When Mr. O. came in, after answering a few questions, he said that if we had any questions on what he had said last time, we must ask them then, as he would not come back to the subject again; we would have other things to talk about later. During the meeting he would go over what he had said.
After a certain number more questions, he said that when speaking of ‘I’, it was necessary to realize that, in Special Doctrine, ‘I’ could be spoken of in five ways, on five different levels.
Man, in his ordinary state, is a multiplicity of ‘I’s. This is the first meaning. On the diagram this is indicated by the square of ‘I’s. When he decides to start work, an observing ‘I’ appears. This is shown shaded in on the diagram. This is the second meaning. The next meaning, indicated by the smallest circle, is where deputy-steward appears who has control over a number of ‘I’s. The fourth meaning, indicated by the middle circle, is where steward appears; he has control over all ‘I’s. The fifth meaning is that of master. He is drawn as a big circle outside, as he has time-body; he knows the past and also the future, although there must be degrees of this.
It was interesting to connect this diagram with that of the ‘carriage’, ‘ horse’, ‘driver’ and ‘master’.
In the carriage or physical body are certain of the larger ‘I’s. The horse and driver, that is in feeling and thought, are the many small ‘I’s. In the square representing master is, first the observing ‘I’, then the deputy-steward, then the steward, and finally the master is shown as a circle encircling the whole diagram. (These diagrams are to be regarded as, so to speak, supplementary diagrams.) When speaking of the division ‘I’ and ‘Jones’, he called the division ‘ Jones’ false personality. This phrase was for convenience when talking, and avoided having to say either ‘Ouspensky’, ‘Smith’, ‘Jones’, etc. It must not be confused with the division ‘essence’ and ‘personality’. The divisions which he spoke about last time must be kept separate. For instance the idea of ‘rolls’ must not be connected with that of ‘I’.
Rolls were connected with the idea of centres, which were regarded as consisting of rolls. ‘I’s, on the other hand, were connected with the idea of consciousness, of the four states of consciousness—sleep state , waking state, state of self-remembering, and objective state. It was the continuous change of ‘I’s which made up our ordinary waking state.
