M,
Pretty much everything you say is "right on" as far as I know although I'd go a step further.

My issue with the Foundation is the same as the issue you have with Patterson (and I don't work with either of them for the same reason which I shall discuss later in this post). If you have worked with the Gurdjieff Foundation then you know that the Foundation views itself as the sole "authorized" transmission of the work. As any good Gurdjieff historian knows, it is unclear who Gurdjieff "chose" to lead the work after his death. If he was as awake as I believe that he was, then he knew full well that there wasn't anybody who could "lead" the work after his death.

While travelling as a dervish in Turkey I met with the leaders of several dervish lodges (which are actually still illegal in Turkey and some have to meet in secret, especially the Mevlevi). Just about each and every one told me the same thing: Yes, they did have records of Gurdjieff studying at their lodge, yes they considered Gurdjieff to be a legitimate teacher (it is very rare for the head of a sufi lodge to acknowledge the legitimacy of teachers outside the scope of their practice), and, most importantly, that they did not feel that ANY of Gurdjieff's students were up to the task of leading his work.

As to the "authority" of the Foundation or Patterson, to me it really doesn't matter as I don't consider any present organization to be a "legitimate"' purveyor of Gurdjieff's teaching (although some seem to be less "legitimate" than others). What bothered me about the Gurdjieff Foundation is that they added a "religious" element to the work by celebrating Gurdjieff's birthday with a quasi-religious dinner ceremony. I don't remember reading or hearing about Gurdjieff advocating any such element to the work. Patterson goes even further in turning Gurdjieff into some sort of prophet. This, in my mind, moved from adding "religious" elements to the work, into an outright religion complete with a new bible (Beelzebub's Tales) and a new messenger from His Endlessness (Gurdjieff).

It seems clear to me, from my understanding of Gurdjieff, that he did not intend to create a new religion with Patterson holding the office of Pope nor did he intend to create a Foundation run by a committee. Does this mean that one can not benefit from either of these groups? No, as I greatly appreciated what I gained by working with the Foundation and other fourth-way groups. The mistake, in my opinion, is to believe that ANY group is a legitimate "line" of work. Gurdjieff was the teacher and he is no longer with us. After his death, his students made the mistake that unfortunately occurs after the death of every other great teacher. They felt that they could continue his work. The only legitimate teacher of the Gurdjieff work was Gurdjieff himself although we can benefit from his writings and gain benefit from the techniques he taught.

"History shows repeatedly, ad nauseum, that absolute power corrupts absolutely. "

M, I think the point you're missing is that this is exactly what G did. And, frankly, if he tried to pull off his stunts in today's environment, he'd either be sued or run out of the city or both. It can be difficult to compare teachers from different time frames and cultures.

Every teacher had many teachers. I'd say it's sort of a hit and miss proposition as to whether or not one who claims to be a teacher cites their own teachers. It seems we're taught lessons from those along the way, and it makes good sense that one might pick names of people who would have the most influential effect upon their current audience. Also, I think you'd be pretty hard pressed to find any so-called school where major riffs haven't erupted as part of its history. Just take a look at G and O, for example. They certainly had their ups and downs. And when O died, Collin locked himself in his room. And certainly, this type of behavior isn't limited to Gurdjieffian styled organizations.

A teacher has to convince their flock that they are indisputably the teacher. In essence, this is what separates the teacher from the student. Teachers typically instill the belief that there's a gulf, big or small, between them and their followers, and students oblige by believing - those who don't generally leave - one way or another. In other words, a dynamic is set up, an implied agreement so to speak, and when a student no longer accepts the hierarchy as being valid for whatever reason, it's either time for that person to move on or for the teacher to throw them out. And even though there may be fireworks caused by this process, frequently it is time for a student to step up to the plate and assume a different role and level of responsibility. It is not uncommon for a student to leave and take with them a certain percentage of the flock. Such events definitely spices the typical flatness of Gurdjieffian culture.

Teachers of all stripes provide shocks (knowingly and unknowingly); they're human and all of them make their share of mistakes. There is no end to the learning process, and those who might deny this fact - well, they're the ones you best keep an eye on. What typically happens, and is quite prominent in Gurdjieff organizations, is that students begin to believe, actually deceive themselves, and begin to fall prey to mass delusion propagated by the group - typical human nature really. The boundaries of this state begin to blur one's personal boundaries based in the degree of a particular person's maturity, depth and understanding. It seems that people begin to have the need to know where the teacher is, what the teacher said and over time a sort of group mind will begin to form, and this frequently occurs without so much as a hint of desire on the teacher's part for it to be so. Anyway, a group personality begins to unfold. People begin to move a certain way, speak with a particular type of inflection, dress similarly, place objects around them that are more or less generally accepted by others. Individual false personalities begin shifting toward a group false personality, though people as they're integrating and passing through this change oddly see this as being something positive, and perceive themselves as doing the Work and being part of the school. They're becoming good students, good sheep really, and oddly enough, things as they are, the ones that do the best job of conforming find themselves pulled into the inner circle, and become the ones most likeky to be graced by the attention of the teacher.

Funny how this process works. Most are pretty content and actually get off on the process and the social bonding which is generally an integral part of the experience. For a few people there will come a time when when the process actually begins to turn on itself, slowly at first, and then the pace will pick up. And people might actually begin to ask themselves what the hell it is that they're doing there. Personally, I think this is the true meaning of being stuck between two stools. Many will whitewash over these questions and feelings, and re-immerse themselves in what they think is their work by making greater efforts and trying to refine, re-invent their work personalities.

But then again, a few will realize the process for what it is, and they will begin to understand that if they stay at the place where they are that they will begin to crystallize incorrectly. A person that has successfully passed through the process will understand that they have to start over from scratch and begin to retool for their new state of being in a new environment and in a new time - and this is exactly what G did. Consequently, new teachers will always appear. It might be helpful to remember what Leonardo da Vinci said, "Poor is the student who doesn't surpass their teacher".

I'll have a look at that book and let you know what I think. Thanks for the rec.