Talk:Centers (Fourth Way)/Archive 1

Comment 1

A lot of this is very very wrong. Does the person who wrote this mind if I change this? TheGunslinger 19:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I'll do it anyway. I'll post what I'm doing here.TheGunslinger 19:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Bodies of Man

I've added a section on how the Fourth Way generally views the four bodies of man. I've written stuff there now, I'll fill it out with links and fix it as necessary as a move on and fill out the rest of the page. If you have an criticisms on the way I've represented the bodies, please let me know. I, myself, am involved in The Work, so after a certain amount of time how I look at things becomes more "how I have learned to understand them as they relate to myself" and less "exactly as they are presented in G.'s teachings." So if I have misrepresented something I shouldn't have, please let me know. Thanks

TheGunslinger 19:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Centers

I've presented what I believe to be the commonly accepted view of the centers. I believe this view is supported by Ouspensky, and just about every first or second line initiate who has put The Work to text, as well as what I've come to learn from oral tradition. I'm going to soon make a diagram to visually represent the relationship between the centers.

TheGunslinger 10:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

About centers in man

The three centers seem to be a simplification of four actual centers: the emotional center, dealing with feelings, impressions and other people, able to work with H12; the instinctive center, dealing with all the internal functions of man,and working with H24; the moving center, dealing with internal and external movements, and working also with H24; and the intellectual center, dealing with ideas and working with H48.

There is another lower center, called the sex center, a sort of storage for all the energies available, and two higher centers, the Higher Emotional, working with H12, and the Higher Intellectual, working with H6. However, the nature of these three centers can only be practically understood (by struggling to use them to produce self-remembering), so the study should start by the four others.

Of course, the hydrogens they can work with is just a possibility (in relation to the emotional center). In general, the four centers work highly unbalanced and this is the main reason for men not to be able to reach their higher centers at will.

Rodney Collin talks of these four different intelligences in man. Also Susan Zannos has a thorough study on the subject. There she shows how the four suits were used to represent these four centers: diamonds for the intellectual center, hearts for the emotional center, spades for the moving center, and clubs for the instinctive center. She shows, besides, how the three court cards are used to represent three levels of attention within man for each of the lower centers.

Moreover, the ancient Tarot cards show, within their minor arcana, how each suit corresponds to a center. However, in the Tarot cards there are four court cards indicating four different parts for the centers. The reason of the common deck showing three levels instead of four, has to do with the similar hydrogen used by the instinctive and the moving centers: H24, which can also be the reason of Gurdjieff presentation of only three centers.

If any doubt arises regarding the separate existence of an instinctive and a moving center, one can consider that the instinctive center is born complete: nobody teaches the newborn baby how to breathe at birth, or to suck to be fed some hours later; however, it has to learn how to hold his feeding bottle some months later, or to stand and walk by himself some time later yet.

Baby Dove 07:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not a simplification, since Gurdjieff classified humans as having three brains and not four.

And since this article is supposed to give a broad overview of Gurdjieff's Fourth Way, the hydrogen numbers and different interpretations of what Gurdjieff meant, don't need to be added here at all. Aeuio 15:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Well who'd figure - from fof page - "It is believed that these I's stem from four independent minds or functions in man, which are called lower centers..." "The four centers and all the I's they produce..." - Don't even try to add this stuff again. Aeuio 20:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Aeiou, this is not fof - it is Ouspensky. Check here ("Human machine has seven different functions, five ordinarily and two potential. Four lower functions = centres = brains = minds, each has its own sphere of interest, range of speed of perception, observation, reaction.") and here ("To simplify, what Walter does is as follows. He takes Jung's four functions and Ouspensky's four functions, pools them into one group, discards duplicates, and counts."). The last writer talks about "Ouspensky's four functions" as something very well known. Do you think he made that up? Mario Fantoni 02:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Answered below.Aeuio 02:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You cannot simply delete what others do

Aeuio:

You cannot delete what others do. You said what was your understanding regarding the Fourth Way's idea of centers, and therefore I did not change what you have written. But I added this as a different section, allowing the reader to receive another point of view which does not invalidate what Mr. Gurdjieff said, which is not neccessarily a FOF idea, as you mistakenly say. Rodney Collin, a direct disciple of Mr. Ouspensky wrote about this, as I quoted in the section you deleted.

Regards, Baby Dove 22:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

In this case I sure can and will. Listen: GURDJIEFF introduced the fourth way. GURDJIEFF said that there were three main centers. End of story. Whatever someone else said and interpreted won't be added. And yes, four centers idea does invalidate what Gurdjieff said - if you read Beelzebub's Tales you'd know this. Aeuio 22:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Aeuio:

As far as I know, the Fourth Way is not a copyrighted name belonging to Mr. Gurdjieff. The same way Mr. Ouspensky quotes that he learnt from Mr. Gurdjieff, The latter quotes he was tought about the ways, and he even wrote Meetings with Remarkable Men describing how did he learn much of his knowledge. 'Sacred knowledge seems to be a chain as old as man is, and to my understanding, nobody has ever claimed that he has created anything; not even Mr Gurdjieff.'

Some people in the Fourth Way believes that he was the real teacher in this way, but many others believe that Mr. Ouspensky has developed many things that Mr. G. did not. The four centers are very well explained in Ouspensky's Psychology of Man's Possible Evolution, and I am not sure his writings can be easily ignored as a Fourth Way tradition. The same with Mr. Collin's The Theory of Celestial Influence, especially in Mexico and South America.

Wilkipedia is an open encyclopedia where anyone can edit [see home page]. Therefore, if you do not agree with other's opinion, you have other means other than simply deciding to erase it.

I will get my sources for the necessary citation, and I will reopen it, because I think the interested reader would like to know how has this idea been developed through time. As I said in the erased article, the Tarot includes figures of these four centers in its minor arcana, and it is much older than Mr. Gurdjieff presentation.

Regards, Baby Dove 01:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

First, since Gurdjieff introduced the Fourth Way, then what Gurdjieff said is what the Fourth Way article is going to say. It's true that Gurdjieff didn't event the system, but...since no one really invented it... and he INTRODUCE it is credited solely to him. If you know - not speculate - who thought the system before him, than you could probably write a book on that.

Second, If you wish to add the what Rodney Collin said, then do it on his page and not on Gurdjieff's.

Lastly, I find it very intriguing that everyone keeps ignoring what Gurdjieff says, and persistently pushing towards what others have claimed about Gurdjieff's teaching. Since you haven't read Gurdjieff's work, I am listing here couple of quotes (it's not word for word because I had to shorten it for obvious reasons, so I provided page numbers for refernces) from Gurdjieff's own work Beelzebub's Tales to His Grandson, which completely disprove of any four center theory:

(Note: I wrote thus to mean that he goes to explain how)

1)When Okidanokh enters a being through all three kinds of food it spits into three parts according to the law of Triamazikamno, and forms in the given being three independent formations called "brains" thus...pg. 143

2)These three localizations or brains are located in beings thus...(long explanation - mentioned in the Fourth Way article) pg. 146

3)These beings who have this three-brained system can perfect themselves thus...pg 145

4)Beings can form a law of three in themselves by utilizing the three brains thus... pg 145

5)These three brains in beings form an analogy between humans and the Universe thus...pg 778

6)Through the entire book Gurdjieff refers to humans as THREE-BRAIN-BEINGS. pg. nearly every

If you can source someone that claims that Gurdjieff really meant that humans have four brains, and every claim above is somehow reasonably justified, then I will add it to the article. But since you can't, don't bother with the four center theory anymore. I have every intention (and probably will) to write a section called "disproving four center theory", and as you can see above (+ I'll add more) I have no problem with sources and info. Aeuio 02:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You are both right. If you call the instinctive-moving brain "one center", then human beings have 3 brains. If you separate them, then human beings have 4 brains. This discussion is a good example of the mecanical part of the intellectual center, the "formatory apparatus." Mario Fantoni 02:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I provided evidence to prove that Gurdjieff taught that beings have three brains and not four. What you or someone else wants to count as a brain because that makes more sense to you/him...keep it on a blog and not here Aeuio 02:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know this was a Gurdjieff page, I thought it was a Fourth Way page. Mario Fantoni 02:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

"Fourth Way" is the name of Gurdjieff's teaching. What the fof interprets the fourth way to be, can be kept to the fof page. Aeuio 03:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know that Ouspensky is not considered part of the Fouth Way. By the way, Aeiou, do you own this page or can other editors give suggestions too? Who said that your interpretation of the Fourth Way is the only one? Just curious. Mario Fantoni 03:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why you keep saying that its my interpretation, but since you are right about anyone editing, we'll then both add our parts about the 4 center theory and be done with this. Aeuio 12:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Aeiou, thank you for understading. I will do the edit later today and post a comment here for you to know. Let me know what you think. Mario Fantoni 16:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Aeuio:

After reading this conversation here, I see you would not object that this item you deleted would be restored to the site. I will do it.

Regards, Baby Dove 17:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, I added what I wrote earlier/ changed your title (I think its better)/ and deleted your last sentence which can't really explain Gurdjieff's claims which I added. Aeuio 20:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Subtle Bodies

What is this doing in the "Centers" page? Mario Fantoni 02:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Reason: No need for a hundred pages Mario. Aeuio 02:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Tell me, what is the connection between "centers" and "bodies"? Shouldn't "bodies" be in the Fourth Way page? Thanks, Mario Fantoni 04:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that it would look out of place in the Fourth Way article. Maybe we should just rename this page to better suited one? Aeuio 12:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. What about "Centers and Bodies of Man"? Mario Fantoni 16:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

We have to throw in "Fourth Way" in there before someone complains that that division is not an official scientific division. Aeuio 20:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I added a section about the division of attention, and it ties "the centers" and "the higher bodies" together. :-) 70.181.249.200 18:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Jennifer Thieme

References

Since all the references are in those books I think its more suited to throw a bibliography in there than to reference anything - unless someone specifically asks. Aeuio 20:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Ouspensky

After checking, I want to note that Ouspensky clearly stated in The Search of Miraculous and in The Psychology of Man's Possible Evolution that he divides people into five different centers (beside the two higher ones): thinking, emotional, motor, instinctive and sex... and therefore not four as it is written. I think to avoid conflicts you should fix that instead of me. Aeuio 02:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Aeuio:

If you read the part I added, I mention the sex center as another lower center. I can add something else regarding this center, usually ommitted only for pedagogical reasons. As this center (also called Main Accumulator by Ouspensky) is the one storing all the precious finest hydrogens in the human machine, and cannot select to whom he would give these energies, it is rather difficult to understand it before you start trying to balance the other four lower centers. There is a lot of literature on this, from Ouspensky and others, and if you like, I can add an item on wrong work of centers.

Regards, Baby Dove 17:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Then change the "simplification of four actual centers" in the first sentence to "simplification of five actual centers", as it is what Ouspensky claimed. Aeuio 19:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

O well, I corrected it my self. I stated Ouspensky's claim under a separate heading, and I shortened Rodney Collin's theory a bit, and deleted the unencyclopedic claims and the stuff about H's which is completely out of place in the article. Aeuio 02:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Susan Zannos

The only thing I found about her by doing a quick google search is [|this], which are her books. If this is her, then no way are her theories going to be written as she is not a "Fourth Way author". If you disagree, well then I can basically use the wiki sources rule which state that "Anyone can publish a book about anything and claim to be an expert" - and it seems to me that that's exactly what she did, as she writes about everything and anything. Aeuio 02:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I am glad you remembered this rule about expertise. It remains to see whether she is not actually an expert in the field. The book seems consistent, regarding the centers, with Ouspensky's one in "The Psychology and Cosmology of Man's Possible Evolution", Agora Books, East Sussex, UK, 1989, save that Mr. Ouspensky did not use the deck of playing cards to present this idea. But all the divisions of centers are actually the same in both works. The ideas of Mrs. Zannos not being "a Fourth Way author" is rather subjective. How do you classify who is a Fourth Way author?

Regards, Baby Dove 05:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

She has written around thirty books which don't have anything in common (there is page two in that link), and she wrote one book about the fourth way. That in no way classifies her as an expert in Fourth Way. Aeuio 11:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

POV are not about just Susan Zannos

Aeuio:

When someone writes a book and an important publisher just as Weiser Books accepts it, it should be enough guarantee to consider that this author has been found serious about the matter. However, I agree that Mrs. Zannos cannot be considered a Fourth Way teacher as to compare her to Mr. Ouspensky. Somehow she presented a very clear version of what Mr. Ouspensky wrote in "The Psychology and Cosmology of Man's Possible Evolution", Agora Books, East Sussex, UK, showing how can the deck of cards be used to represent the 36 divisions of centers in man. It is far more easy for someone to get accustomed to say, for instance, "the four of diamonds" than to say "the intellectual part of the instinctive-moving part of the intellectual center."

Can you or can't you provide a link showing what connection is there between Fourth Way and Susan Zannos? Aeuio 13:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

In the back cover, Samuel Weiser presents the book by saying, “... Zannos approaches human typology from a variety of perspectives, and ties the Gurdjieff-Ouspensky Fourth Way system to a wide range of cultural, religious and scientific traditions...” finishing with a recommendation: “While this book will be of special interest to Fourth Way students, the information can help people from all walks of life who want to learn about themselves...” And the latter are, precisely, the kind of people who would navigate Wilkipedia in search of general information.

What did you expect? That they would say something negative about the book they are trying to advertise and sell? And now of course Samuel Weiser also knows a lot about the Fourth Way. Aeuio 13:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

These ideas come from ancient times, but it is impossible to quote them without a serious source, so I used the one I found, not to do original research. You are not entitled to be the judge regarding other's contributions to the article. You may not agree, but you cannot simply delete them because they do not reflect your own idea on what should a page on centers according to the Fourth Way be like, so, please, do not delete my contribution again.

You are not entitle to judge who is and who isn't an expert on the Fourth Way. Just because you agree with what she said is not a good enough reason to include her theories. And yes, I will delete your contributions about this Susan as you can't source her expertise. (I wont delete the Ouspensky and the Collin theories as their involvement with the fourth way is clear) Aeuio 13:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Regards, Baby Dove 04:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

If you have a problem with this than report it to some appropriate admins and explain to them why she fits wikipedia's source rules. Aeuio 13:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

WP is not your personal page

Aeuio:

I cannot explain the same thing again. Samuel Weiser is a major publisher and he recommends the book I quoted. There is no need for someone to write more than one book to show his/her being qualified. Show that what she says is wrong by finding accurate sources. This would demonstrate her insights are not accurate. You cannot delete everything, it is not within WP standards. The Fourth Way is not your copyrighted name, it is Tatiana Nagro's, by the way (regarding the book). If you think this violates any WP rulkes on sources, you call an administrator.

Regards, Baby Dove 06:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

And I am not willing to explain the same thing either. Anybody can write about anything, as Susan did, and unless you have a source showing the connection between Susan and the Fourth Way, I'll delete her theories. Aeuio 14:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

And I will put them back, until you explain why this is wrong. Because she explains her theories in a whole book and you only disqualify her, as in a personal affair. Baby Dove 01:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

So let me get this straight: If I write books on celebrities and other subjects, and then I write a book proving that Jesus had seven fingers, and then someone adds my theory in the Jesus article under the title "Further developments of Understanding of Jesus's body" - you think that a valid argument would be Source other author proving that this is wrong? (I'd love to see you in court) And by the way she doesn't prove - (unless she provided specific names and dates) - she claims.

Anyways, as this discussion is quite stupid and a waste, I have reworded the section as a way of ending this.

PS - You asked me to prove her theories wrong - I'll just say that the title of her book speaks for itself. Aeuio 03:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Aeuio:

Well, in case someone "proves" that Jesus had seven finger, the accepted way to confront this "proof" is to show the arguments sustaining it are wrong. Regarding the title you question, the essence is, for this lady, the body type (based on Rodney Collin's correspondences between glands and planets) and the center of gravity, based on the relative development (or activity, if you prefer) of one given part of one given center respect the others.

May be the changes made by opening a section will do. Regards, Baby Dove 06:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

There is an "enneagram" in the title, which you forgot to mention, and which together with "human types" in fact ties in with the Enneagram of Personality - which is not related to the Fourth Way. Anyways I am fine with the section the way it is. Aeuio 21:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the book is on Essences, not on personalities. However, it is true that some authors (Palmer, if Ido not remember badly?) started writing on personalities using an enneagram. But while essence seems to be linked to planetary influences through the tunning of the inner glands, which gives it a sense of reality in a certain level, personalities are entirely copied from others and independent of a body type. Someone with physical conditions enabling him to be a a fighter may think he is a poet and so on... But this is not what Mrs. Zannos wrote about. She uses six planetary types distributed around the enneagram, with the solar type in the center, while the Enneagram of Personality uses one personality type for each point in the enneagram. And she talks about the inner conections of types according to the inner flow of energies in the enneagram, which is not the case in works regarding personality types.

Regards, Baby Dove 15:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Major revamp

Hope you like it. The subcenters is a stub. According to Fourth way, each center has subcenters. Also, could someone please convert the Bibliography to a proper "reference" using ref tags? Also, much of the 'subte bodies' and the 'higher centers' need to be merged.Yeago 21:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks pretty good to me. Aeuio 00:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Did pretty well Yeago, as this is a lot more readable than the old version. I also think that subtle bodies needs to change so I go and shorten it. Aeuio 00:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the subtle bodies might need to be removed. I don't think they are original Gurdjieff ideas, I think they are from other systems he commented on. It would be good to include them, but only in the context of what G said. Not full explanations. Yeah man, I like this article a lot more now hopefully more people will pay attention to and develop it now that there's some coherent organization.Yeago 02:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The subtle body situation is worse than you think. It is a part of Gurdjieff's original teaching, but Gurdjieff personally wrote and described only three bodies, while Ouspensky wrote that Gurdjieff had stated that there were four. I never decided what to do in this situation before; what do you think? Aeuio 03:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... I did not know that about G's original teaching. There are a number of points where O and G differ, I'd just note make a note of it.Yeago 06:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the sub centers: I don't think there is much to say there as the focus is only on the moving center's division (we could use the same division for the others I guess/ but no one ever focused on that so I don't think we should expand). Aeuio 00:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

In my reading of Psychology of Man's Possible Evolution I didn't see the division restricted to just Movement center.Yeago 02:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, if you wish then expand it, but I wouldn't know exactly how. (can't remember everything) Aeuio 03:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

For one I'd make the section more general and replace the stub tag, like I had it. =)Yeago 06:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Go for it - you decide...then we argue/change :) Aeuio 16:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Instinctual or instinctive?

I see both terms used on the page. Which one should be adopted? Mario Fantoni 16:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

-ual would be technically correct, since the center itself is not instinctive.Yeago 17:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

From The Columbia Guide to Standard American English, 1993:
instinctive, instinctual (adjs.): These are synonyms, both meaning “caused by or characterized by instinct,” but instinctive is much more often employed; instinctual is rare, except in Britain.

Also, from P.D. Ouspensky: "On the question of functions and centers for instance. On the first occasion he spoke of three centers, the intellectual, the emotional, and the moving, and tried to make us distinguish these functions, find examples, and so on. Afterwards the instinctive center was added, as an independent and self-supporting machine." ("In Search of the Miraculous", page 62).

So it is instinctive. Mario Fantoni 06:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add... I learned an enneagram typology, plus the other elaborations on "Man number one, two and three" from the same source as S. Zannos. If there is such a thing as a valid linneage holder of the Gurdjieff teaching, that school is NOT one. However, after decades of use, I find that it reveals a real dimension of people. I must emphasize, that, without any credentials or institutional validation, I could only point to direct obervation of people to prove my claim.

The above quote of Ouspensky has always been sufficient for me wrt this question. I might add, according to the above named teaching I know, that Moving and Instinctive centers are in a sense part of the same "brain" in that they are definitely involved with the physical body, and more importantly, operate at the same speed and with the same kind of energy source ("Hydrogens"). Further, they are the entirely of our animal heritage: all animals have these centers/functions.

The distinction that is quite clear and revealing is this: the Instinctive center contains all of the in-born "knowledge" of the organism, how to instantiate metabolism, grow organs, heal injuries and develop the body throughout life. More specifically, none of this knowledge is learned or need be acquired via learning or conditioning. Autonomic regulation is subject to learning, for example, but the autonomic system itself, regulating body temperature and metabolism, does not need to be learned in order to be present in the organism. The contents of the Moving center, by distinction, are entirely learned. This refers esp. to the capacity to learn behavior, in all its adaptive ramifications. Everything about non-verbal communication is projected via this function, for example. The capacity for language is an inborn function that is part of the Instinctive function (Broca's Area, Warneke's Area, projections to/from memory, etc.) but the fact that you speak your first language, the specific cultural meanings encoded in it, and the thick ethnic accent through which you speak it, are the domain of the Moving center. Movement and other interactions within three-dimensional space are also in its purview.

Whether or not this knowledge can be properly claimed to be part of the Gurdjieff teaching may not be determinable; one would have to have access to those who were close intimates of those who were designated by G. as capable of teaching. I had a short association with the Gurdjieff Foundation, and long-term members made the claim that G. in fact did make such designations on his death bed, so to speak. Lord Pentland and Annie Stavely were among them, allegedly. My guess is that it is characteristic of the teaching not to indulge that kind of question with a straight answer. Wiki mn 02:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Moving and Instinctive.....

Ok, here are some of my thoughts about this topic:

• I think that, rather than accepting something at face value, even the words of Gurdjieff himself, this is an excellent topic to devote to self-study. Why don't we all strive to observe and verify, for ourselves, which it is. Is the moving/instinctive a single brain, or is it two brains? I think we should all verify it, rather than argue about it. Then, we can compare our verifications and see if we come up with the same thing, or not. The task will require us to be objective, and not to agree with one teacher or another soley on the basis of what that teacher said.
• On another page here, can't remember which one, it states that animals have two brains. It goes on to describe the three brains: moving/instinctive, emotional, and intellectual. Given this, one would conclude that animals have a moving/instinctive center, and an emotional center (I think we all could agree that animals do not have an intellectual center). I've never read exactly which centers animals have, but I assumed that their two centers were the moving, and the instinctive. However, I'd love it if somebody could cite a source for which brains animals have. It also ties in with the Division of Attention, because I've observed that animals cannot direct their attention. Their attention is either wandering, or held by an object.

I've been observing my animals to try to figure it out myself. Clearly they have an instinctive center, and they have a moving center which appears to closely mirror the instinctive center. Whether they are separate or not.... at this time I'd say that they are not separate. So, if they are a single brain, then their second brain must be the emotional brain. Again, I can verify this somewhat, because they do seem to have mechanical emotions, curiosity, for example.

I hope this is clear. I realize the limitations of this written medium. I look forward to others' thoughts. Jennifer Thieme 18:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Jennifer

Concerning animals brains: If you want to see an animal's emotional brain in action, the best example I could tell you is for you to witness what happens when a calf is taken away from a cow. Since you might not get a chance anytime soon, I'll tell you that the cow gets really emotional, some start crying, some don't want to give milk, and they tend to moo (I don't know the correct english term for mooing) a lot. Other examples would be the way cats/dogs emotionally react towards people, and so on... I am pretty sure that it's not directly mentioned in Beelzebub's Tales what the 2 centers are, but it seems reasonable that it's the emotional and thinking.

Concerning "compare our verifications and see if we come up with the same thing, or not" Those are good intentions, but it's quite useless to discuss anything over the internet - we'd end up confused at best. More importantly I stick to citing the most introductory info, as these pages should inform those whose never heard of the subject (If someone's more interested then they can read Gurdjieff/Ouspensky for more and better insight rather than from some guys on the net:) Aeuio 20:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The locations of the centers

I see that the emotional center has been labeled as "nerve nodes", while the mental center is said to be in the brain.

The brain is made of nerve cells called neurons, so I cannot see any clear distinction between the emotional and the mental center then.

We don't have any sensory nerves in the brain, so if the emotional center is made of sensory nerves, the distinction between the mental and the emotional center becomes much more clear.

I also think the moving center is located mostly in the cerebellum, not just in the spinal column. Reflexes are controlled by the spinal cord, while fine motor functions are controlled by the cerebellum. --Zanthius of Dxun 16:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Revisions

I changed the misspelled 'storey' to story, and changed 'physical' center to 'moving' center. While they're basically synonymous, I think 'moving' is the preferred term from In Search of the Miraculous and is generally more accepted in work schools. Sixwordsofadvice (talk) 18:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)