[I don’t know why I should repeat the second of yesterday’s transmissions, but that’s the strong feeling I get, and who am I to argue?]
Sunday, September 6, 2015
F: 5 a.m. Today is the 49th anniversary of my beginning this journal at age 20. I have been doing this nearly twice as long – no, more than twice as long, as Henry Thoreau did. A long way from the same quality, but almost the same diligence, anyway.
I think I will begin by repeating yesterday’s second consultation with Carl Jung – and adding the thought that came to me as I was reading The Portable Jung. Not the first time the thought has come to me, but the clearest.
Saturday, September 5, 2015
9:30 a.m. Dr. Jung, am I right or even partially right in equating the guys upstairs – the cosmic internet – with what you called the collective unconscious?
CGJ: That is a stark way to pose a complicated question. Yes, it does serve to bring it to a point, but perhaps it leads us in the wrong direction.
F: I would be happy to have you rephrase it for me, and consider it to be what I would have asked, if I had known how to ask it.
CGJ: Then you might well consider the ideas that have “come to you” over the years to be proddings.
F: All right. I have suspected so.
CGJ: A better question would be, what is a more productive way to conceptualize man as a part of a wider universe? More productive, I mean, than a view that assumes separation, that takes “time” to be what it appears, that regards the immaterial as less important, less “real” than the easily perceived outside world.
F: Big reframing.
CGJ: Of course, but nothing else will do. Sometimes you cannot take two small leaps as if they were one larger one. That is a way to fall to your death!
In this case, you see, we must insist that humans and their minds are not absolutely separate, regardless of what common sense dictates.
We must look at life as a series of time-moments, recognizing that one’s perception of time depends, as you have been told, upon one’s state of awareness.
We must see that no sense can be made from an incomplete inventory of reality.
Each of these changes would be revolutionary enough, but they would not lead to a new coherent picture, because each taken alone would lead to contradictions. Together, however, they form a whole.
We can go into it any time when you are fresh.
[I had already spent a couple of hours bringing in material and typing it up.]
F: All right. Promising. Thank you. I am enjoying The Portable Jung edited by Joseph Campbell. It is helpful to have an outline of what you set out.
CGJ: Yes, provided that you remember that I have had time and experience enough to change my mind on some matters, and I am freer to express my whole mind than I could be when I needed to preserve my scientific reputation lest all my work go down as unscientific.
F: I understand.
[Later: It seems to me, reading about the collective unconscious, that it is not un-conscious or sub conscious, but in a way super conscious. It is wider, deeper, more resourceful, active on its own in areas beyond our experience and nearly beyond our understanding. If that doesn’t describe the non-3D as experienced by a given individual, I don’t see how it doesn’t.]
F: I am unclear as to whether to proceed with Dr. Jung’s exploration, or continue the path we began and continued yesterday morning, being tutored, as far as I can tell, not by Jung but by an undefined group that I call TGU for convenience. So, I leave it open, and let’s see.
CGJ: It is better perhaps to combine the two approaches. No reason for you not to think – or rather, “feel” – that it is Carl Jung talking to you. We have had several years on this path now, not to mention other connections, so that makes it a little easier to communicate except in certain instances when new material is to be introduced and it seems desirable to separate it from implied connection to established ground between us.
F: I had a bit of trouble there. Do you mean, when some new angle is to be taken, or when something is going to appear to contradict what I have received previously, it is easier if it comes from undefined sources, so I don’t worry about continuity, or about consistency?
CGJ: That is correct. It isn’t the lack of continuity or consistency itself, you understand, but your concern over the discrepancies, that could create a problem. By loosening the identification of source, we give you room – or you give yourself room, I should say – to let the material come freely, judging it later. It is an easy way of helping you loosen resistances.
F: I see. And it wouldn’t necessarily be helpful to others doing the same thing.
CGJ: Everyone is different, and of course no size fits all. If you have one type of potential resistance, and another person has an entirely different, or even largely different type of problem to be overcome, it only stands to reason that a different approach will likely be called for.
F: One man’s meat is another man’s poison.
CGJ: Precisely. So, let us to work.
F: I and my friends known and unknown are waiting with great interest. This whole exploration is something some of us have been wanting for years, maybe for our whole lives.
CGJ: Yes, and that suggests a line of inquiry that may at first seem to be a digression, or even a diversion. And that is – what do you suppose it means, that a person can “come into this life” hungry for a given kind of knowledge? You are quite right that it happens. But why, do you suppose, does it happen? How can it happen? It seems to me that simple association of ideas should make it clear that a soul is always a new being, just from thinking about that one circumstance.
F: Again, I had a bit of trouble with that. Did I bring it forth clearly enough?
CGJ: It will do. The point to be made is this. Before you come into the world, are you not connected to the entire cosmic internet, as you are calling it? Do you not know what is what? So why should you (or anyone, you understand) commence a lifetime of longing for certain kinds of knowledge that would exist, easily available – given that your 3D mind is still inextricably connected to your non-3D mind – if you as your particular unit had pre-existed your physical existence?
If the subject of rebirth into the 3D were as simple as some believe it to be, such obstacles would be slight, and easily overcome. Knowledge of “past lives” would be as easily recalled as anything within the given life. Individual ability to access it would vary, as every other aspect of life varies between individuals, but in general, the connection would tend to outweigh the separation.
Only, this is not so. Knowledge can be obtained, but it is not automatic, is not the default position, as you would say. This one fact – the fact that previous generations described but did not analyze by saying that memory was erased as one crossed the River Lethe on the way back to 3D existence – is valuable evidence, if you will look at it.
Each new entrance into the 3D world of limitation may be seen either as “here I am, back for another stay,” or “here I am, mint-new and ready for my first experience” – and each of these ways of seeing it are somewhat true. You are a continuity; you are a new creation. The fact that both halves are true will help you understand soul and spirit.
So, if you are born wanting to know something, and it is something that can be learned (not concerning ourselves for the moment with the question of whether or not the understanding gained is correct), this should suggest to you a continuity – you are born with a hunger for that knowledge – and a new departure – you do not have access to the information you surely could have had access to in the non-3D.
Individual strands will bring their own unfinished business into a life, you understand. Not as an agenda or even as a conscious incompletion, but as one aspect of who and what they are, coming in. But the ring containing these strands – the new soul formed in a specific time and place, comprising many such strands — did not pre-exist this incarnation. (This statement will need to be modified, if only in nuance, but will stand for the moment.)
F: While I was bringing that in, I was holding at bay the words “state specific,” and got the sense that this was a new falling into place of something.
CGJ: An example of how a new experience may modify and enrich the older being.
F: I understand that from the inside, say, but I think it could benefit from translation for others.
CGJ: Of course.
F: I in this lifetime acquired the concept of state-specific memories, which allows a new analogy that could not have existed in that form previously.
CGJ: Precisely. And it is a good and useful analogy. Any given soul, any particular parson’s life in totality, could be looked at as a state-specific memory of the greater being of which it is only one part.
F: Or a mood?
CGJ: Yes, in a way, a given life, having a predominating emotional flavor, could be looked at as a mood of the larger being, or perhaps, as the cause of a mood. But we cannot go into that here and now. Let us stay with “state-specific memory”; it will be a useful analogy, and will bring us far, though not today, nor all at once.
A state-specific memory exists, but it is not always accessible. When inaccessible, it may as well not exist, indeed it does not exist, as far as the person holding that memory is concerned. It is not on his mental horizon. When a given state returns it to accessibility, it may appear as brand new, or perhaps it will be greeted as an old friend, but in neither case will it be a permanent acquisition (in the sense of being readily accessible) unless the individual turns it from being state-specific to being more generally connected. One does this by creating new links to other states, as perhaps you realize easily.
F: Well – I think I do. But in any case surely someone could benefit by having the process spelled out a little.
CGJ: If you awaken from a dream and wish to retain it, there are various techniques to help you do so. These techniques amount to enabling you to link a state-specific memory – the dream – to a wider and more varying state – daytime consciousness – so that it may be examined in various circumstances. Writing it down, for instance, serves to accomplish this through the discipline of holding it in mind while you go through the process of writing, or even of formulating into language for the sake of a recorder. It is less the record than the process that makes the dream accessible later, even if the written or spoken record is needed as a reminder.
F: Yes, that’s clear. So the analogy is?
CGJ: To read it one way, from the non-3D into 3D – the new soul attempts to retrieve the dream and translate it into another form of consciousness, in this case one closely connected with 3D existence.
To read it the other way, from 3D into non-3D – the soul’s experience is recorded and could be looked at as one state, even almost of one mood, of the larger being from which it was constructed.
Bear in mind, analogy is never identity, by definition. But it may prove helpful.
F: And that is an hour, and a little more. Is this as good a place to stop as any?
CGJ: Certainly. Were it not, you would know it.
F: Yes, I suppose I would. Very well, thanks again, from many people..
CGJ: Some of whom you will not live long enough to ever meet in 3D. Thank you for participating.