Author: James

Accident: from Latin Accidere ‘to fall or happen’.

When I trip on a crack in the sidewalk, spill the hot coffee I am carrying and have an aching toe, I call it an accident and blame myself for not being more alert, not paying enough attention. Or, I may recognize from this that I have been inattentive and become more attentive, now aware of the mild burn on my hand and my aching toe, and shrugging off the disturbance.

Clearly, stubbing my toe ‘happened’ and so, by definition it can be considered an accident. However, was it really unintentional? That step, which was interrupted by the rise in the sidewalk, surely, was no less unintentional than the dozen which preceded it. I was just as inattentive with them as I was with that fatal step.

We have extended the definition of ‘accident’ to imply unpleasant. My misstep had a momentary unpleasant result, but with a broader perspective I see it as a gift. Do I still call it an accident?

We have also extended the meaning of accident to mean an event which is unforeseen, unintended. I guess this comes from our assumption that most of our activities are intentional. Is it necessary to point out that, with a little self-observation, this assumption is proven incorrect. In fact, the vast majority of my actions and experiences are unintended.

So, based on the standing definition of an unforeseen event, it seems that in life, it is closer to the truth that everything is an accident.

On the other hand, Gurdjieff speaks of a Law of Accident. If it is a ‘Law’, then it seems preposterous to say events are accidents. Like the digestion of my breakfast, there is not a direct intention behind it, it is not even foreseen, unless I think about it. But, my thinking about it has no effect on its happening or not happening. It happens. By the original Latin meaning, it Accidit, but certainly, it is not an accident.

Readers of Gurdjieff often suggest that through growth in being, my actions can become intentional, I will, as Gurdjieff suggests, come out from under the Law of Accident. Does this mean I will then ‘will’ my digestion? Sounds silly to suggest it but the point is to ask at what level independent will is expected to operate.

When pressed by Ouspensky about his insistence that we cannot ‘do,’ “And can nobody do anything?” Gurdjieff responded, “That is another question. In order to do it is necessary to be. And it is necessary first to understand what to be means.” At another time, Gurdjieff elaborated that, “The ‘man-machine’ can do nothing. To him and around him everything happens. In order to do it is necessary to know the law of octaves, to know the moments of the ‘intervals’ and be able to create necessary ‘additional shocks.’”

So, in order to have any intentional impact on what happens, one has ‘to be.’ In order to ‘be,’ one has to ‘know how to be.’ Even then, the only intentional impact one can have is to act at the precisely right moment in the flow of an octave, the flow of action, to keep it going in the intended direction. Rather like nudging a satellite or asteroid at the right moment with just the right force, in just the right direction, to keep in on the preferred course or avoid a catastrophic collision.

To summarize, as I understand what Gurdjieff is suggesting: Everything happens, however, if I Am present, there may be a moment when I can act intentionally and have a small impact which may be consequential. However, these opportunities are very rare, and in order to be ready for them, I have ‘to be’ always, prepared to act. I have to Be, knowing there is virtually nothing I can ‘do.’ Yet, perhaps with faith that what is happening is ‘according to law.’

In conclusion, my first responsibility is to Be. Until I am firm in this, I can forget about ‘doing’ externally. Perhaps though, doing for me is to prevent the law of accident from interrupting Being. I admit that this is still more than I manage most of my days, hours, minutes. In fact, I can not even honestly claim that I know what ‘to be’ means.

“Ay, there’s the rub.”