Mr. Lincoln on Fear and Politics

As if by fate, this morning I find a massage in a bottle. That is, I find a notecard reminding me of a communication I had with Mr. Lincoln, or with someone calling himself Mr. Lincoln, or with Mr. Lincoln as I imagined him in my mind (there is never any possibility of certainty in such matters) that came ten years ago, and is even more vitally true today than it was when received.

Tuesday, November 7, 2006

Election Day. Another step closer to the abyss? A step back? Stay tuned.

I realized, writing to John King, that the stuff I have been given, this past year, is to a point. It was very clear – I lost it again – good thing it is in print, or on phosphors, or whatever.

Very stirred up, of course. Nothing to be done but vote – for whatever that is worth – and see. I have never felt so helpless at that level.

A good reminder, that – for I have never felt more in control. internally. We may have to write off political and economic “freedom” – and then? It can’t be seen, any more than Lincoln could see ahead.

Mr. Lincoln – thinking of you – what can you say to us in the 21st century?

You yourself are learning that when all else fails you, you find yourself dependent upon providence. It isn’t that you become dependent upon providence, it is that you realize it, if you didn’t realize it before, and you realize it more earnestly, more deeply, if you had. You have read the saying, “man’s extremity is God’s opportunity.” You mustn’t think of it as God lying in wait ready to pounce, but as God waiting patiently for your life to bring you to the point where you see how small a thing any one man is and how great the overarching power that fashioned and maintains what you call the garden.

You are in dark times, and darker times are probably ahead for you. There are brighter futures and darker, but the chances are many times to one that you have yet to experience the worst. Now here let me use your own life as an example for people in general. You will remember times when you were caught in circumstances that seemed to grind you down, and the grinding went on for many years. It was only after you escaped these circumstances that you realized that even what you do not desire, what you can scarcely stand – has value to you. Every place is a particular window on the world, and perhaps one window is as valuable as another. If you are in a particular fix, at least explore it with diligence. It may be worth more to you than you know.

Now, you must understand, I have more sympathy with George Bush than you do, for I have been in his place. No one not in that place can know the reality of it. You would do better to pray for him than to revile him. Remember what you read of General Lee, who prayed for his enemies, including me, every night. That did not stop him from fighting with all his strength, but he did not fight from hatred.

Yet the thought of General Lee is instructive as well in another regard. His cause was wrong. Doubly wrong in that it was integrally bound with a giant evil, and in that it was founded on a bad theory that could not have maintained itself, but would have wrecked itself in short order. Is this not the case today? Your people – who of course are still my people, yet very different from the people I knew, very alien in beliefs, habits, thought, values – your people are dividing ever more cleanly on questions that boil down  to love or fear, your Course in Miracles duality. Yet the

Let me start again. The people are dividing. Looking at it as a choice between love and fear, the division is cleaner within individuals but even there is not consistent. How much more confused and confusing, then, to look at the external results of so many individual civil wars.

If there were not so much fear, there would not be so much anger or fanaticism. If less anger, there would be less cheating in order to win at all costs. If less cheating, there would be more reliance on established procedures and traditions – leading to less fear, as the process reinforced itself. You move toward fear or away, continually. There is no standing still.

Do you think it coincidence that the country is so evenly divided between incompatible visions? It is the doing of providence, rather. This eliminates the possibility of a majority disregarding and squashing a minority – there are only minorities in play, neither set having a comfortable margin over the other.

The only way through it to transcend these differences. They cannot be forever papered over, and one will not prevail over the other without maiming the body politic. If the nation cannot survive half slave and half free – and it could not – how less likely that it will survive half fearful and half love-filled? Fear will conquer all, or love will. Can it be any other way?

Saying that love will conquer all is not unrealistic or mystical or absolutist. It is merely one way of saying that they that live in hope may spread their habit of thought, their way of being, so that it sets the tone for the entire country. Or – failing that – fear will drag everything down to the level of control.

What doomed the south, it might be said, is that slavery assured that those who ran society would act always from fear. The north, on the other hand, greatly hoped. It had its machinery, its trade, its vigorous new settlements and – except for the drag of slavery in it southern portion, which then threatened to become national in scope – it faced the future with optimism.

Now, in your time, your two cultural and political sides divide the hope and fear between them – which is why the long stalemate. The thing – the only thing – that will decisively tilt the balance is the issuance – or the non-issuance – within a certain time of an emancipation proclamation.

Joseph explained to you that the issues of states rights versus federal rights were morally balanced; the question of whether free government was possible if parts of it could secede at will was a vital question, but not a moral one. What made the Union cause predominate was that the emancipation proclamation threw into the balance the question of slavery or freedom.

So today you need to peer into the mists of so many issues contending. Find the moral issue that is at state. Throw that onto the pile and you will see the crisis resolve.

Notice I do not claim that it will resolve smoothly and evenly, nor necessarily without bloodshed. The Emancipation Proclamation did not prevent Chancellorsville and Gettysburg and Vicksburg and all the terrible fighting of 1864. But it made victory possible, and made it meaningful.

What principle, turned into practical reality, would make your struggles not only worthwhile but in fact a triumph for America as a whole and humanity in example? This is your puzzle to solve, but some thought should make it obvious enough.

My assumption is that it is a more profound definition of freedom, a clearer statement of the fact that

1) people are more important than abstractions,

2 governments are supposed to serve, not command.

3) “individuals” do not, cannot, exist in isolation but in community.

Yet this does not come clear. I feel like I need a key that I cannot find, though it is probably in front of my face.

Have you not been pursuing a deeper connection for the past 15 years? Can that not be a part of the new equation you are attempting to decipher?

Yes, this very communication process is part of it. And it has given me a different way of thinking about providence and our connection to the other side, which some think mere superstition and others think merely a matter of following orders.

Does not fear stem largely from the belief that you on the physical plane are alone and on your own? Does that not add desperation to the emotional makeup of the contenders?

It adds ruthlessness, for sure.

Churchill, Roosevelt, many of the armed forces leaders firmly believed in providence and believed that so long as they fought for good, they would be aided. It is a powerful assistance, and is not in any way illusion. Of course it carries with it a responsibility to continually examine you conduct to assure that you are doing the will of God, as best you can discern it, rather than merely your own.

This you see is the hidden dimension. This is why a God-fearing people have an advantage over those who do not value or perceive such a connection. It has nothing to do with God being pleased to be recognized, I believe. God doesn’t need our recognition. It has to do, rather, with men being able to put themselves into the right attitude to do the will of God – which will be the best for them. If they know it, they live in a very different world from those who do not.

And perhaps you can see that the question of a belief in divine providence is among the issues that have fueled your culture war. They that believe in God and seek to do his bidding as best they discern it may go very far astray in fact but as long as they seriously question and stoutly attempt to live their faith, they will have a strength denied those who attempt to live as if they were only humans with no greater, more transcendent, connection. Here is the fire that fueled what you call the religious right. They could have been easily countered had their adversaries believed, whatever the specifics of their belief.

One man connected to the other side (one might say) is as a mighty host, and one relying only on his own resources is puny by comparison even if his cause is objectively right.

That is as I see it.

Thank you, Mr. Lincoln. I will send this around – to many who will agree with little or none of it – and we will hope it reaches some who may profit by it.

 

Three laws about finding your own work

“Gurdjieff was decisive, that his school was a school of individuation, and that a man must find his own work in life. How should he know it, how choose it? That, no one else could tell him. There were certain laws about it, however — three in particular. The goal of achievement which a man decides to aim at must be such that it involves no violation of moral norms. Secondly, he must get something for himself out of it — whether it be money, health and happiness, or honour; some genuine profit must accrue to himself. Thirdly, the task he assumes must be neither too big for him, nor too small. If it be too big, he will incur failure, compensated by megalomania; if too small, his powers will decline even with success and his career will be embittered. But provided these three conditions be fulfilled, it does not matter what anyone thinks of a man’s work. All that is necessary is that it should fit him; and that it should be his true desire — if you like, his whim — to do it. For example, to have the best stamp-collection in the world would not appear to many people to be a life ambition of the highest dignity — and perhaps it is not. But it is a job of a man’s size: and if it is your real whim, you had better live for it. Whether you succeed is, of course, another matter.”

Philip Mairet, A.R. Orage P 104-5

Consciousness after we leave the 3D

From the daily Steiner website:

In all the experiences I have been describing, man’s consciousness is far clearer and more awake than the ordinary consciousness of his life on Earth. It is most important to distinguish the various degrees of human consciousness. Consciousness during dream-life is dull, consciousness during waking life is clear, consciousness after death still clearer. As a dream is to reality, so is all our life on Earth in comparison with the clarity of our consciousness in the life after death. Moreover, at each new stage in the life after death, consciousness becomes still clearer, still more alert.

Source: Rudolf Steiner – GA 231 – Supersensible Man: Lecture IV – The Hague, 17th November 1923 (evening)

Translated by Mary Adams

Steiner on The spirit-form after death

Another quotation from https://rudolfsteinerquotes.wordpress.com

The spirit-form after death

We have seen that when a human being has passed through the gate of death and come into the super-sensible world, he reveals himself there to Imaginative vision in a spirit-form. You must understand, of course, that perception of the spiritual is quite different from perception of an object in the world of sense. For instance, those who are endowed with the faculty of spiritual vision will say: “Yes, I saw the phenomenon, but I could not tell you anything about the size of it.” The phenomena of the spiritual world are not spatial in the sense that a material object presented to the eye is spatial. Nevertheless, we can only describe them in such a way that they seem to resemble a visual image seen by the physical eye — or whatever other sense-impression we make use of in our description. You must bear this in mind in connection with all the descriptions I shall now be giving of what takes place in the super-sensible.

When a human being has passed through the gate of death, the spirit-form, of his head gradually fades away. On the other hand, the whole of the rest of his form becomes “physiognomy,” a physiognomy which expresses, for instance, how far the man was, in earthly life, a good man or a bad man, a wise man or a fool. These qualities can remain hidden in the material world; an out-and-out villain can walk about with an absolutely innocent face. But when the gate of death has been passed, they can no longer be concealed. There is no doing it with the face, for the face fades right away; and the rest of the form, which grows more and more like a physiognomy, allows nothing to be hid.

Source: Rudolf Steiner – GA 231 – Supersensible Man: Lecture III – The Hague, 17th November 1923 (afternoon)

 

Seth on our politics (though not delivered in that context)

This is from Seth, I don’t know where specifically. It’s something I copied down a good while ago.

“I have told you time and time again . . . that you construct your physical universe and your private environment in line with your expectations, for they mirror perfectly the deepest areas of your own inner reality. This is perhaps the closest I can come in handing you anything that approaches a basic truth. All [of this] material follows and flows out of this primary statement. . . .

“When you find [yourself] noticing more and more the inequalities, the disasters, and the shames that come within the sphere of your perception, you add to their existence. This may confound what common sense may tell you. However, concentration reinforces the quality [that] is concentrated upon. . . .

“When you are concentrating upon destructive elements, you lose on two points. You reinforce the destructive qualities by the very act of concentrating upon them, and you rob [yourself] of the constructive qualities that you could be concentrating upon, and therefore that you could be reinforcing. You will in all cases attempt to construct as physical reality your inner conception of what reality is. Your physical environment and conditions are a mirror of your own basic conceptions of reality. If the environment changes it is because your inner conceptions have changed; and no smallest alteration is made within physical reality that has not first been made within the inner self. You make your own reality from your expectations, and this is one of the greatest truths. I can tell you no better. You must deal with the realities that you have made, or change them. There are no alternatives.”
-Seth

Emerson on Jesus

I don’t know why more people don’t read Emerson. He speaks exactly to our condition. Take this, from his journal of February, 1855, when he was 52.

“Munroe [his publisher] seriously asked what I believed of Jesus and prophets. I said, as so often, that it seemed to me an impiety to be listening to one and another, when the pure Heaven was pouring itself into each of us, on the simple condition of obedience. To listen to any second-hand gospel is perdition of the First Gospel. Jesus was Jesus because he refused to listen to another, and listened at home.”

There’s a world of wisdom in that little paragraph, and a world of encouragement. Why don’t more people read Emerson?