“What is your opinion of modem PSYCHOLOGY?” I once asked G. with the intention of introducing the subject of psychoanalysis which I had mistrusted from the time when it had first appeared. But G. did not let me get as far as that. Fragments: One

“Before speaking of PSYCHOLOGY we must be clear to whom it refers and to whom it does not refer,” he said. “Psychology refers to people, to men, to human beings. What PSYCHOLOGY” (he emphasized the word) “can there be in relation to machines? Mechanics, not PSYCHOLOGY, is necessary for the study of machines. That is why we begin with mechanics. It is a very long way yet to PSYCHOLOGY.” Fragments: One

When he was leaving next day he told me he would soon be coming back again. And on this second visit, when I told him about a certain group I went to in Petersburg, where all possible subjects were discussed, from war to PSYCHOLOGY, he said that acquaintance with similar groups might be useful, as he was thinking of starting the same kind of work in Petersburg as he was conducting in Moscow. Fragments: Two

The third thing, which at once attracted my attention and of which I began to think the very first time I heard of it, was the idea of the moving center. The chief thing that interested me here was the question of the relation in which G. placed moving functions to instinctive functions. Were they the same thing or were they different? And further, in what relation did the divisions made by G. stand to the divisions cus­tomary in ordinary PSYCHOLOGY? With certain reservations and additions I had considered it possible to accept the old divisions, that is, to divide man’s actions into “conscious” actions, “automatic” actions (which must at first be conscious), “instinctive” actions (expedient, but without consciousness of purpose), and “reflexes,” simple and complex, which are never conscious and which can, in certain cases, be inexpedient. In addition there were actions performed under the influence of hidden emotional dispositions or inner unknown impulses. Fragments: Six

I told them that this was the center of gravity of the whole system and of all work on oneself; that now work on oneself was not only empty words but a real fact full of significance thanks to which PSYCHOLOGY becomes an exact and at the same time a practical science. Fragments: Seven

I said that European and Western PSYCHOLOGY in general had overlooked a fact of tremendous importance, namely, that we do not remember ourselves; that we live and act and reason in deep sleep, not metaphorically but in absolute reality. And also that, at the same time, we can remember ourselves if we make sufficient efforts, that we can awaken. Fragments: Seven

“From the point of view of ordinary PSYCHOLOGY the division of man into personality and essence is hardly comprehensible. It is more exact to say that such a division does not exist in PSYCHOLOGY at all. Fragments: Eight

I was astonished at the artistic finish of the feature that was represented by G. It was not PSYCHOLOGY even, it was art. Fragments: Thirteen

“And PSYCHOLOGY ought to be art,” G. replied, “PSYCHOLOGY can never be simply a science.” Fragments: Thirteen

“Transitions from one level of being to another were marked by ceremonies of presentation of a special kind, that is, initiation. But a change of being cannot be brought about by any rites. Rites can only mark an accomplished transition. And it is only in pseudo-esoteric systems in which there is nothing else except these rites, that they begin to attribute to the rites an independent meaning. It is supposed that a rite, in being transformed into a sacrament, transmits or communicates certain forces to the initiate. This again relates to the PSYCHOLOGY of an imitation way. There is not, nor can there be, any outward initiation. In reality only self-initiation, self­presentation exist. Systems and schools can indicate methods and ways, but no system or school whatever can do for a man the work that he must do himself. Inner growth, a change of being, depend entirely upon the work which a man must do on himself.” Fragments: Fifteen

It would be curious to talk and become more closely acquainted with the PSYCHOLOGY of a man whose capital depends entirely upon order in the solar system, which is hardly likely to be upset and whose interests for that reason prove to be higher than war and peace. . . . Fragments: Sixteen

At that time Constantinople was full of Russians. I met acquaintances from St. Petersburg and with their assistance I began to give lectures in the offices of the “Russki Miyak.” I at once collected a fairly large audience mostly of young men. I continued to develop the ideas begun in Rostov and Ekaterinodar, connecting general ideas of PSYCHOLOGY and philosophy with ideas of esotericism. Fragments: Eighteen