Cultural wisdom comes through constant self-efforts (Ouspensky, 1957a, 39). People misunderstood initiation into cultural wisdom as a transfer between two unequal people of knowledge and power, whereas "there is only self-initiation, which is acquired by constant effort . . . one can only show and direct, but not initiate" (Nott, 1961: 79). The initial aim of Gurdjieff's Work with individuals was to help them "to believe nothing at second hand and to rely only on direct experience, in order to awaken to the innate exigence of a genuine moral conscience." (Tracol, 1994: 136). He placed them in situations of conscious suffering, where they could experience the pendulum swing between 'I' and global 'We'-oriented views (Gurdjieff, 1950: 250). This self-goal extended to autonomous freedom within the host society (Gurdjieff, 1940: 45), and to serving the universe's demiurgic/psychecentric intelligence (Bennett, 1973).

His pragmatic pedagogy was influenced by near fatal wounds from stray bullets: in Crete "one year before the Greco-Turkish war" (Gurdjieff, 1981: 7); in Tibet "one year before the Anglo-Tibetan war"; and in a skirmish between Russian Army Cossacks and Gourians (Gurdjieff, 1981: 9). He analysed the "political psychosis" and "national psychosis" of the Armenian-Tartar conflict and the social judgment of physical appearance (Gurdjieff, 1981: 12). During Russia's revolutionary upheavals in February 1917, Gurdjieff explained to Olga de Hartmann that "when you live among wolves, you have to howl like a wolf; but you should not be taken over by the psychosis of war, and inside you should try to be far removed from all this." (de Hartmann, 1983: 7).

Moral Relativism and Awakening Inner Conscience

The majority of cultural values were not consciously chosen by individuals, but rather defined by ossified social custom and strategic geography. Ouspensky once used the example of blood revenge, which was considered moral in the Caucasus region but considered immoral in Europe (Ouspensky, 1957a, 19), to explain this insight. Gurdjieff anticipated anthropological research when he noted that "grammar was always formed gradually by life itself, according to the different stages of their development, the climatic conditions of their chief place of existence, and the predominant means of obtaining food." (Gurdjieff, 1963: 10).

Mis-identification with local cultural norms as "objective values" meant that discussing 'freedom', 'justice' or 'peace' was largely illusory. People used the words without self-inquiry about why this labeling occurred, or changing "mental models" to gain a systemic view of the inter-relationship between different intellectual concepts. "Most people think that justice is about getting what we want and not what we deserve," Gurdjieff observed. "Justice must mean some co-ordination between actions and results of actions." (Ouspensky, 1957a, 205). Gurdjieff's dis-identification with war-time sociological propaganda meant that he hid Jews in war-time France while collaborating with the Germans. (Webb, 1980: 469). He focused on daily survival and his inner-aims, not loyalty to a national group or abstract ideal.

Gurdjieff's non-glorification of the military ego, whatever the country, was poignantly conveyed during his final meeting with pupil Fritz Peters in post-war France. "Americans drop bomb on Japan, yes?" Gurdjieff asked Peters, who nodded. "What do you think of your America now?" (Peters, 1974, 116). This comment was designed to awaken inner conscience: "a kind of emotional understanding of truth in certain definite situations" (Ouspensky, 1957b, 19). It also revealed the ambiguity of the trend that "war-making is followed by the liberalization of politics." (Crescenzi and Enterline, 1999: 87).

The antithesis of Gurdjieff's autonomous individual with awakened conscience was the Hasnamuss who "never hesitates to sacrifice people or to create an enormous amount of suffering, just for his own personal ambitions." (Ouspensky, 1957b: 300). He likened them to unpredictable "mad machines" (Ouspensky, 1957a: 101). John Bennett defined the Hasnamussian individual as someone who "exploits Demiurgic powers that are in his nature, but does so for egotistic and self-destructive ends." (Bennett, 1973: 291). Lentrohamsanin, "one of 313 Hasnamussian-Eternal-Individuals," was an amalgamation of Lenin, Stalin and Hitler, (Gurdjieff, 1950: 345). The Hasnammussian individual can be understood as a charismatic leader with the power to drive their group into conflict (Harff and Gurr, 1998: 562) for their own purposes. This is despite the probability that "war involvement has a negative impact on the survival rate of political leaders." (Mousseau and Shi, 1998: 644).

Gurdjieff's Critique of Peace Organizations

Gurdjieff critiqued peace organizations resembling the League of Nations (Gurdjieff, 1950: 1062), the United Nations, and the World Health Organization. Bennett observed that due to transitions in the current world-system, these organizations were "singularly powerless to do anything effective" (Bennett, 1973: 267) against ethno-political conflicts.

Gurdjieff conveyed this futility by the teaching story of the Very Saintly Ashiata Shiemash (Gurdjieff, 1950: 345) and the Central Asia-based Assembly of the Enlightened (Gurdjieff, 1950: 1091). Bennett's historiography research found the roots of this tale through "the historical significance of spiritual traditions." (Bennett, 1973: 29). The Assembly's leader, Olman Tabor, "who succeeded in putting an end for two generations to the civil wars that were ravaging Asia" (Bennett, 1973: 49) was likely the Khwaja Ubeydullah Ahrar, who lived during the 15th and 16th centuries (Bennett, 1973: 58). Bennett suggested that this group of Sufi mystics and peace negotiators were the basis for Gurdjieff's esoteric core (Bennett, 1973: 57), also called the Inner Circle of Humanity (Ouspensky, 1957b, 103-104). Rumored to have facilitated the conversion of Genghis Khan and the Mongols to Islam, the Khwajagan embodied three lines of Work on self, for others, and for a school/tradition (Ouspensky, 1957b: 269-270).

The subjectivity of some peace activists in the face of complex threats was conveyed by Gurdjieff's tale about the Kurdish philosopher Attarnakh (Gurdjieff, 1950: 1097-1098), who reversed his views on war and instituted "religious sacrifices to please nature" (Gurdjieff, 1950: 1102), later ended by Tibetan Bon.

Technological innovation has increased warfare, not lessened it. "All these theories about universal peace, about peace conferences," Gurdjieff reasoned, "are again simply laziness and hypocrisy." (Ouspensky, 1957a: 103).

Gaia and Gurdjieff's Explanation of War