Wednesday, August 12, 2015
[On Monday, talking about the famous incident of the scarab and the patient, I had Dr. Jung say the scarab appeared at the door. I was thinking French door, and had a pretty clear idea of the French door opening to the lake beyond. But Dr. Bernie Beitman corrected the story, showed that in life Jung had written that the scarab came to the window (not the door) and wondered how it was that Jung didn’t correct me when I wrote door. I said I would ask.]
F: 3 p.m. Dr. Jung, Bernie wants to know why you didn’t correct me when I said – or had you say – door instead of window. I think I know, but I’m willing to be enlightened, or corrected.
CGJ: Or reinforced? This simple question could be used to elucidate the nature of communication difficulties between those in body and those not in body, and I think we will do that. The short answer to your friend’s question is, ‘because it didn’t matter,” but as usual, the short answer is likely to be misleading without context.
It didn’t matter, so much is true. It really is a detail, the kind of detail one gets wrong when concentrating on the important aspects of a story. So, if you were saying that and I did not correct it, it would be obvious enough that I did not do so mostly because it was an unimportant detail. I think Dr. Beitman would agree that this would be a plausible and almost predictable reaction to such a mistake.
However, the fact that I let you – writing in my voice – insert a mistake in fact, seems to him strange. He is not aspersing your ability nor my presence – at least, I do not hear such nuances in his question – but still, he wonders, why would I let it pass.
Again, the short answer: it did not matter.
A longer answer, needing to be organized.
First. You will have noticed over our time together now, extending at great intervals over a span of ten years, that when I judge it important, I do correct you.
F: Usually when I’m summarizing or responding with my understanding of something, though.
CGJ: True. But my point is that I correct when it matters. Our conversations are not an attempt to demonstrate my reality or your ability to connect; they are aimed at substantive matters, taking communication for granted. To correct every little nuance is actually more important to what we are doing than correcting every fact you may accidentally put in my mouth. I know you are doing your best. Why distract you without a need to do so?
Second and perhaps more difficult to appreciate. Your preferred mode of communication –
Well, perhaps less “preferred” than “ordained,” because this is how your gift manifests. You do not function as a trance channel; you do not, typically, hear specific words either as aural or as understood phenomena. Mostly you receive the sense of things as you go, and only rarely do you transcribe specific words you hear.
I do not mean that you paraphrase. I mean, you move from a knowing to a phrasing of the knowing. This allows for great slippage in specifics but has the compensating advantage of rendering ideas fluently and in the vernacular.
This allows mixture between what is being given and what you contribute automatically from what you think you know. You do not have a great deal of awareness about this mixing process, so it is as well that you stress to people that they weight what they hear.
And, third, we on our end of the process face certain difficulties that you may regard as exaggerations of your plight in 3D. Chiefly there is the fact that everything connects to everything, hence the potential for discursive rambling is great. As a result, we get into the very necessary habit of ruthlessly pruning our digressions. Correcting harmless errors – or even potentially harmful errors that would nonetheless take too much time to address midstream – often goes by the boards.
I trust this answers Dr. Beitman’s curiosity but of course if he has further questions, I will be happy to follow up.
F: Thank you. I think this will be useful in general.