Thursday, June 7, 2018
5:15 a.m. Private session yesterday. (Why do I feel compelled to write that? Is it anybody’s business?)
Your life is not your own, once you begin to allow people to participate. How far you open the door is, of course, up to you. but, having opened the door, it is only courteous to announce your business hours.
That last part went off on its own, didn’t it?
It followed its own momentum, let’s say that. We would have said, only courteous to acknowledge that you still have a personal life that continues even when you communicate with us. Or, perhaps a still better way to put it would be somewhat generalized – If you were to feel obliged to publicize every communication, you would thereby assure that you could not take advantage of this access for your most personal matters. It would condemn you to being able to help others but not yourself. It would be the converse of a more common attitude in which one keeps such communications strictly to oneself and dares not (or anyway chooses not to) use it openly to assist others.
I suppose it is like any other aspect of life, a resource to be used only with discretion.
You are all private, you are all public.
Okay, so today’s topic?
You will notice your boredom with “Topaz.”
The Alfred Hitchcock movie I received yesterday, yes. I have watched about an hour of it, I suppose, and for some reason it does not grip me. It is supposed to be a suspenseful drama, but I feel myself not much caring.
And you know why, though there is a paradox.
There was, until I wrote that out and got the point. I was prepared to say, “The drama is too external,” then I was prepared to abject that “On the other hand I’m re-reading all those Lucas Davenport novels of John Sandford, and they are just police novels.” But in writing your “paradox” sentence I realized, I’m re-reading the novels not for the plot but in order to hang out with the characters, and even their actions are overlaid with their psychological drama.
And that is our morning’s theme: When you get to a certain point, you cease to believe in the primacy of action and instead believe in the primacy of psychology. But you can express it yourself more easily, and we will edit as necessary.
I get that you are saying that once we no longer take for granted the external drama, it heightens our interest in the internal drama.
Not quite. Slower.
It’s like the joke that says that anybody who thinks “The sky’s the limit” has a limited imagination. Life-and-death situations aren’t as exciting when death is just death and not catastrophe.
Keep going, you’re getting there, but not there yet.
If the external world is only a reflection of our internal, real, world, external drama cannot be more than a hinting at the real conflicts going on.
And we’ll take it from here. That last isn’t right either, but it’s close enough to spring from. The external world is not only a reflection of the internal world; neither is it unconnected to it nor independent of it nor superior in importance to it. Any of these relationships may seem obvious from a given point of view, but any of them reflect the limitations of a point of view, rather than the limitations inherent in the situation. A wider view of the reality of the internal / external relationship is what we are trying to provide.
The personal world you know is one element. Obviously nothing can be more real than that – although, typically, materialist science inverts the relationship, thinking that the one unquestionable reality is only theoretical because it cannot be measured by instruments.
The world you experience as objectively “there” to be dealt with is also real, despite philosophies and half-understood mysticism that would wave it away as only an illusion. A thing may be more than can be grasped, without ceasing to exist.
The unbreakable connection between the personal world and the external world exists. While you are in 3D, even though your senses tell you that 3D is all there is, still you are in All-D – as is that external reality – and you cannot disconnect from the larger context in which you exist.
Your deeper reality exists. That is, the “you-ness” that precedes, co-exists with, and follows your time in 3D cannot be destroyed, nor talked away. In that sense, you have an independent place to stand, even if it is not as you may conceive it.
Similarly, the external world may be said to have its place to stand, independent of any of its components.
Finally, the forces we are calling the vast impersonal forces exist, and coordinate or shape or let us say potentiate and channel all this into a coherent functioning pattern.
Let me itemize, for clarity:
- Our internal world, one per each.
- The external world we each experience.
- The connection between the two, here seen as an element in itself.
- Our deeper reality beyond our 3D internal world.
- The deeper reality of the external world (though I’m as yet a bit vague on this one).
- The vast impersonal forces as the coordinating element.
Bear in mind, the external world as you experience it is going to be different for each person, as each person is different. That doesn’t make the external world per se different, only different for each.
You see, the entire universe does not center on any of you. (We state it thus baldly merely to flush out any hidden assumptions.) Neither do you exist merely for the universe. It is a much more cooperative relationship than you commonly realize, and it is distorted by your assumption that either end is real and the opposite end unreal, or either end is “the important thing” and the other not. This is just as between us and you in these communications, where we said from the beginning, “Beware of pedestals; they distort relationships.”
So I am thinking of Eisenhower as depicted in that excellent film, “Ike: Countdown to D-Day.” His concentration was, and needed to be, entirely on externals. He focused what he was upon the task at hand. It wasn’t the time for metaphysical questioning or discussions such as these. He acted as though what was external was real, and needed to.
He did not, and needed not to.
You may wish to explain that for the studio audience.
He relied upon God’s approval of his motivations. He prayed in his attitude if not necessarily in words. He assumed, and tried to live up to, the fact that the forces he was commanding were doing God’s work. In this he was like Lincoln 80 years earlier. Just because you do not share the form of the connection, do not be blinded to the forces involved. Don’t be like the dictator [Stalin, I think it was] who asked, “And how many divisions does the Pope have?” In that, he was blind to the reality of the non-3D, you see. If you do not believe in God in the way Ike did, or Lincoln did (or, if you do), recognize with the Sufis that “Words are a prison; God is free.”
One of my favorite sayings.
Which is why we lifted it. So do you see that, and why, Eisenhower in concentrating on external forces nonetheless involved the deeper reality beneath them?
Are you saying he was directing – using – the vast impersonal forces as they flowed through the moment?
Just as Hitler had used them, just as Churchill or Lincoln used them, yes. Just as Dion Fortune’s group began to use them in a coordinated fashion after Dunkirk. Prayer is not self-delusion, nor is it desperation – nor a magic wand. Regardless of its form or apparent intent, it is an alignment.
Prayer is magic?
Magic as in “direction of forces beyond human control,” yes. And as has been said, people are praying all the time, and their prayers are always answered.
A farmer said that to Emerson when Emerson was a boy.
That forgotten farmer [named Tarbox, I think] played his part in history with that one statement that set Emerson thinking.
So next time we’ll talk of prayer and the vast impersonal forces. It isn’t a view of prayer that churchgoers would recognize, necessarily, but then, neither would New Agers, perhaps.
Very well. Nice session. Thanks as always.