Remembering Smackdown, Group Leader Authenticity Challenge, Summarizing Beelzebub-athon etc. It was a joke but drew attention to ways in which ordinary group work tends to indulge “work personalities” and lead us into a lot of time-wasting and blind alleys. Social media can be a very reactive medium, through which it is tempting to respond quickly and impulsively, knocking one another down, trying to outdo or set others straight. Gurdjieff and Ouspensky’s names are hugely popular on social media.

Several decades ago, I was for about two years a member of a Gestalt group. We were a fairly representative cross-section of thirty-something Londoners, and on a weekly basis we met to explore and express our feelings of stress, love, hatred, rage, sadness, fear, anxiety, sexuality etc. I was at that time simultaneously a member of a “work” group of which my own mother was one of the elders, affectionately known as the Gang of Four. I was staggered by the distinction between the two groups, and the Gestalt group felt so much more relevant to me. I was a participant in the Gestalt group when my mother sickened and died from cancer of the liver. A prominent Gestalt therapist at that time observed that people tend to engage in the therapeutic process from one of two possible motives – either to try to change, or to get help with staying the same. In our “work” communities and groups, a similar distinction can probably be discerned. The “workmanship” leads to competitiveness between group members and groups themselves, as we vie for authenticity. An obvious example is to be seen with the current preoccupation with “lineage”, or the claim of authenticity proportional to the number of years a certain individual was in contact with Gurdjieff. The natural attraction towards gerontocracy means that we listen to all manner of repetitive nonsense coming out of the mouths of people whose only qualification to be heard is that they are old. Give me a break!

03/21/2026

Sometime in the 1990s, the London Institute of Group Analysis published findings to the effect that in an established group, there is a tendency for the members to “act out” the unconscious processes of its leader, and that none of the parties involved are aware of this. This reminded me of a remark by a former Sherborne House student that she and other women students observed that their menstrual cycles seemed to become synchronized. When I mentioned this to a friend who is a healthcare professional, she told me that this is a well-documented effect where women live together, and that it is usually observed that there is a “lead menstruator” whose cycle the other women follow. Taken together, these findings seem to suggest that there is both a psychological and an organic/somatic tendency to follow a leader, whether intentionally or otherwise, and irrespective of the leader's self-assertion. My personal observation is that this is a likely eventuality in Fourth Way groups or any groups where members experience intense feelings of admiration for a group leader and they unquestioningly copy their ideology and mimic him/her in mannerisms and even appearance—as witness the number of men in Gurdjieff groups who shave their heads and grow big mustaches. Gurdjieff allegedly valued initiative and creativity of thought, even as he vilified and ridiculed those who exhibited them. Bennett encouraged his Sherborne students to practice skills of leadership and even referred to the planned Sixth Course as a Course for New World Leaders!

What is there in our canon of “work” teachings that is either open to question, is actually no longer valuable or even is obsolete? It is probably more useful to view the work teaching as a kind of encyclopedia, rather than a set of rules which must be followed without divergence from any detail at every stage of our lives. Using intelligence and discrimination, we can access teachings, technique and guidance appropriate to our level of experience and particular requirements. But I have to say that some teachings which I blindly repeated in the past are now anathema to me. The famous “Step Diagram” of Man #1 through #7, imparted by Gurdjieff to Ouspensky in 1916 and taught in groups ever since, now appears to me as a recipe for disaster, for the most destructive kind of spiritual materialism. But there is a conundrum here: those that lead must lead from the front and by example. They must teach what they know. But unless they have reached the stage of “Blessed are the poor in spirit” and understand that they have no spiritual possessions, they are leading from a position of falsehood. Bennett’s answer was along the lines of “Speak first and ask questions later”, not being delayed by the inner considering of asking “How can I pass anything on to others when I myself am so ignorant and empty inside?” Our dear departed Michael Sutton would have expressed his favorite maxim “Trust the Work!”—tantamount to “Help will come!”

03/07/2026

“Either be what you appear to be, or appear to be what you are,” said Jellaludin Rumi—allegedly, and this seems to correspond to the Gurdjieff/Ouspensky doctrine of Personality and Essence, where Personality is what you appear to be, and Essence is what you are. The problem is that such doctrines are likely to mislead us if we accept them at face value and superficially in the early stages of our Work, and become habituated to not challenging them; of failing to question whether we really understand the full meaning of either term, and whether it is either/or. According to the principle of the mutuality of Essence and Existence, Essence is what is and Existence is what becomes. However, in ISOTM (p. 161), G. states: “It must be understood that man consists of two parts: essence and personality. Essence in man is what is his own. Personality in man is what is ‘not his own.’ ‘Not his own’ means what has come from outside, what he has learned, or reflects, all traces of exterior impressions left in the memory and in the sensations, all words and movements that have been learned, all feelings created by imitation—all this is ‘not his own,’ all this is personality.” I don’t feel comfortable with this definition, not so much the personality half of the statement, but that a) it asserts that all is either one or the other; also b) that the suggestion of the ownership of essence implies a third element.

A more troubling concern is that taking this model of Essence beyond human psychology gives us a counterfeit notion of the universe, even as presented by those we regard as our teachers. Does the mutuality of essence and existence pertain to higher bodies? Bennett remarked on one occasion that “the body is almost pure essence” which accords with the Gurdjieff quote above, but not with either Plato or Jean-Paul “Existence precedes essence!” Sartre. Rumi’s remark suggests that our task is to bring about the congruence of essence and personality. But what is ‘essence’ in the human sense, other than “what is his own”? Does it change or transform? Or is essence immutable? If essence is unique to each individual, what are its parameters? Can essence be evil or destructive, and thus make the task of an individual’s personality to either attempt to mitigate its manifestations, or give in to it? What if we are “born under a bad sign”, as in the classic Albert King song? So we can extend our inquiry about Essence beyond human beings (psychology) to the essence of the world (cosmology) and the Essence of higher powers and God (theology). All of these three studies are taken together and aspects of each help to clarify the rest. Bennett’s metaphor: “Plenty of people can tell us what electricity does, but nobody can tell us what electricity is”. The question “Who am I?” concerns my manifest part (my personality) while the question “What am I?” examines my Essence.

02/23/2026

If you find that you are interested in these notes, you might also be interested in this printed volume I put together just before Christmas, and published on Amazon for $7.95. I really only made this little booklet so that I could get a point across to a certain individual I know who has an abhorrence of social media and would never read what I wrote otherwise. The advantage of print-on-demand is that I can update at any time, so I apologize to the person in England who bought the only printed copy—I think I added five more pages since they bought it. I am attempting to tease out a clear narrative from a myriad disparate threads, but I’m not highly educated. (I barely passed my A-Levels!) “It is precisely because there is little time and because there are many difficulties ahead that it is necessary to do as I am doing,” said G. “If you are afraid of these difficulties, what will it be like later on? Do you think that anything is given in a completed form in schools? You look at this very naïvely. You must be cunning, you must pretend, lead up to things in conversation. Sometimes things are learned from jokes, from stories. And you want everything to be very simple. This never happens. You must know how to take when it is not given, to steal if necessary, but not to wait for somebody to come and give it to you.” [ISOTM p. 277]

Both Gurdjieff and Bennett laid great emphasis on not wasting time. The words quoted above were recorded in 1916 during the Great War. Bennett was a young soldier—20 years old when he shipped out—who spent eleven weeks in the combat zone before being wounded and returned to England. He met Gurdjieff and Ouspensky soon after their respective escapes from the Bolshevik Civil War, and reconnected with Gurdjieff just three years after the end of the greatest mass destruction in human history. After the comparative hiatus of the 1950s and 1960s, a series of events in the early 1970s reminded us all that the time of crisis was far from over and was likely to become more intense rather than less. We are now living in the 21st century under radically different conditions. Those old enough to remember what life and the world were like previously are winding down their activities and preparing for a quiet old age. But if the Fourth Way really serves to steer thought and intention, then it must be acknowledged that this idea of ours is not something that reveals itself naturally and readily—it must be shown; and those that are prepared and self-qualified to lead must be proactive. It is for this reason that I keep trying to communicate what is important to me, and how to share it with others. (But I'm so inept in social media usage that I inadvertently opened this page under the classification of Real Estate!)

02/21/2026

Many years ago, during a discussion centring on Gurdjieff’s Five Obligolnian Strivings, (Beelzebub p. 386) a member of the group asked the question: why is “the conscious striving to know ever more and more concerning the laws of World-creation and World-maintenance” necessary? Ken Pledge, a physics professor, replied without missing a beat, “Because we need to understand the reasons why we work.” There is a third view. In 1974, Bennett gave a stunning talk [The Notion of the transfinite, Sherborne House May 1974] in which he used an exposition of set theory to open a discussion on infinity and higher dimensions. I wasn’t present for the lectures and had to listen to the recordings at least six times before the penny dropped. The “striving to know ever more and more” means to never cease to ask questions; but there is a dimensional difference between the questions “What?” and the questions “Why?” for which Bennett uses the terms: Fact and Value. The man who asked about the necessity for the Third Striving took the view that dedicating his life to righteous activity was sufficient - and axiomatic - and no further inquiry was necessary. In this respect, he was affirming the “ways of Objective Morality.” Bennett on the other hand, made it clear that striving to “understand” opened doors that otherwise remained closed, and that seeing the Pattern and one’s own place in it was tantamount to assisting the work of the higher powers and would bring unexpected and objective rewards.

What, if any, are the objective benefits of activities that are loosely grouped under the heading of the Fourth Way? How does the world as a whole fit into the scheme? Fifty years ago, in his “Cults of Unreason”, Christopher Evans analyzed group activity, firstly of ordinary religious communities and congregations seeking new paths; also for-profit religious groups – those which collect resources beyond their requirements and enrich their leaders; and then those which not only enrich their leaders but also take steps to prevent members from leaving. I was amused some years ago to learn that a teenage daughter of two group members told her friends that her parents were cult members. What is generally termed the “Fourth Way” can hardly be called a cult according to Dr. Evans’ definitions, but appears to be more akin to physical and psychological therapy. Activities are based on congregations without overt rules (albeit with unstated rules). Self-development is just that, with the possibility that it might indirectly be of benefit to others. The Two Streams of Life Doctrine divides us into those who ask “what?” – seeking ways to make their world and everybody else’s function – and those who ask “Why?” and thereby seek for reasons and directions. Both questions are infinite as we strive to “know ever more and more”. Bennett’s three “time-like dimensions”: ordinary time sees impermanence and decay. Eternity is the repository of all that can be in essence. Hyparxis is the dimension of Creation, of what is coming into being.

02/14/2026

Fifty years ago, I lived in this house in Little Venice. It wasn’t as posh in those days, and about 10 former Sherborne House students lived communally and rowdily in the house behind that tree. One day I was doing a little maintenance work on the stairway of the house, and chanced to overhear a conversation between two women, discussing a third. One woman remarked that “our essences love each other, but our personalities cannot get along.” I was struck at the time that this seemed to presuppose that Essence is a kind of virtual counterpart to the Manifest, and has a similar anatomy to the personality. As years passed, I continued to ponder on the meaning of Essence, and observed that we tended to use the word as though it was congruent with “soul”, “being” or even “higher-being-body”. Around that time, I also heard someone say that a certain individual had “loads of being”—a phrase intended as a compliment. Our group had a limited vocabulary of vague terms for which we shared an imagined understanding. The word Essence appears frequently in Gurdjieff’s writings, and I noticed that I myself tended to let it past me as though I knew what was meant. Then there is the little matter of “chief feature”, which serves as the interface between Essence and Personality. In “In Search of the Miraculous”, the use by Gurdjieff and discussion of this term seem to indicate that its meaning evolved over the years reported by Ouspensky.

“All nature, then as self-sustained, consists of twain of things: of bodies and of void in which they’re set, and where they’re moved around,” wrote Lucretius in De Rerum Naturae. If the “twain of things” are Existence (bodies) and Essence (void), then they also have the distinction between what IS and what BECOMES. In Gurdjieff’s terms, World maintenance is what is, while World creation is what becomes. In psychological terms, this places a rather different spin on our understanding of Essence. Bennett’s descriptions in Witness of Gurdjieff’s reported words include the terms, in addition to essence: being, soul, ‘unmortal’. Throwing such terms together leads inevitably to confusion. But I was also struck when, elsewhere in Witness, he referred to his inability to change his “essential nature”; in Intimations, the discovery that when he thought he had changed, the same man rose up again; he never really went away. Surely the goal is to bring about the reconciliation of personality and essence, that what becomes is a faithful manifestation of what is. Is the goal of “transformation” to BECOME what one IS? Napoleon Bonaparte, the “Man of Destiny,” is said to have been the most ‘competent’ individual who ever lived, Hannibal the greatest general. Both men died in ignominy. Is fulfillment of Destiny the reauthentication of Essence?

In Little Gidding, T.S. Eliot wrote:

We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time.

02/04/2026

“Les gens sont plutôt bon que mauvais,” wrote Albert Camus in “La Peste”. By my reckoning this is only half the story. In Alien 2, Ripley says to the sneaky company guy that she doesn’t see the aliens “f**king each other over for a percentage.” In Gurdjieff's Beelzebub’s Tales, the chapter “War” discusses the reason for human beings’ reciprocal destruction. A quarter of the way through the 21st Century, the population explosion appears finally to be losing its momentum, but even so the overcrowding of some areas is unlike anything previously seen. My own sense is that it is nothing short of a miracle that the mass destruction of the 1930s and 1940s has not recurred. Many years ago, in counseling training, the question of suicidal ideation was addressed. One approach is to ask the person envisioning su***de, whom do they imagine will discover their co**se. This is often an indication of what and to whom they wish to express about themselves and are unable to do so in life. In the case of the suicidal mass shootings that are now so common in the United States, the answer to such a question appears to be that the entire community must witness their pain and rage. There are now 50% more guns than human beings in the U.S. and when a person purchases a lethal weapon, the most likely person to die by it is the owner. The question I ask myself is why there are so FEW gun deaths?

Tangentially, when I look at the books that I inherited from my father John Bennett, I notice that there are many authors that I entirely disregarded when I considered my father’s training journey, and these are mostly to do with “occult” studies—Helena Blavatsky, Alice Bailey, H.K. Challoner et al. Bennett is often stigmatized by members of the Orthodox Gurdjieff Foundations for his wide-ranging researches, but in fact during the 1920s he explored avenues that he never subsequently mentioned, possibly because they were so wacky. But although many people appear to act as though Gurdjieff had the final answers, my working hypothesis is that his presentation is inconclusive, as it does not take into account that higher powers actually protect the manifest world in general and human life in particular. WHY they do so is entirely beyond my ken. I went last night to the home of man whose last name was Sayed. After concluding our business, I asked him if he was descended from the Prophet? This led to a most interesting discussion as he turned out to be extremely widely read, and he remarked to me that “we Muslims do not acknowledge the Divinity of Christ.” This interested me as I recently became aware that I myself shared this belief. However, there is no question in my mind that Christ—as well as Mary and many others—are in the role of protectors of mankind and the World. Other forces may act invisibly but still guide human life.

01/26/2026

Aksehir is a pleasant little town about an hour’s drive west of Konya. At one time it was considered strategic, but is now mostly an agricultural hub. Above all though, it is associated with Mulla Nassr Eddin, mentioned in more than 100 passages in Gurdjieff’s Beelzebub’s Tales. He is not considered a saint, and his tomb is in the center of a public cemetery. His name means roughly “he who helps religion”. The tomb is enclosed by a six-sided structure, allowing access through five of the openings, the sixth being securely barred and locked with a padlock for which nobody knows the whereabouts of the key. Inquiring in the little gift shop nearby, I was told a story of Mulla Nassr Eddin, which commences with him sitting on a branch cutting with a saw. When his neighbor approaches and points out to him that he will fall if he continues cutting between the trunk and himself, he persists against this sound advice, cuts through the branch, and experiences a rude awakening. The stunned Mulla picks himself up, runs after the neighbor, and convinced that the man has the gift of foreseeing the future, begs to be told when he can expect his own death? The neighbor, exasperated by his idiocy, gives the most absurd reply he can think of which is that he will die after his donkey has brayed three times. The Mulla, terrified, is quite unable to prevent his faithful donkey from braying in response to normal occurrences.

At the third bray of his donkey, the Mulla surrenders himself to what he believes is his fate and lies down apparently lifeless outside his house, where he is found by his wife. She, unable to revive him, calls the community to prepare his funeral. As an honored friend, the Mulla, still doing his best to be dead, is washed and wrapped and then certain members of the community lift up his body and set off for the cemetery. But they reach a fork in the road, and unable to agree on which route to take, they set the Mulla down and begin to argue. As the debate continues unresolved, the Mulla is unable to resist joining in, sits up and declares to all: “When I was alive, we always took the right-hand path!” This is one of several stories in which the Mulla appears to be dead, but can revive himself to give guidance. What strikes me personally about this story is the willingness of a single individual to cut himself from the main trunk and to subject himself to a humiliating fall. The Mulla is often shown with a donkey, which Idries Shah opines is a symbol of the relationship of a wise man with an ordinary ignorant animal - symbolizing common humanity. I don’t like this suggestion. Gurdjieff refers to the Mulla as “the wisest of the wise” and “our dear Mulla” etc. He portrays him as irreverent, a mocker, but also a paragon of common sense.

01/22/2026

65 Then they found one of Our servants whom We had granted mercy from Us and whom We had taught knowledge from Ourselves.
66 Moses said to him: May I follow thee that thou mayest teach me of the good thou hast been taught?
67 He said: Thou canst not have patience with me.
68 And how canst thou have patience in that whereof thou hast not a comprehensive knowledge?
69 He said: If Allāh please, thou wilt find me patient, nor shall I disobey thee in aught.
70 He said: If thou wouldst follow me, question me not about aught until I myself speak to thee about it.
71 So they set out until, when they embarked in a boat, he made a hole in it. (Moses) said: Hast thou made a hole in it to drown its occupants? Thou hast surely done a grievous thing.
72 He said: Did I not say that thou couldst not have patience with me?
73 He said: Blame me not for what I forgot, and be not hard upon me for what I did.
74 So they went on, until, when they met a boy, he slew him. (Moses) said: Hast thou slain an innocent person, not guilty of slaying another? Thou hast indeed done a horrible thing.
75 He said: Did I not say to thee that thou couldst not have patience with me?
76 He said: If I ask thee about anything after this, keep not company with me. Thou wilt then indeed have found an excuse in my case.
77 So they went on, until, when they came to the people of a town, they asked its people for food, but they refused to entertain them as guests. Then they found in it a wall which was on the point of falling, so he put it into a right state. (Moses) said: If thou hadst wished, thou couldst have taken a recompense for it.
78 He said: This is the parting between me and thee. Now I will inform thee of the significance of that with which thou couldst not have patience.
79 As for the boat, it belonged to poor people working on the river, and I intended to damage it, for there was behind them a king who seized every boat by force.
80 And as for the boy, his parents were believers and we feared lest he should involve them in wrongdoing and disbelief.
81 So we intended that their Lord might give them in his place one better in purity and nearer to mercy.
82 And as for the wall, it belonged to two orphan boys in the city, and there was beneath it a treasure belonging to them, and their father had been a righteous man. So thy Lord intended that they should attain their maturity and take out their treasure—a mercy from thy Lord—and I did not do it of my own accord. This is the significance of that with which thou couldst not have patience.

The Holy Qur’an, Chapter 18: The Cave

There are many possible takeaways from this, the most obvious of which is that seemingly shockingly disastrous and incomprehensible events are actually demiurgic in character - in other words the result of actions by higher powers. Then the repeated words “Did I not say to thee that thou couldst not have patience with me?”, suggests to us that our impatience for tangible results blinds us to the actions of higher powers. The repetition underscores this. The ‘servant’ is generally considered to be al-Khidr, pupil of the archangel Gabriel, who had been taught “knowledge from Ourselves.” It is hard to feel compassion for one who appears to revel in his own depravity, but I believe this is the way forward.

Send a message to learn more