Gurdjieff International Review Peter Brook and Traditional Thought by Basarab Nicolescu Translated by David Willia s Tradition itself,

in times of dogmatism and dogmatic revolution, is a revolutionary force which must be safeguarded. Peter Brook !"! Theatre and Tradition The continuous investigation of the eaning of theatre# which under$ins all of Peter Brook%s work# has inevitably led hi to an investigation of Tradition& If theatre s$rings fro life# then life itself ust be 'uestioned& (nderstanding theatrical reality also entails understanding the agents of that reality# the $artici$ants in any theatrical event actors# director# s$ectators& )or a an who rejects all dog a and closed syste s of thought# Tradition offers the ideal characteristic of unity in contradiction& *lthough it asserts its i utable nature# nevertheless it a$$ears in for s of an i ense heterogeneity while devoting itself to the understanding of unity# it does so by focusing its concerns on the infinite diversity of reality& )inally# Tradition conceives of understanding as being so ething originally engendered by e+$erience# beyond all e+$lanation and theoretical generalisation& Isn%t the theatrical event itself ,e+$erience#% above all else.ven on the ost su$erficial of levels# Brook%s interest in Tradition is self/evident one thinks of his theatre ada$tation of one of the jewels of 0ufi art# *ttar%s 1onference of the Birds# of his fil taken fro Gurdjieff%s book 2eetings with Re arkable 2en# and of the subse'uent work on The 2ahabharata& 1learly an investigation of the $oints of convergence between Brook%s theatre work and traditional thought is not devoid of $ur$ose& *n i $ortant $oint needs to be ade at the very outset the word ,tradition% 3fro the 4atin ,tradere#% eaning ,to restore#% ,to trans it%5 carries within it a contradiction charged with re$ercussions& In its $ri ary fa iliar usage# the word ,tradition% signifies ,a way of thinking or acting inherited fro the $ast%6 it is therefore linked with the words ,custo % and ,habit&% In this sense# one ight refer to ,acade ic tradition#% to a ,1o 7die )ran8aise tradition% or to ,0hakes$earean tradition&% In theatre# tradition re$resents an atte $t at u ification# the $reservation of e+ternal for s at all costs9 inevitably concealing a cor$se within# for any vital corres$ondence with the $resent o ent is entirely absent& Therefore# according to this first use of ,tradition#% Brook%s theatre work see s to be anti/traditional# or# to be ore $recise# a/traditional& Brook hi self has said

.ven if it%s ancient# by its very nature theatre is always an art of odernity& * $hoeni+ that has to be constantly brought back to life& Because the i age that co unicates in the world in which we live# the right effect which creates a direct link between $erfor ance and audience# dies very 'uickly& In five years a $roduction is out of date& 0o we ust entirely abandon any notion of theatrical tradition:; * second# less fa iliar eaning of ,Tradition%9and one that will be used throughout this essay9is ,a set of doctrines and religious or oral $ractices# trans itted fro century to century# originally by word of outh or by e+a $le% or ,a body of ore or less legendary infor ation# related to the $ast# $ri arily trans itted orally fro generation to generation&%< *ccording to this definition# ,Tradition% enca$sulates different ,traditions%91hristian# =ewish# Isla ic# Buddhist# 0ufi etc& 3To avoid any confusion between these two acce$ted uses of the sa e word# a ca$ital letter will be e $loyed throughout when referring to this latter use5& 0o in essence Tradition is concerned with the trans ission of a body of knowledge on the s$iritual evolution of an# his $osition in different ,worlds#% his relationshi$ with different ,cos oses&% This body of knowledge is therefore unvarying# stable# $er anent# des$ite the ulti$licity of for s assu ed in its trans ission# and des$ite those distortions brought about by history and the $assage of ti e& *lthough its trans ission is usually oral# Tradition can also be conveyed by eans of the science of sy bols# by various writings and works of art# as well as by yths and rituals& Traditional knowledge was established in ancient ti es# but it would be futile to look for a ,source% of Tradition& *s far as its dee$est roots are concerned# Tradition could be conceived to be outside both s$ace 3geogra$hical5 and ti e 3historical5& It is eternally $resent# here and now# in every hu an being# a constant and vital wells$ring& The ,source% of Tradition can only be eta$hysical& By addressing itself to what is essential in ankind# Tradition re ains very uch alive in our ti es& The work of Ren7 Gu7non or 2ircea .liade have shown the e+tent to which traditional thought can be of burning interest for our own era& In addition# increasingly detailed studies de onstrate the $oints of convergence in structural ter s between conte $orary science and Tradition& >ne can find a $recise $oint of contact between Tradition and theatre in Tradition%s 'uality of vital i ediacy9a 'uality reflected in its oral trans ission# in its constant reference to the $resent o ent and to e+$erience in the $resent o ent& Brook hi self refers to just this# ore or less directly# when he writes Theatre e+ists in the here and now& It is what ha$$ens at that $recise o ent when you $erfor # that o ent at which the world of the actors and the world of the audience eet& * society in iniature# a icrocos brought together every evening within a s$ace& Theatre%s role is to give this icrocos a burning and fleeting taste of another world# and thereby interest it# transfor it# integrate it&? .vidently# according to Brook%s vision# although the theatre is on the one hand by its very nature ,a/traditional#% it could be conceived to be a field of study in which to

confront and e+$lore Tradition& The reasons for Brook%s interest in the thought of Gurdjieff are also a$$arent as we know# Brook devoted several years of work to realising a fil version of one of his books& We believe that significant corres$ondences e+ist between Brook%s work in theatre and the teachings of Gurdjieff and for that reason Gurdjieff%s na e will recur throughout this essay& While resolutely re aining a an of Tradition# Gurdjieff 36@AAB6C?C5 anaged to e+$ress his teachings in conte $orary language& De also succeeded in locating and for ulating# in a scientific anner# laws co on to all levels of reality& These laws assure a ,unity in diversity#%E a unity beyond the infinite variety of for s associated with the different levels& These laws e+$lain why ankind need not be a frag ented state in a thousand realities# but in one ulti/faceted reality only& *esthetic reality# s$iritual reality# scientific reality don%t they all converge on one and the sa e centre# while re aining utterly distinct and different in the selves- Dasn%t conte $orary scientific thought itself 3both 'uantu and sub/'uantu 5 uncovered $arado+ical and sur$rising as$ects in nature# for erly entirely unsus$ected9as$ects which bring it significantly closer to Tradition-F Theatre work# traditional thought# scientific thought such a eeting is $erha$s unusual# but certainly not fortuitous& By Peter Brook%s own ad ission# what attracted hi to theatrical for as well as to the study of Tradition was $recisely this a$$arent contradiction between art and science& 0o it is not at all sur$rising that a book such as 2atila Ghyka%s 4e No bre d%>r 3a discussion of the relationshi$ between nu bers# $ro$ortions and e otions5 should have ade such a strong i $ression on hi & The $ossible dialogues between science and Tradition# art and Tradition# science and art# are rich and fruitful# $otentially offering a eans of understanding a world borne down by and sub erged beneath increasingly alienating co $le+ities& The Theatre as )ield of 0tudy 9 of .nergy# 2ove ent and Interrelations We believe that Brook%s theatre research is structured around three $olar ele ents energy# ove ent and interrelations& ,We know that the world of a$$earance#% writes Brook# ,is a crust9under the crust is the boiling atter we see if we $eer into a volcano& Dow can we ta$ this energy-%A Theatrical reality will be deter ined by the ove ent of energy# a ove ent itself only $erceivable by eans of certain relationshi$s the interrelations of actors# and that between te+t# actors and audience& 2ove ent cannot be the result of an actor%s action the actor does not ,do% a ove ent# it oves through hi Gher& Brook takes 2erce 1unningha as an e+a $le ,he has trained his body to obey# his techni'ue is his servant# so that instead of being wra$$ed u$ in the aking of a ove ent# he can let the ove ent unfold in inti ate co $any with the unfolding of the usic&%@ The si ultaneous $resence of energy# ove ent and certain interrelations brings the theatrical event to life& With reference to >rghast# Brook s$oke of ,the fire of the event#% which is ,that arvelous thing of $erfor ance in the theatre& Through it# all the things

that we%d been working on suddenly fell into $lace&%C This ,falling into $lace% indicates the sudden discovery of a structure hidden beneath the ulti$licity of for s# a$$arently e+tending in all directions& That is why Brook believes the essence of theatre work to be in ,freeing the dyna ic $rocess&%6H It is a 'uestion of ,freeing% and not of ,fi+ing% or ,ca$turing% this $rocess which e+$lains the suddenness of the event& * linear unfolding would signify a echanistic deter inis # whereas here the event is linked to a structure which is clearly not linear at all9but rather one of lateral interrelationshi$s and interconnections& .vent is another key word# fre'uently recurring in Brook%s work& 0urely it is not si $ly coincidence that the sa e word covers a central notion in odern scientific theory# since .instein and 2inkowski- Beyond the infinite ulti$licity of a$$earances# isn%t reality $erha$s based on one single foundationIn 6CHH# 2a+ Planck introduced the conce$t of the ,ele entary 'uantu of action#% a theory in $hysics based on the notion of continuity energy has a discreet# discontinuous structure& In 6CHE# .instein for ulated his s$ecial theory of relativity# revealing a new relationshi$ between s$ace and ti e it would contribute to a radical reevaluation of the objectGenergy hierarchy& Gradually# the notion of an object would be re$laced by that of an ,event#% a ,relationshi$% and an ,interconnection%9real ove ent being that of energy& Iuantu echanics as a theory was elaborated uch later# around 6C<H it shattered the conce$t of identity in a classical $article& )or the first ti e# the $ossibility of a s$aceGti e discontinuu was recognised as logically valid& *nd finally the theory of ele entary $articles9a continuation of both 'uantu echanics and the theory of relativity# as well as an atte $t to go beyond both of these $hysical theories9is still in the $rocess of elaboration today& 4ike both conte $orary scientists and Gurdjieff# Brook is convinced of the of energy& Describing the characteristics of ,rough theatre#% he writes ateriality

The Doly Theatre has one energy# the Rough has others& 4ightheartedness and gaiety feed it# but so does the sa e energy that $roduces rebellion and o$$osition& This is a ilitant energy it is the energy of anger# so eti es the energy of hate&66 Wasn%t it Gurdjieff hi self who said that ,.verything in the universe is aterial# and for that very reason (lti ate (nderstanding is ore aterialist than aterialis %-6; >f course he distinguishes , atter#% which ,is always the sa e but ateriality is different& *nd the different degrees of ateriality directly de$end on the 'ualities and $ro$erties of the energy anifested at a given $oint&%6< 0o ,objects% would be localised configurations of energy& But where does this energy co e fro - What are the laws governing the transfor ation of non/differentiated energy into a s$ecific for of energy- Is this non/differentiated energy the funda ental substratu of all for s- To what e+tent can actors and audience at a theatrical $erfor ance beco e i $licated and integrated with the for idable struggle of energies that takes $lace at every o ent in nature-

In the first $lace# we believe that it is i $ortant to recognise that# in Peter Brook%s theatre research# the grou$ing te+t/actor/audience reflects the characteristics of a natural syste when a true theatrical ,event% takes $lace# it is greater than the su of its $arts& The interactions between te+t and actors# te+t and audience and actors and audience constitute the new# irreducible ele ent& *t the sa e ti e# te+t# actors and audience are true sub/syste s# o$ening the selves u$ to each other& In this sense# one can talk of the life of a te+t& *s Brook has said any ti es# a $lay does not have a for which is fi+ed forever& It evolves 3or involves5 because of actors and audiences& The death of a te+t is connected to a $rocess of closure# to an absence of e+change& In The . $ty 0$ace# we read that ,* doctor can tell at once between the trace of life and the useless bag of bones that life has left& But we are less $ractised in observing how an idea# an attitude or a for can $ass fro the lively to the oribund&%6? 2ight one not further suggest that the te+t/actor/audience syste $ossesses another of the i $ortant characteristics of natural syste s# that of being , odules of coordination in the hierarchy of nature-%6E 1ertainly# in that instance when the s$ectator e erges fro a theatre event enriched with new infor ation in the s$here of energy ,I have also looked for ove ent and energy& Bodily energy as uch as that of e otions# in such a way that the energy released onstage can unleash within the s$ectator a feeling of vitality that he would not find in everyday life&%6F *s the bearer of this ,feeling of vitality#% the s$ectator could $artici$ate in other o$enings and other e+changes# in life& But what is essential is elsewhere9in the recognition# on its own level# of the action of those laws co on to all levels& >ne can conceive of the universe 3as in Gurdjieff%s cos ology# or scientific syste s theory5 as a great Whole# a vast cos ic atri+ within which all is in $er$etual otion in a continuous restructuring of energies& 0uch a unity is not static# it i $lies differentiation and diversity in the e+istence not of a substance# but of a co on organisation the deter ining laws of the Whole& These laws are only fully o$erational when syste s are utually o$en to each other# in an incessant and universal e+change of energy& It is $recisely this e+change that confir s what Gurdjieff called ,the general har onic ove ent of syste s#% or ,the har ony of reci$rocal aintenance in all cos ic concentrations&%6A The o$ening of a syste $revents its degeneration# and ulti ate death& In/se$arability is the safeguard of life& It is well known that all closed $hysical syste s are subjected to 1lausius/1arnot%s $rinci$le# which i $lies an inevitable degeneration of energy# a growing disorder& )or there to be order and stability# there ust be o$ening and e+change& 0uch an e+change can take $lace between syntheses on one single level# or between syste s belonging to different levels& *l ost all of the actors% ,e+ercises% and ,i $rovisations% in Brook%s 1entre see to ai at engendering o$ening and e+change& )irst/hand testi onies to this effect are nu erous one thinks of those $ublished accounts of the $re$aratory $rocesses for 1onference of the Birds# >rghast and 1ar en&6@ Brook has e+$licitly said hi self that# by eans of these e+ercises and i $rovisations# the actors are trying to ,get to what%s essential in

other words to that $oint at which the i $ulses of one conjoin with the i $ulses of another to resonate together&%6C 2ichel Rostain describes how# during the $re$aration for 1ar en# one singer would turn hisGher back on another# in order to try to recreate the gesture acco $anying the other $erson%s singing without ever having seen it& *ctors sitting in a circle atte $ted to ,trans it% gestures or words and in the end the force and clarity of internal i ages enabled the to be ade ,visible&% This is genuinely $recise and rigorous research work& In one e+ercise during the $re$aration for >rghast# each actor re$resented a $art of a single $erson9including# for e+a $le# ,the voice of the subconscious&%;H In another# actors took $art in the recitation of a onologue fro a 0hakes$earean te+t# delivering it as a round for three voices ,suddenly the actor bursts a barrier and e+$eriences how uch freedo there can be within the tightest disci$line&%;6 *nd that is what it is essentially about9the discovery of freedo by sub itting oneself to laws which $er it an o$ening towards the ,unknown#% towards a relationshi$& ,To be eans to be related :% was the startling for ula of the founder of General 0e antics# *lfred JorKybski&;; .+ercises and i $rovisations offer the $ossibility of ,interrelating the ost ordinary and the ost hidden levels of e+$erience#%;< of discovering $otentially $owerful e'uivalences between gestures# words and sounds& In this way# words# the usual vehicle of signification# can be re$laced by gestures or sounds& ,Going into the unknown is always frightening& .ach letter is the cause of the letter that follows& Dours of work can co e out of ten letters# in a search to free the word# the sound& We are not trying to create a ethod# we want to ake discoveries&%;? 0o e+ercises and i $rovisations have little $articular value in the selves# but they facilitate a tuning of the theatrical ,instru ent% that is the actor%s being# and a circulation of ,living dra atic flow%;E in the actors as a grou$& The theatrical , iracle% is $roduced afterwards# in the active $resence of the audience# when an o$ening towards the ,unknown% can be obilised ore fully& But what is the nature of this ,unknown-% Is it another na e for the unity of indefinite links in ,syste s of syste s#% as 0te$hane 4u$asco would say#;F in a $arado+ical coe+istence of deter inate and indeter inate# of disci$line and s$ontaneity# of ho ogeneity and heterogeneity- Dow can we best understand the words of ,*ttar when he wrote in the ,Invocation% to 1onference of the Birds To each ato there is a different door# and for each ato there is a different way which leads to the ysterious Being of who I s$eak: In this vast oceans# the world is an ato and the ato a world:-%;A Traditional thought has always affir ed that Reality is not linked to s$ace/ti e it si $ly is& When Gurdjieff talked of the ,trogoautoegocratic $rocess% which assures the ,reci$rocal nutrition% of everything that e+ists# he was $ro$osing it as ,our infallible saviour fro the action# in confor ity with the laws# of erciless Dero$ass:%;@ >nce one knows that for hi ,Dero$ass% eant ,Ti e#% one can understand the sense of his state ent the unity of indefinite links between syste s evades the action of ti e9it is# outside s$ace/ti e& Ti e# that ,uni'ue ideally subjective $heno enon#% does not e+ist

$er se& 0o the s$ace/ti e continuu # when it is considered in isolation# is a sort of a$$ro+i ation# a subjective $heno enon# linked to a sub/syste & .ach sub/syste # corres$onding to a certain ,degree of ateriality#% $ossesses its own s$ace/ti e& )inally# in certain recent scientific theories#;C descri$tions of $hysical reality have necessitated the introduction of di ensions other than those of s$ace/ti e& The $hysical ,event% takes $lace in all di ensions at the sa e ti e& 1onse'uently# one can no longer talk at that level of linear# continuous ti e& There is a law of causality# but the event occurs in a sudden way& There is neither ,before% nor ,after% in the usual sense of the ter s there is so ething like a discontinuity in the notion of ti e itself& Would it be $ossible to discuss a theatre ,event% without i ersing oneself in an e+$erience of ti e- >ne ight argue that the essence of a Peter Brook theatre event is in its suddenness# in its unforeseeable nature 3in the sense of the i $ossibility of $recise re$roduction at will5& Brook says that ,The s$ecial o ents no longer ha$$en by luck& Let they can%t be re$eated& It%s why s$ontaneous events are so terrifying and arvelous& They can only be rediscovered&%<H 2eaning ,never belongs to the $ast%<6 it a$$ears in the ystery of the $resent o ent# the instant of o$ening towards a relationshi$& This , eaning% is infinitely richer than that to which classical ,rational% thought has access# based as it is 3$erha$s without it ever being aware5 on linear causality# on echanistic deter inis & *t fleeting o ents# great actors touch u$on this new kind of , eaning&% In Paul 0cofield# for e+a $le# : instru ent and $layer are one9an instru ent of flesh and blood that o$ens itself to the unknown:It was as though the act of s$eaking a word sent through hi vibrations that echoed back eanings far ore co $le+ than his rational thinking could find&<; There is so ething $ri itive# direct and i ediate in the idea of ,$resent o ent%9a sort of absolute liberty in relation to $erfor ance# a revivifying sentient s$ontaneity& ,The idea of $resent o ent#% writes Pierce# ,within which# whether it e+ists or not# one naturally thinks of a $oint in ti e when no thought can take $lace# when no detail can be differentiated# is an idea of Pri acy:%<<9Pri acy being ,the ode of being of whatever is such as it is# in a $ositive way# with no reference to anything else at all&%<? The , iracle% of Peter Brook%s theatre work see s to e to reside in $recisely this sense of the o ent# in the liberation of energies circulating in har onic flu+# incor$orating the s$ectator as active $artici$ant in the theatrical event& Parado+ically we find all of the ,$oints of convergence% that have been discussed throughout this study e bodied not so uch in his fil 2eetings with Re arkable 2en# but rather in a $lay like The 1herry >rchard& * result $erha$s of the difference between cine a and theatre# which Brook has underlined ,There is only one interesting difference between the cine a and the theatre& The cine a flashes on to a screen i ages fro the $ast& *s this is what the ind does to itself all through life# the cine a see s inti ately real& >f course# it is nothing of the sort9it is a satisfying and enjoyable e+tension of the unreality of everyday $erce$tion& The theatre# on the other hand# always asserts itself in the $resent& This is

what can ake it ore real than the nor al strea of consciousness& This is also what can ake it so disturbing&%<E Te+ts by 1hekhov# ,the dra atist of life%s ove ent#%<F or by 0hakes$eare# enable every di ension of Brook%s theatre work to be revealed& In The 1herry >rchard# there are s$ecific o ents when a$$arently banal words and gestures fall a$art# suddenly o$ened to another reality that one so ehow feels to be the only one that counts& * flow of a new 'uality of energy starts to circulate# and the s$ectator is carried off to new heights# in a sudden confrontation with hi Gherself& The arks etched into our e ories in this way last a very long ti e although theatre is ,a self/destructive art#%<A it is nonetheless ca$able of attaining a certain $er anence& The Ternary 0tructure of Brook%s Theatre 0$ace *nother re arkable eeting $oint between Peter Brook%s theatre work# traditional thought and 'uantu theory# is in their shared recognition of contradiction as the , otor% of every $rocess in reality& The role of contradiction is a$$arent in the changes of direction Brook hi self has chosen throughout his career# through 0hakes$eare# co ercial co edy# television# cine a and o$era ,I%ve really s$ent all y working life in looking for o$$osites#% Brook suggested in an interview with The Ti es& ,This is a dialectical $rinci$le of finding a reality through o$$osites&%<@ De e $hasises the role of contradiction as a eans of awakening understanding# taking .liKabethan dra a as an e+a $le ,.liKabethan dra a was e+$osure# it was confrontation# it was contradiction and it led to analysis# involve ent# recognition and# eventually# to an awakening of understanding&%<C 1ontradiction is not destructive# but a balancing force& It has its role to $lay in the genesis of all $rocesses& The absence of contradiction would lead to general ho ogenisation# a dwindling of energy and eventual death& ,Whatever contains contradiction : contains the world#% clai s 4u$asco# whose conclusions are based on 'uantu $hysics&?H Brook $oints out the constructive role of negation in the theatre of Beckett ,Beckett does not say ,no% with satisfaction he forges his erciless ,no% out of a longing for ,yes#% and so his des$air is the negative fro which the contour of its o$$osite can be drawn&%?6 1ontradiction also $lays a central role in the works of 0hakes$eare which ,$ass through any stages of consciousness% ,What enabled hi technically to do so# the essence# in fact# of his style# is a roughness of te+ture and a conscious ingling of o$$osites:%?; 0hakes$eare re ains the great ideal# the su it# an indelible $oint of reference for a $ossible evolution in theatre It is through the unreconciled o$$osition of Rough and Doly# through an atonal screech of absolutely unsy $athetic keys that we get the disturbing and the unforgettable i $ressions of his $lays& It is because the contradictions are so strong that they burn on us so dee$ly&?< Brook sees Jing 4ear as a ,vast# co $le+# coherent $oe % attaining cos ic di ensions in its revelation of ,the $ower and the e $tiness of nothing9the $ositive and negative as$ects latent in the Kero&%??

1ontradiction is the sine 'ua non of successful theatrical $erfor ance& Mea i 36<F<B 6???5# one of the first great asters of the Noh9his treatise is known as ,the secret tradition of the Noh%9observed five centuries ago 4et it be known that in everything# it is at the critical $oint of har onic balance between yin and yang that $erfection is located : if one was to inter$ret yang in a yang way# or yin in a yin way# there could be no har onising balance# and $erfection would be i $ossible& Without $erfection# how could one ever be interesting-?E )or certain traditional thinkers like Mea i# =akob BNh e or Gurdjieff# as well as for certain $hiloso$hers whose thinking is based on scientific knowledge# like Pierce and 4u$asco# contradiction is 'uite si $ly the dyna ic interrelationshi$ of three inde$endent forces# si ultaneously $resent in every $rocess in reality9an affir ative force# a negative force and a conciliatory force& Therefore reality has a ternary dyna ic structure# a ,trialectical% structure& )or e+a $le# Mea i elaborated a law called johakyu# to which Peter Brook often refers& ,=o% eans ,beginning% or ,o$ening% ,ha% eans , iddle% or ,develo$ ent% 3as well as ,to break#% ,cru ble#% ,s$read out%5 ,kyu% eans ,end% or ,finale% 3as well as ,s$eed#% ,cli a+#% ,$aro+ys %5& *ccording to Mea i it is not only theatre $erfor ance itself which can be broken down into jo# ha and kyu# but also every vocal or instru ental $hrase# every ove ent# every ste$# every word&?F Mea i%s co ents are still vitally relevant to us today& >ne can easily i agine# for e+a $le# the boredo $rovoked by the $erfor ance of a tragic $lay# which begins in cli actic $aro+ys # then develo$s through inter inable e+$ositions of the causes of the dra a& *t the sa e ti e it would be $ossible to undertake a detailed analysis of the uni'ue at os$here created in the $lays staged by Peter Brook# as the result of confor ity with the law of johakyu9in the structural $rogression of these $lays as well as in the actors% $erfor ances& But the ost $ersonal as$ect of Brook%s theatre work see s to lie in his elaboration and $resentation of a new ternary structuring& Brook%s theatre s$ace could be re$resented by a triangle# with the base line for the audience%s consciousness# and the two other sides for the inner life of the actors and their relations with their $artners& This ternary configuration is constantly $resent in both Brook%s $ractice and his writings& In everyday life# our contacts are often li ited to a confrontation between our inner life and our relationshi$s with our $artners the triangle is utilated# for its base is absent& In the theatre# actors are obliged to confront ,their ulti ate and absolute res$onsibility# the relationshi$ with an audience# which is what in effect gives theatre its funda ental eaning&%?A We will return to the central role of the audience in Brook%s theatre s$ace in the ne+t section& *nother ternary structure which is active in theatre s$ace can be located if one acce$ts the notion of ,centres% $ro$osed by Gurdjieff& De believed that what distinguishes ankind fro other organic entities in nature is the fact of being ,tricentric% or

,tricerebral%9a being with three ,centres% or ,brains&% Indeed a hu an being could be re$resented by a triangle9the base re$resenting the e otional centre 3locus of Reconciliation5# the two other sides the intellectual centre 3locus of *ffir ation5 and the instinctive otor centre 3locus of Negation5& Dar ony ste s fro a state of balance between these three centres& It is very clear that the conditions of odern life only favour the functioning of the intellectual centre# $articularly of the ,auto ated% $art of that centre# what one could call ,cerebral% activity& This ideational ele ent# which is of course a $owerful eans in an%s ada$tation to his environ ent# has changed fro a , eans% into an ,end#% ado$ting the role of o ni$otent tyrant& Therefore the triangle re$resenting ankind threatens to break a$art# on account of the dis$ro$ortionate lengthening of one of its sides& Theatrical s$ace# in turn# cannot fail to feel the conse'uences of this $rocess& =ohn Deil$ern# who has described the 1&I&R&T& actors% ,e+$edition% to *frica# recalled his astonish ent when he heard Peter Brook talking about the role of cerebral activity ,De $ointed to the i balance within us where the golden calf of the intellect is worshi$$ed at the cost of true feelings and e+$erience& 4ike =ung# he believes that the intellectual9the intellect alone9$rotects us fro true feeling# stifles and ca ouflages the s$irit in a blind collection of facts and conce$ts& Let as Brook talked to e of this I was struck forcibly by the fact that he# a su$re e intellectual figure# should e+$ress hi self this way&%?@ *s so eone who had branded ;Hth 1entury an as ,e otionally consti$ated#%?C Brook sheds no tears for the ,deadly theatre#% which he considers to be the $erfect e+$ression of the cerebral ele ent in its atte $t to a$$ro$riate real feelings and e+$eriences To ake atters worse# there is always a deadly s$ectator# who for s$ecial reasons enjoys a lack of intensity and even a lack of entertain ent# such as the scholar who e erges fro routine $erfor ances of the classics s iling because nothing has distracted hi fro trying over and confir ing his $et theories to hi self# whist reciting his favourite lines under his breath& In his heart he sincerely wants a theatre that is nobler/than/life# and he confuses a sort of intellectual satisfaction with the true e+$erience for which he craves&EH Dar ony between the centres facilitates the develo$ ent of a new 'uality of $erce$tion# a ,direct% and i ediate $erce$tion which does not $ass through the defor ing filter of cerebral activity& 0o a new intelligence can a$$ear ,along with e otion# there is always a role for a s$ecial intelligence that is not there at the start# but which has to be develo$ed as a selecting instru ent&%E6 * lot of the e+ercises elaborated by Peter Brook have as their $recise ai the develo$ ent of this state of unity between thought# body and feelings by liberating the actor fro an over/cerebral a$$roach& In this way# the actor can be organically linked with hi Gherself and act as a unified ,whole% being# rather than as a frag ented one& Through such research work# one gradually discovers an i $ortant as$ect of the functioning of the centres9the great difference in their ,s$eeds&% *ccording to

Gurdjieff#E; the intellectual centre is the slowest# whereas the e otional centre is the 'uickest9its i $ressions are i ediately ade a$$arent to us& 0o it is clear in what way the de ands of an e+ercise can enable a discovery of the co on rule by obilising the intervention of the 'uicker centres& During the 1ar en rehearsals# actors were asked to walk while at the sa e ti e e itting a sound# then to $ass fro $iano to fortissi o without altering the dyna ic and bearing of the walk&E< The difficulty of this e+ercise revealed the dishar ony between centres# a blocking of the 'uicker centres by the intellectual one& 1o $are this with another e+ercise where actors would be re'uired to ark out rhyth s in fourGfour ti e with their feet# while their hands ke$t threeGthree ti e& 1ertain e+ercises allow so ething akin to a ,$hotogra$h% of the functioning of the centres at a given o ent to be taken& )i+ed in a certain attitude# the actor can discover the contradictory functioning of these different centres# and thereby find# through e+$eri ent# the way towards a ore integrated# har onious functioning& >ne ight want to establish revelatory $oints of corres$ondence between the two triangles9that of Brook%s theatre s$ace and that of Gurdjieff%s centres& In $articular# this ,iso or$his % between the two triangles could well enlighten us as to the role of the audience# in its ca$acity as catalyst for the e otional centre%s i $ressions& But that would lead us far fro our i ediate concerns here and anyway no theoretical analysis could ever substitute for the richness of a first/hand e+$erience of i ersion in Brook%s theatre s$ace& The ost s$ectacular illustration of the crucial# $ri ary role of e+$erience in Brook%s work is $erha$s in the $re$aration for 1onference of the Birds& Instead of $lunging his actors into a study of ,*ttar%s $oe # or co itting the to an erudite analysis of 0ufi te+ts# Brook led the off on an e+traordinary e+$edition to *frica& 1onfronted with the difficulties inherent in a crossing of the 0ahara desert# obliged to i $rovise in front of the inhabitants of *frican villages# the actors went ine+orably towards a eeting with the selves ,.verything we do on this journey is an e+ercise : in heightening $erce$tion on every conceivable level& Lou ight call the $erfor ance of a show ,the grand e+ercise&% But everything feeds the work# and everything surrounding it is $art of a bigger test of awareness& 1all it ,the su$er/grand e+ercise&E? Indeed self/confrontation after a long and arduous $rocess of self/initiation is the very keystone to ,*ttar%s $oe & This kind of e+$eri ental# organic a$$roach to a te+t has an infinitely greater value than any theoretical# ethodical or syste atic study& Its value beco es a$$arent in the sti ulation of a very $articular ,'uality% it constitutes the ost tangible characteristic of Brook%s work& Dis co ents on >rghast are as significant and valid for 1onference of the Birds# as indeed for all of the other $erfor ances ,The result that we are working towards is not a for # not an i age# but a set of conditions in which a certain 'uality of $erfor ance can arise&%EE This 'uality is directly connected to the free circulation of energies# through $recise and detailed 3one could even call it ,scientific%5 work on $erce$tion& Disci$line is ine+tricably associated with s$ontaneity# $recision with freedo &

Theatre# Deter inis

and 0$ontaneity

Dow can disci$line and s$ontaneity be ade to coe+ist and interact- Where does s$ontaneity co e fro - Dow can one distinguish true s$ontaneity fro a si $le auto atic res$onse# associated with a set of $re/e+isting 3if unconscious5 clich7s- In other words# how can one differentiate between an association9$erha$s une+$ected# but nonetheless echanical9with its source in what has been seen already# and the e ergence of so ething really new0$ontaneity introduces an indeter inate ele ent into an evolutionary $rocess& Deisenberg%s celebrated ,uncertainty relation#% or ,uncertainty $rinci$le% indicates that s$ontaneity is effectively active in nature& This $rinci$le tells us that the $roduct of an increase in 'uantity of a 'uantu event%s o entu through its s$atial e+tension# or the $roduct of an increase in energy through its te $oral e+tension ust be su$erior to a certain constant re$resenting the ele entary 'uantu of action& 0o if one were to ask# for e+a $le# for a $recisely $in$ointed s$atial localiKation of the 'uantu event# the result would be an infinite increase on the level of uncertainty of o entu just as if one were to ask for a $recisely $in$ointed te $oral localisation# the result would be an infinite increase in the level of energy& There is no need for a high degree of so$histication in athe atics or $hysics to understand that this signifies the i $ossibility of a $recise localisation in s$ace/ti e of any 'uantu event& The conce$t of identity in a classical $article 3identity defined in relation to the $article itself# as a $art se$arate fro the Whole5 is therefore necessarily s ashed a$art& The 'uantu event is not ade u$ of wave or $article# it is si ultaneously wave and $article& The i $ossibility of $recisely locating a 'uantu event in s$ace/ti e can be understood as a conse'uence of the in/se$arability of events& Their ,aleatory% or ,$robabilist% character does not reflect the action of ,chance&% The aleatory 'uantu is constructive# it has a direction9that of the self/organiKation of natural syste s& *t the sa e ti e# the observer ceases to be an ,observer%9sGhe beco es# as Wheeler has said# ,a $artici$ant&% Iuantu theory has its $lace in the ,Oalley of *stonish ent% 3one of the seven valleys in 1onference of the Birds5 where contradiction and indeter inacy lie in wait for the traveller& >ne could $ostulate the e+istence of a general $rinci$le of uncertainty# active in any $rocess in reality& It is also necessarily active in theatrical s$ace# above all in the relationshi$ between audience and $lay& In the ,for ula% for theatre suggested by Brook 3,Theatre P Rra% ,R7$7tition#% ,re$r7sentation#% ,assistance%5# the $resence 9,assistance%9of an audience $lays an essential role The only thing that all for s of theatre have in co on is the need for an audience& This is ore than a truis in the theatre the audience co $letes the ste$s of creation&EF The audience is $art of a uch greater unity# subject to the $rinci$le of uncertainty QIt is hard to understand the true function of s$ectator# there and not there# ignored and yet needed& The actor%s work is never for an audience# yet it always is for one&REA The

audience akes itself o$en to the actors# in its desire to ,see ore clearly into itself#%E@ and so the $erfor ance begins to act ore fully on the audience& By o$ening itself u$# the audience in turn begins to influence the actors# if the 'uality of their $erce$tion allows interaction& That e+$lains why the global vision of a director can be dissolved by an audience%s $resence the audience e+$oses the non/confor ity of this vision with the structure of the theatrical event& The theatrical event is indeter inate# instantaneous# un$redictable# even if it necessitates the reunion of a set of clearly deter ined conditions& The director%s role consists of working at great length and in detail to $re$are the actors# thus enabling the e ergence of the theatrical event& *ll atte $ts to antici$ate or $redeter ine the theatrical event are doo ed to failure the director cannot substitute hi Gherself for the audience& The triangle co $rising ,inner life of the actors9their relations with their $artners9the audience%s consciousness% can only be engendered at the actual o ent of $erfor ance& The collective entity that is the audience akes the conciliatory ele ent indis$ensable to the birth of the theatrical event ,3*n audience%s5 true activity can be invisible# but also indivisible&%EC Dowever invisible it is# this active $artici$ation by the audience is nonetheless aterial and $otent ,When the Royal 0hakes$eare 1o $any%s $roduction of Jing 4ear toured through .uro$e# the $roduction was steadily i $roving: The 'uality of attention that this audience brought e+$ressed itself in silence and concentration a feeling in the house that affected the actors as though a brilliant light were turned on their work&%FH 0o it is evident why Brook%s research work tends towards ,: a necessary theatre# one in which there is only a $ractical difference between actor and audience# not a funda ental one&%F6 The s$ace in which the interaction between audience and actors takes $lace is infinitely ore subtle than that of ideas# conce$ts# $rejudices or $reconditioning& The 'uality of the attention of both audience and actors enables the event to occur as a full anifestation of s$ontaneity& Ideally this interaction can transcend linguistic and cultural barriers& The 1&I&R&T& actors can co unicate just as well with *frican villagers# *ustralian aborigines or the inhabitants of BrooklynS ,Theatre isn%t about narrative& Narrative isn%t necessary& .vents will ake the whole&%F; 2any of the confusions concerning the $roble of ,s$ontaneity% a$$ear to have their source in a linear# ono/di ensional conce$tion of the theatrical event& >ne can easily believe in the e+istence of laws such as Mea i%s johakyu#FA but that is insufficient in understanding how a theatrical event can take $lace through the transition between the different ele ents of johakyu& If one li its oneself to a strictly horiKontal view of the action of johakyu 3jo# the beginning ha# the develo$ ent kyu# the ending5# it is i $ossible to understand how one ight arrive# for e+a $le# at the ulti ate refine ent of the ha $art of ha# or to a $aro+ystic $eak in the kyu $art of kyu& What can $roduce the dyna ic ,shocks% necessary for the ove ent not to sto$# not to beco e blocked- Dow can the necessary continuity of a theatrical $erfor ance be reconciled with the discontinuity inherent in its different co $onents- Dow can one har onise the $rogression of the $lay# the actors% work and the $erce$tion liberated in the audienceIn other words# horiKontal ove ent is eaningless by itself& It re ains on the sa e level forever# no infor ation is forthco ing& This ove ent only ac'uires a

significance if it is co bined with an evolutionary dyna ic& It is as if each $heno enon in reality were subject# at every o ent# to two contradictory ove ents# in two o$$osing directions one ascending# the other descending& *s if there were two $arallel rivers# flowing with considerable force in two o$$osing directions in order to $ass fro one river to the other# an e+ternal intervention9a ,shock%9is absolutely essential& This is where the full richness of the significance of the notion of ,discontinuity% is revealed& But in order for this ,shock% to be effective# a certain concordance or overla$ ust e+ist between the ,shock% 3which in itself is subject to the law of johakyu5 and the syste u$on which it is acting& Therefore it beco es clear why each ele ent of johakyu ust be co $osed in turn of the three other ele ents9in other words# why there has to be a jo/ha/kyu se'uence within the jo# the ha and the kyu& These different co $onents enable interaction between the different syste s to take $lace& Therefore# in order for a har onious ove ent to a$$ear# a new di ension ust be $resent johakyu is not only active horiKontally# but also vertically& If each ele ent 3jo# ha and kyu5 is co $osed in turn of three other ele ents# therefore we obtain nine ele ents# two of which re$resent a sort of ,interval&% >ne of these is filled by the ,shock% enabling the horiKontal transition to take $lace# the other by the ,shock% enabling the vertical transition to take $lace& In this way# one ends u$ with a vision of the action of Mea i%s johakyu which is very close to the $recise athe atical for ulation Gurdjieff elaborated for his ,law of 0even% or ,octave law&%F< When one considers this two/di ensional vision of the action of johakyu# Peter Brook%s insistence on the audience%s central role in a theatrical event beco es clearer& The audience can follow the suggestions $ro$osed to it by the $layte+t# the actors and the director& The first interval9between jo and ha9can be traversed by eans of a ore or less auto atic e+change# the $lay can continue its horiKontal ove ent& But the audience also has its own irreducible $resence its culture# its sensitivity# its e+$erience of life# its 'uality of attention# the intensity of its $erce$tion& * ,resonance% between the actors% work and the audience%s inner life can occur& Therefore the theatrical event can a$$ear fully s$ontaneous# by eans of vertical e+change9which i $lies a certain degree of will and of awareness9thereby leading to so ething truly new# not $re/ e+istent in theatrical $erfor ance& The ascent of the action of johakyu towards the $lay%s su it9the kyu of kyu9can therefore take $lace& The second interval is filled by a true ,shock#% allowing the $arado+ical coe+istence of continuity and discontinuity& We have described what could be considered to be a first level of $erce$tion in a theatre event& This analysis could be further refined by taking into account the tree/like structure 3it is never ending5 of johakyu& Different levels of $erce$tion# structured hierarchically in a 'ualitative ,ladder#% could be discovered in this way& There are degrees of s$ontaneity# just as there are degrees of $erce$tion& The ,'uality% of a theatrical $erfor ance is deter ined by the effective $resence of these degrees& We have also referred to a vertical di ension in the action of johakyu& This di ension is associated with two $ossible i $ulses one ascending 3evolution5# the other descending

3entro$ic involution5& The ascending curve corres$onds to a densification of energy# reflecting the tendency towards unity in diversity and an aug entation of awareness& It is in this sense that we have described the action of johakyu until this $oint& But one ight well conceive of a johakyu in reverse# such as a$$ears# for e+a $le# in the subject of Peter Brook%s fil 4ord of the )lies# where one witnessed the $rogressive degradation of a $aradise towards a hell& *n ideal# innocent s$ace e+ists nowhere& 4eft to the selves# without the intervention of ,conscience% and ,awareness#% the ,laws of creation% lead ine+orably towards frag entation# echanicity# and# in the final instance# to violence and destruction& In this way s$ontaneity is eta or$hosed into echanicity& It should be noted that ,s$ontaneity% and ,sincerity% are closely linked& The usual oral connotation of ,sincerity% signifies its reduction to an auto atic functioning based on a set of ideas and beliefs i $lanted into the collective $syche in an accidental way through the $assage of ti e& In this sense# ,sincerity% co es close to a lie# in relation to itself& By ridding ourselves of the ballast of what does not belong to us# we can eventually beco e ,sincere% recognising laws# seeing oneself# o$ening oneself to relationshi$s with others& 0uch a $rocess de ands work# a significant degree of effort ,sincerity ust be learnt&%F? In relation to our usual conce$tion of it# this kind of ,sincerity% rese bles ,insincerity% ,with its oral overtones# the word 3sincerity5 causes great confusion& In a way# the ost $owerful feature of the Brecht actors is the degree of their insincerity& It is only through detach ent that an actor will see his own cliches&%FE The actor inhabits a double s$ace of false and true sincerity# the ost fruitful ove ent being an oscillation between the two ,The actor is called u$on to be co $letely involved while distanced9detached without detach ent& De ust be sincere# he ust be insincere he ust $ractice how to be insincere with sincerity and how to lie truthfully& This is al ost i $ossible# but it is essential:%FF The actor%s $redica ent is re iniscent of *rjuna%s $er$le+ity when confronted with the advice that Jrishna gives hi # in the Bhagavad Gita# to reconcile action and non/action $arado+ically# action undertaken with understanding beco es intertwined with inaction& *t every o ent# the actor is confronted with a choice between acting and not/acting# between an action visible to the audience and an invisible action# linked to hisGher inner life& Mea i drew our attention to the i $ortance of intervals of non/inter$retation or ,non/action#% se$arating a $air of gestures# actions or ove ents It is a s$iritual concentration which will allow you to re ain on your guard# retaining all of your attention# at that o ent when you sto$ dancing or chanting# or in any other circu stances during an interval in the te+t or in the i ic art& The e otion created by this inner s$iritual concentration9which anifests itself e+ternally9is what $roduces interest and enjoy ent: It is in relation to the degree of non/consciousness and selflessness# through a ental attitude in which one%s s$iritual reality is hidden even fro oneself# that one ust forge the link between what $recedes and what follows the intervals of non/action& This is what constitutes the inner strength which can serve to reunite all ten thousand eans of e+$ression in the oneness of the s$irit&FA

It is only by astering the attitudes and associations $roduced in this way that the actor can truly ,$lay $arts#% $utting hi Gherself in others% $laces& ,*t every o ent#% wrote Gurdjieff# ,associations change auto atically# one evoking another# and so on& If I a in the $rocess of $laying a $art# I ust be in control all the ti e& It is i $ossible to start again with the given i $ulse&%F@ In a sense a free an is one who can truly ,$lay $arts&% In the light of all that has been said so far in this essay# would it not now be $ossible to state that there is a very strong relationshi$ between theatrical and s$iritual workWhether one agrees or not# a clear and i $ortant distinction between theatre research and traditional research ust be ade in order to avoid the source of an indefinite chain of har ful confusions# which in any case have already coloured certain endeavours in the odern theatre& Traditional research addresses itself to an as a whole# calling into $lay a wide range of as$ects# infinitely richer than that of theatre research after all# the latter%s end is aesthetic& Traditional research is closely linked with an oral teaching# untranslatable into ordinary language& Isn%t it significant that no traditional writings ever describe the $rocess of self/ initiation- In his ,Third 0eries#% faced with the i $ossibility of the task# Gurdjieff $referred to destroy his anuscri$t9what was eventually $ublished as 4ife is real only then# when ,I a % is only a collection of frag ents fro that anuscri$t& >n several occasions# 0aint =ohn of the 1ross announced a treatise on the , ystical union#% but no trace has ever been found of such a work& )inally# ,*ttar devoted the ajor $art of his $oe 1onference of the Birds to the story of the discussions between the birds and a descri$tion of the $re$aration for their journey the journey itself and the eeting with the 0i orgh only take u$ a few lines& Theatre research clearly has another end in ind art# theatre& Peter Brook hi self has strongly e $hasised the need for such a distinction ,theatre work is not a substitute for a s$iritual search&%FC In itself the theatrical e+$erience is insufficient to transfor the life of an actor& Nevertheless# like a savant# for e+a $le# or indeed any hu an being# the actor can e+$erience fleetingly what could be ,a higher level of evolution&% Theatre is an i itation of life# but an i itation based u$on the concentration of energies released in the creation of a theatre event& 0o one can beco e aware# on an e+$eriential level# of the full richness of the $resent o ent& If theatre is not really the decisive eeting with oneself and with others# it nonetheless allows for a certain degree of e+$loration to take $lace& This funda ental a biguity recurs in Grotowski%s a$$roach# at least such as it is described by Brook ,The theatre# he believes# cannot be an end in itself like dancing or usic in certain dervish orders# the theatre is a vehicle# a eans for self/study# self/ e+$loration:%AH *ccording to Brook%s conce$tion of the theatre# it cannot lay clai to unity# in ter s of its end& >f course one can arrive at certain $rivileged o entsS ,*t certain o ents# this frag ented world co es together# and for a certain ti e it can rediscover the arvel of organic life& The arvel of being one&%A6 But theatre work is e$he eral# subject to the influences 3both evoluted and involuted5 of the environ ent&

This i $er anence $revents it fro leading to ,$oints of dyna ic concentration&% In answer to a 'uestion about >rghast# Brook re$lied that theatre work is : self destructive within waves: Lou go through lines and $oints& The line that has gone through >rghast should co e to a $oint# and the $oint should be a work : obviously there is a necessary crystallising of the work into a concentrated for & It%s always about that9co ing to $oints of concentration&A; >n the Possibility of a (niversal 4anguage When *&1&D& 0 ith asked hi about the $ossibility of a ,universal language#% Peter Brook dis issed the 'uestion as being eaningless&A< Dis res$onse reflects a fear of the stifling of a vital 'uestion by endless theoretical considerations# by defor ing and ai ing abstractions& Dow any $rejudices and cliches are unleashed auto atically si $ly by $ronouncing the two words ,universal language%- *nd yet Brook%s entire work testifies to his search for a new language which endeavours to unite sound# gesture and word# and in this way to free eanings which could not be e+$ressed in any other way& But above all this research is e+$eri ental so ething living e erges into the theatre s$ace# and it atters little what na e one gives to it& ,What ha$$ens#% Brook asks# ,when gesture and sound turn into word- What is the e+act $lace of the word in theatrical e+$ression- *s vibration- 1once$t- 2usic- Is any evidence buried in the structure of certain ancient languages-%A? The fact that# by the selves# words cannot $rovide total access to reality has been well known for a long ti e& In the final analysis# any definition of words by words is based on indefinite ter s& Where does linguistic deter inis begin# and where does it end1an it be characterised by a single value# by a finite nu ber of values or by an infinite nu ber- *nd if# according to JorKybski%s fa ous $hrase# ,the a$ is not the territory#%AE it nevertheless has the considerable advantage of a structure si ilar to that of the territory& Dow can this si ilarity beco e o$erative- The word is a s all visible $ortion of a gigantic unseen for ation#% writes Brook&AF 0tarting with this ,s all visible $ortion#% how can one gain access to the ,gigantic for ation% of the universe as a whole* theatrical event# as has already been suggested# deter ines the a$$earance of a laddered structure of different levels of $erce$tion& Dow can any single word enca$sulate the su of these levelsThe relativisation of $erce$tion has enabled us to s$ecify a $heno enon%s $lace in reality# as well as how it is linked to the rest& * word# a gesture# an action are all linked to a certain level of $erce$tion# but# in the true theatrical event# they are also linked to other levels $resent in the event& Relativity allows us to uncover the invariance concealed behind the ulti$licity of for s of $heno ena in different syste s of reference& This vision of things is close to that i $lied by the ,$rinci$le of relativity% for ulated by Gurdjieff&AA Relativity conditions vision without relativity there can be no vision& The $laywright who takes hisGher own reality for reality as a whole $resents an i age of a desiccated

and dead world# in s$ite of any ,originality% that heGshe ight have shown& ,(nfortunately the $laywright rarely searches to relate their detail to any larger structure 9it is as though they acce$t without 'uestion their intuition as co $lete# their reality as all of reality&%A@ Death itself can be relativised in an acce$tance of contradiction& Brook cites the e+a $le of 1hekhov ,In 1hekhov%s work# death is o ni$resent: But he learnt how to balance co $assion with distance: This awareness of death# and of the $recious o ents that could be lived# endow his work with a sense of the relative in other words# a view$oint fro which the tragic is always a bit absurd&%AC Non/identification is another word for vision& Theatre work can be the constant search for a si ultaneous $erce$tion# by both actors and audience# of every level $resent in an event& Brook describes his own research in this concise for ulation : the si $le relationshi$ of ove ent and sound that $asses directly# and the single ele ent which has the a biguity and density that $er its it to be read si ultaneously on a ultitude of levels9those are the two $oints that the research is all about&@H The $rinci$le of relativity clarifies what an eventual ,universal language% could be& )or Gurdjieff# this new# $recise# athe atical language had to be centered around the idea of evolution ,The funda ental $ro$erty of this new language is that all ideas are concentrated around one single idea in other words# they are all considered# in ter s of their utual relationshi$s# fro the $oint of view of a single idea& *nd this idea is that of evolution& Not at all in the sense of a echanical evolution# naturally# because that does not e+ist# but in the sense of a conscious and voluntary evolution& It is the only $ossible kind: The language which $er its understanding is based on the knowledge of its $lace in the evolutionary ladder&%@6 0o the sacred itself could be understood to be anything that is linked to an evolutionary $rocess& This new language involves the $artici$ation of body and e otions& Du an beings in their totality# as an i age of reality# could therefore forge a new language& We do not only live in the world of action and reaction# but also in that of s$ontaneity and of self/ conscious thought& Traditional sy bolic language $refigures this new language& When talking about different syste s which convey the idea of unity# Gurdjieff said * sy bol can never be taken in a definitive and e+clusive sense& In so far as it e+$ress the laws of unity in indefinite diversity# a sy bol itself $ossesses an indefinite nu ber of as$ects fro which it can be considered# and it de ands fro whoever a$$roaches it the ca$acity to see it fro different $oints of view& 0y bols that are trans$osed into the words of ordinary language harden# beco e less clear they can 'uite easily beco e their own o$$osites# i $risoning eaning within dog atic and narrow fra e/works# without even $er itting the relative freedo of a logical e+a ination of the subject& Reason erely $rovides a literal understanding of sy bols# only ever attributing to the a single eaning&@;

The fact that a sy bol $ossesses an indefinite nu ber of as$ects does not ean that it is i $recise at all& Indeed it is its reading on an indefinite nu ber of levels which confers on it its e+tre e $recision& 1o enting on the theatre of 0a uel Beckett# Brook writes Beckett%s $lays are sy bols in an e+act sense of the word& * false sy bol is soft and vague a true sy bol is hard and clear& When we say ,sy bolic% we often ean so ething drearily obscure a true sy bol is s$ecific# it is the only for a certain truth can take: We get nowhere if we e+$ect to be told what they ean# yet each one has a relation with us we can%t deny& If we acce$t this# the sy bol o$ens in us a great wondering >&@< It is clear therefore why Brook believes 1hekhov%s essential 'uality to be ,$recision#% and why he states that today ,: fidelity is the central concern# an a$$roach which necessitates weighing every single word and bringing it into shar$ focus&%@? >nly then can words have an influence they can beco e active# bearers of real significance# if the actor behaves as a , ediu #% allowing words to act through and ,colour% hi Gher# rather than hi Gher trying to ani$ulate the &@E By forgetting relativity# language has beco e in ti e inevitably narrower# di inished in its e otional and even intellectual ca$acities& It has been necessarily ,bastardised% one word is taken for another# one eaning for another& The >rghast e+$eri ent showed in a startling way that a return to an organic language# detached fro the dread bonding of abstraction to abstraction# is $ossible& Words invented by the $oet Ted Dughes and frag ents $erfor ed in different ancient languages acted as catalysts to the reci$rocal transfor ation between ove ent and sound# as an e+$ression of an inner state# eaning no longer needing to be filtered solely through cerebral activity& In an interview with * erican Theatre# Brook e $hasised that ,actors# whatever their origin# can $lay intuitively a work in its original language& This si $le $rinci$le is the ost unusual thing that e+ists in the theatre:%@F .vidently the relativisation of $erce$tion de ands hard work# a considerable effort# an inner silence that is a sort of $enitence& 0ilence $lays an integral $art in Brook%s work# beginning with the research into the inter/relationshi$ of silence and duration with his Theatre of 1ruelty grou$ in 6CF?# and cul inating in the rhyth $unctuated with silences that is indefinitely $resent at the core of his fil 2eetings with Re arkable 2en ,In silence there are any $otentialities chaos or order# uddle or $attern# all lie fallow9the invisible/ ade/visible is of sacred nature:%@A 0ilence is all/e bracing# and it contains countless ,layers&%@@ >ne could suggest that events and silence constitute the fabric of any theatre $erfor ance& 0ilence co es at the end of action# as in 1onference of the Birds ,* beautiful sy bolic o$$osition is drawn between the black of the ourning aterial and the hues of the $u$$ets& 1olour disa$$ears# all s$arkle is su$$ressed# silence is established#% observes Georges Banu&@C The richness of silence confuses# e barrasses

and disturbs# and yet it is joy that is hidden within it# that ,strange irrational joy% that Brook detected in the $lays of 0a uel Beckett&CH It is no coincidence that the words ,e $ty s$ace% for the title of one of the two books on theatre Brook has ever $ublished& >ne ust create an e $tiness# a silence within oneself# in order to $er it the growth of reality%s full $otentiality& This is what Tradition has always taught us& Is silence the $re onitory sign of a true ,universal language%- In a $assage in The . $ty 0$ace# Brook writes ,: everything is a language for so ething and nothing is a language for everything&%C6 Is this ,nothing%9,for less#% ,botto less#% as =acob BNh e called it9the basis of all for # $rocess and event- *nd how can one reconcile this infinitely rich# for less silence with aesthetic for # other than through incessant search# continual investigation and $itiless 'uestioning# relentlessly $ursued along a cutting edge- Perha$s it is above all ,tightro$es% that are issing fro conte $orary artistic research We can try to ca$ture the invisible# but we ust not lose touch with co on sense: The odel as always is 0hakes$eare& Dis ai continually is holy# eta$hysical# yet he never akes the istake of staying too long on the highest $lane& De knew how hard it is for us to kee$ co $any with the absolute9so he continually bu $s us down to earth: We have to acce$t that we can never see all of the invisible& 0o after straining towards it# we have to face defeat# dro$ down to earth# then start u$ again&C; Peter Brook is the only one to follow the $ath he has chosen& >n such a $ath# there can be neither ,sources% nor absolute , odels&% If one acce$ts JorKybski%s suggestion#C< the history of hu an thought can be roughly divided into three $eriods# ado$ting as the basis for classification the relationshi$ between the observer and what is observed& In the first $eriod 3,$re/scientific%5# the observer is everything# while what is being observed has little or no i $ortance& In the second $eriod 3,classical% or ,se i/scientific%5# what is observed co $rises the only i $ortant as$ect this ,classical% aterialist tendency continues to do inate ost areas of concern today& )inally# in the third $eriod 3,scientific%9still e bryonic at the $resent ti e5# a $eriod in which Peter Brook see s to us to be one of the boldest e+$lorers# gradually it beco es clear that knowledge results fro a unity between the observer and what is observed& *n encounter with Tradition can only enrich and ennoble this conce$tion of unity& )or the theatre# such a eeting is not abstract or intellectual# but e+$eri ental& >ne could even suggest that theatre is a $rivileged field of study of Tradition& *t the end of this essay# $erha$s one ust confess that it see s i $ossible to a$$roach Brook%s theatre work fro a theoretical $oint of view& *ll that we can offer is a ,reading#% one of a ultitude of other $ossibilities& In The . $ty 0$ace# Brook writes

2ost of what is called theatre anywhere in the world is a travesty of a word once full of sense& War or $eace# the colossal bandwagon of culture trundles on# carrying each artist%s traces to the ever ounting garbage hea$: We are too busy to ask the only vital 'uestion which easures the whole structure why theatre at all- What for-: Das the stage a real $lace in our lives- What function can it have- What could it serve-C? The 'uestion is still being asked& Notes 6 Petit Robert# Paris# 0&N&4&# 6CAH# $& 6@6H& ; Peter Brook in G7rard 2ontassier# 4e )ait 1ulturel# Paris# )ayard# 6C@H# $& 6;6& < Petit Robert# o$& cit&# $& 6@6H& ? Peter Brook in 4e )ait 1ulturel# o$& cit&# $& 6;;& E P&D& >us$ensky# )rag ents d%un enseigne ent inconnu 3hereafter )rag ents :5# Paris# 0tock# 6CA@# $& <C<& Published in .nglish as In 0earch of the 2iraculous# this re ains the ost thorough and illu inating introduction to Gurdjieff%s thought& )or a study of the relationshi$ between Gurdjieff and conte $orary scientific thought# see Basarab Nicolescu# ,G&I& Gurdjieff#% in .ncyclo$7die des 0ciences .sot7ri'ues# Paris# Iuillet# 6C@E& F Basarab Nicolescu# ,Physi'ue conte $orain et Tradition occidentale#% in <T e 2ill7naire no& ;# 2ayG=une 6C@;# $$& ?B6<& A Peter Brook# The . $ty 0$ace# Dar ondsworth# Penguin Books# 6CAA# $& E@& @ Peter Brook# ibid&# $& F?& C *&G&D& 0 ith# >rghast at Perse$olis# 4ondon# .yre 2ethuen# 6CA;# $& ;EA& 6H =ohn Deil$ern# 1onference of the Birds The 0tory of Peter Brook in *frica# Dar ondsworth# Penguin# 6CAC# $& 6H<& 66 Peter Brook# The . $ty 0$ace# o$& cit&# $& AC& 6; G&I& Gurdjieff# Gurdjieff $arle U ses 7lTves# Paris# 0tockG2onde ouvert# 6C@H# $& <E& 6< P&D& >us$ensky# )rag ents:# o$& cit&# $& 6<<& 6? Peter Brook# The . $ty 0$ace# o$& cit&# $& 6<& 6E .rvin 4asKlo# 4e syst7 is e9vision nouvelle du ond# Paris# Perga on Press# 6C@6# $& EC& This is an e+cellent introduction to syste s theory& 6F Peter Brook# 4e )ait 1ulturel# o$& cit&# $& 666 6A G&I& Gurdjieff# R7cits de BelK7buth U son $etit/fils# 2onaco# RocherG4it7rature# Ool& I# $$& @?# 6FF# 6FA# ;E?& 6@ 0ee *&1&D& 0 ith# >rghast at Perse$olis# o$& cit& =ohn Deil$ern# 1onference of the Birds# o$& cit& 2ichel Rostain# ,=ournal des r7$7titions de 4a Trag7die de 1ar en% in 4es Ooies de la 1r7ation Th7Vtrale# Ool& WIII# Peter Brook# Paris# .ditions de 1&N&R&0&# 6C@E& 6C Peter Brook in the $rogra e for 4a 1onf7rence des >iseau+# Paris# 1&I&1&T& 6CAC# $& AE& ;H *&1&D& 0 ith# >rghast at Perse$olis# o$& cit&# $& <<& ;6 Peter Brook# The . $ty 0$ace# o$& cit&# $& 6;A& ;; *lfred JorKybski# 0cience and 0anity# 4akevillel# 1onnecticut# The International Non/*ristotelian 4ibrary Publishing 1o&# 6CE@# $& 6F6& ;< *&1&D& 0 ith# >rghast at Perse$olis# o$& cit&# $& ;EE& ;? Ibid&# $& 6;<&

;E Peter Brook# The . $ty 0$ace# o$& cit&# $& 6;@& ;F 0ee for e+a $le 0t7$hane 4u$asco# 4es Troil 2atiTres# 0trasbourg# 1oherence# 6C@;& ;A )arid ud/Din ,*ttar# 1onference of the Birds# Boulder# 0ha bhala# 6CA6# $$& ?BF translation by 1& 0& Nott& ;@ G&I& Gurdjieff# R7cits de BelK7buth U son $etit/fils# o$& cit&# vol& ;# $$& 6?B6E& ;C 0ee# for e+a $le# articles in the review <T e 2ill7naire# nos& 6/;# 6C@;# and no& A# 6C@<& <H =ohn Deil$ern# 1onference of the Birds# o$& cit&# $& 6<F& <6 Peter Brook# The . $ty 0$ace# o$& cit&# $& 6?B6E& <; Ibid&# $& 6;?& << 1harles 0& Pierce# .crits sur le signe# Paris# .ditions du 0euil# 6CA@# $$& ;<B;?& <? Ibid&# $& ;;& <E Peter Brook# The . $ty 0$ace# o$& cit&# $& 666& <F Peter Brook in the $rogra e for 4a 1erisaie# Paris# 1&I&1&T&# 6C@6# $& 6HC& <A Peter Brook# The . $ty 0$ace# o$& cit&# $& 6@& <@ Peter Brook# interviewed by Ronald Day an# The Ti es# ;C *ugust 6CAH& <C Peter Brook# The . $ty 0$ace# o$& cit&# $& ?H& ?H 0t7$hane 4u$asco# 4es trois atiTres# o$& cit&# $& 6<@& ?6 Peter Brook# The . $ty 0$ace# o$& cit&# $& FE& ?; Ibid&# $& C@& ?< Ibid&# $& CF& ?? Ibid&# $& 6HE& ?E Mea i# 4a tradition secrTte de No&# Paris# Galli ard# 6CFH# $& AA& ?F 0ee for e+a $le =ohn Deil$ern# 1onference of the Birds# o$& cit&# $$& 6;HB;6& ?A Peter Brook in 4e )ait 1ulturel# o$& cit&# $$& 66EB6F& ?@ =ohn Deil$ern# 1onference of the Birds# o$& cit&# $& FC& ?C *&1&D& 0 ith# >rghast at Perse$olis# o$& cit&# $& ;EH& EH Peter Brook The . $ty 0$ace# o$& cit&# $$& 6;B6<& E6 Ibid&# $& 6<;& E; P&D& >us$ensky# )rag ents:# o$& cit&# $$& ;AEBAA E< )or a fuller descri$tion of such e+ercises# see 2ichel Rostain# ,=ournal des r7$7titions de 4a Trag7die de 1ar en% o$& cit& E? =ohn Deil$ern# 1onference of the Birds# o$& cit&# $& EH& EE *&1&D& 0 ith# >rghast at Perse$olis# o$& cit&# $& 6H@& EF Peter Brook# The . $ty 0$ace# Dar ondsworth# Penguin Books#6CAA# $& 6E?& EA Ibid&# $& 6?;& 3.nglish translator%s note >n a literal level# the three )rench words in Brook%s for ula above ean rehearsal# $erfor ance and attendance# although they also suggest so e of the connotations the sa e words have in .nglish# e&g& rehearsal as an ungla orous re$etitive $rocess# $erfor ance as re/$resentation# etc& Brook $lays on this tension&5 E@ Ibid&# $& EA& EC Ibid&# $& 6E;& FH Ibid&# $& 6??& F6 Ibid&# $& ;E& F; Ibid&# $& 6EH&

F< =ohn Deil$ern# 1onference of the Birds# The 0tory of Peter Brook in *frica# Dar ondsworth# Penguin# 6CAC# $& 6FE& *ccording to Gurdjieff# the nu ber of funda ental laws# which regulate every $rocess in the world and in ankind# is very restricted& In his cos ology# the funda ental laws are the ,law of Three% and ,the law of 0even#% described in e+haustive detail in P&D& >us$ensky%s )rag ents d%un enseigne ent inconnu# Paris# 0tock# 6CA@& F? P&D& >us$ensky# )rag ents:# o$& cit&# $& ;6F& FE Peter Brook# The . $ty 0$ace# o$& cit&# $& 6<H& FF Ibid&# $& 6<6& FA Mea i# 4a tradition secrTte du No# Paris# Galli ard# 6CFH# $& 6<6& 3Translator%s note Perha$s the ost useful of .nglish translations available# both in this instance and elsewhere# is >n the *rt of the No Dra a The 2ajor Treatises of Mea i# translated by =& Tho as Ri er and La aKaki 2asakaKu# New =ersey# Princeton (niversity Press# 6C@?& 0ee ,1onnecting all the arts through one intensity of ind#% fro ,* irror held to the )lower#% $& ;<H# CFBCA5& F@ G& I& Gurdjieff# Gurdjieff $arle U ses 7lTves# Paris# 0tockG2onde ouverte# 6C@H# $& ;<H& FC *&1&D& 0 ith# >rghast at Perse$olis# 4ondon# .yre 2ethuen# 6CA;# $& ;E6& AH Peter Brook# The . $ty 0$ace# o$& cit&# $& FF& A6 *&1&D& 0 ith# >rghast at Perse$olis# o$& cit&# $& E;& A; Ibid&# $& ;F?& A< Ibid&# $$& ;EEB;EF A? Ibid&# $& ?;& AE *lfred JorKybski# 0cience and 0anity# 4akeville# 1onnecticut# The International Non/ *ristotelian Publishing 1o&# 6CE@# $& E@& AF Peter Brook# The . $ty 0$ace# o$& cit&# $&6E& AA P& D& >us$ensky# )rag ents:# o$& cit&# $& 666& A@ Peter Brook# The . $ty 0$ace# o$& cit&# $& ?H& AC Peter Brook# in the $rogra e for 4a 1erisaie# Paris# 1&I&1&T&# 6C@6# $& 66H& @H *&1&D& 0 ith# >rghast at Perse$olis# o$& cit&# $& ;?@& @6 P&D& >us$ensky# )rag ents:# o$& cit&# $& 66;& @; Ibid&# $$& ?HHB?H6& @< Peter Brook# The . $ty 0$ace# o$& cit&# $$& F?BFE& @? Peter Brook# in the $rogra e for 4a 1erisaie# o$& cit&# $$& 6HAB6H@ @E *& 1& D& 0 ith# >rghast at Perse$olis# o$& cit&# $& ;A& @F Peter Brook# interview $ublished in * erican Theatre# 6CAHB6CA6 'uoted in *&1&D& 0 ith >rghast at Perse$olis# o$& cit&# $& ?H& @A Peter Brook# The . $ty 0$ace# o$& cit&# $& F?& @@ Ibid&# $& ;C& @C Georges Banu# ,4a 1onf7rence des >iseau+# ou le che in vers soi/ X e#% in 4es Ooies de 4a 1r7ation Th7Vtrale# Ool& W# Paris# 1&N&R&0&# 6C@;# $& ;@E& CH Peter Brook# The . $ty 0$ace# o$& cit&# $& FF& C6 Ibid&# $& 6<<& C; Ibid&# $& FC& C< *lfred JorKybski# 0cience and 0anity# o$& cit&# $& CC& C? Peter Brook# The . $ty 0$ace# o$& cit&# $$& ?EB?F&

!"! Prof& Basarab Nicolescu is a 'uantu $hysicist# working in the theory of ele entary $articles at the 1entre National de la Recherche 0cientifi'ue# (niversity of Paris F& De is the author of a hundred scientific articles $ublished in any s$ecialiKed international journals# as well as the author of several books of general transdisci$linary interest such as 0cience# 2eaning and .volution9The 1os ology of =acob Boeh e 3Parabola Books# New Lork# 6CC65 and 2anifesto of Transdisci$linarity 30(NL Press# New Lork5& This essay was originally $ublished in )rench in 4es Ooies de la 1r7ation Th7Vtrale# Ool& WIII 31NR0 .ditions# Paris# 6C@E# edited by Georges Banu5& The second half 3starting with the section titled QTheatre# Deter inis and 0$ontaneityR5 was first $ublished in .nglish in 1onte $orary Theatre Review# Ool OII# $$& 66B;<# 1o$yright Y 6CCA >P* 3>verseas Publishers *ssociation5# N&O& >riginal )rench co$yright Y 6C@E Basarab NicolescuG1NR0 .nglish translation co$yright Y 6CCH David Willia s This web$age Y ;HH6 Gurdjieff .lectronic Publishing )eatured 0$ring ;HH6 Issue# Ool& IO 3;5 Revision *$ril C# ;HH6