Upton Sinclair: More on psychic exploration

May 16, 2007, continuing

9:40 a.m. While I was cooking my eggs, a couple of crystallizations. Telepathy! Tecumseh! Mr. Sinclair (interrupting my breakfast) pray proceed.

You thought that I had made up Lanny Budd’s difficult relationship with “Tecumseh,” the “Indian chief” of the same name as the famous warrior – and suddenly (I wonder how it happened! I am smiling of course as I say this) you realized that I had drawn on real life. What else does a novelist do? What else could he do?

Yes, so many perplexities worked out. Would you want to proceed with brackets – filling in later – or have me say it here?

Hard choice. I guess I’ll put in the background here. Go ahead.

Tecumseh was always scoffing at Lanny because Lanny was trying to decide if he was getting a real spirit or if it was “telepathy.” You saw my rather unsatisfactory analogy of the bubble, and may provide it in brackets. It wasn’t satisfactory but was the best I could do at the time.

Your experience should show you that the mistake was in thinking it had to be either/or. Of course it was telepathy! Of course it was a real spirit! The thing that makes it comprehensible to you is the notion that all time exists as all space exists – and therefore the part of us outside time-space – superior to it, as it must be – knows no barriers of time. And thus all people are alive at the same “time” (so to speak) and may communicate as freely as they are able to believe they can.

So the “spirit” doesn’t talk “in character” because it is translated through a mind with its own way of seeing and saying things. It knows what it “shouldn’t” know because it is alive and communicating. It knows what the communicator knows – “that old telepathy”! And if the communicator’s mental prism is so rigid that he or she “knows” that the spirits come through in only one way, or talk in only a certain way (sometimes in the way that the communicator imagines that the spirit would have talked –

Yes, I see that. It leads many people to conclude that it is fraudulent or is self-deception.

How many times have you been on the verge of coming to that same conclusion?

Yes, and me inside the phenomenon! But I never wanted to fool myself, and often suspected that I was.

You weren’t the only one. If you aren’t a true believer, what else can you be but an occasional doubter? Of course I know that you regard belief and doubt as the same thing looked at from opposite angles, but you know what I mean here.

Yes, I do. So other than the fact that the associates you had available to work with believed in controls, and used them, was there any other reason you should have or would have had to?

Certainly. Ease of access. Think of your own experience, these past 18 months!

Would you care to spell it out?

You had an idea of Joseph Smallwood’s existence. You had seen him in a particularly vivid and believable vision. You had seen a hand write his surname on a chalkboard. You have a connection there, even if you often wondered if he had been objectively there or was some kind of construct. He was a point of entry, you see.

Say a little more.

If you have all the information in the world (and out of it) available to you – as you do – it may be difficult for you to think where to begin. Saying “is anyone there” was a starting place, and if the same control came forth more or less reliably, as it did, there was your entry-point. Not very satisfactory, and you from your end can see why – and it seems obvious now but didn’t to me or to us then. We allowed things to drift instead of pointing them.

A little more?

The most we might do is ask for a given individual through the control, and if they came through asks the control to ask for information – or, sometimes, put us into direct communication. But our own background assumptions were getting in our way! How could a spirit follow us if we had moved our bodies halfway around the world? How could a deceased person’s spirit continue to exist, even if it seemed to? Since the past had ceased to exist (we assumed, despite the bewildering new evidence from the advance edge of science) certainly it couldn’t be changed! Certainly alternate pasts and futures couldn’t exist and be equally real! Certainly therefore we faced conundrums like free will versus a future that already existed, which seemed to show us to be puppets.

All these things worked on our unconscious minds – which means that we had no control over them except by an occasional act of focused intention which often seemed to us like playing pretend.

Whereas I got Joseph’s undocumented and perhaps nonexistent life in day after day beginning in December of 2005, and the long effort widened my access.

Precisely. Besides, your mental defenses are miles out from where mine were. You don’t have any problem believing three impossible things before breakfast – so a lot less is impossible for you.

So came Bowers, and Carl Jung and A. Lincoln and one after another and I stopped worrying about it because I could see that I was getting interesting information and couldn’t prove it one way or the other anyway.

And so here you are, confident that you can talk to anyone you have a mind to, whenever you have anything to exchange.

Not autograph-hunting.

No, that’s right. Communication is for a purpose – which can be pleasure, of course. But even autograph hunters really want to touch you, so maybe we should distinguish between those who want something to show others and those who want to contact.

Well I thank you very much. I think some people will benefit from this.

That is always the hope, is it not? Good day.

Good day to you too.

TGU on social circles

Friday, April 19, 2019

5:20 a.m. All right, friends. On today’s agenda?

You may wish to continue reading about George Washington.

As I did all Wednesday and yesterday? I can afford to give you an hour. This is Lexington Day, come to think of it, isn’t it? Well, do you really want to skip?

We could talk about circles, if you wish.

That’s an interesting circle in itself. I woke up with the thought – when? Yesterday? Wednesday? – and it is a thought I have had before. I mentioned it here yesterday when I suddenly remembered having had it, and now you – I? – suggest we pursue it. So, whose idea originally, and whose instance now? But I realize, “whose” is pretty meaningless, an arbitrary attribution. So –?

You may wish to state your thought, as your stating it, rather than our doing it, removes the attribution as a source of friction.

As we have done in the past. Okay.

Perhaps because I was reading of Washington, my thoughts jumped –

No, that isn’t the way to approach it. who cares what hopscotch I played to get there. Trying again.

It occurred to me that we all like to see ourselves as part of a circle,

No, you do it. I’m meeting resistance.

You are allowing the resistance to interfere. The way to overcome that is to slow down, and the way to slow down is –

Recalibrate. Breathe. Con-center-ate.

Okay. Think of any aristocracy. That’s what gave me the thought most recently, come to think of it, David Rothkopf’s Superclass. Any self-described elite, based on whatever distinction, thinks of itself as a circle that is above “the others.” If it is wealth, or genealogy [that is, ancestry], or membership in some organization, or achievement, even perhaps in some common dedication to a purpose – regardless what provides the sense of separation, there is a division that appears, implicit or explicit, between how one relates to those who are in and those who are not. At its crudest, it expresses as snobbery or elitism, at a less crude level, it is very little more than a part of one’s sense of self. But it has consequences. People within the circle, if they have power of any kind, are apt to be extraordinarily gracious and accommodating – to each other. They tend to be quite different in their dealings with “others.”

Okay, over to you.

Yes, your resistance rose to a level high enough to make you wish to quit. Why is that, do you suppose?

These sessions so often go off in directions I don’t expect. I don’t know, you tell me.

Better if you work it out. Our pointing out the fact is interference enough, in a way.

Interference?

Interference isn’t always a negative. Sometimes it is a positive. But anyway, work it out. Feel it out.

Well, what I said could go any of several ways. Examples, say. Maybe I don’t want to choose, or it seems like too much.

You’re getting closer.

Well, I don’t know, sometimes it’s like a log jam, all that pressure and no outlet.

Is that it, though? Too much to say? You have been a writer all your life, whether or not you have been able to express certain kinds of things.

There’s a certain level of discomfort in it. I suppose it must have to do with the subject matter.

Yet in this case you are discussing a social phenomenon, and to some extent a psychic phenomenon. The examples that come to your mind are historical, not personal. So where is the discomfort coming from?

Well, that’s the question, isn’t it? I don’t know. I get, “list the examples,” and I can do that. Confederate dragon ladies, whites in a mixed society, the rich as Upton Sinclair described them from his first-hand knowledge, the superclass elite Rothkopf describes from his own insider vantage point.

Since none of these give you emotional resistance, try those closer to home.

My own elitism, you mean? Other than a pride in historical grounding and in an ability to synthesize it, and in my own explorer status, there are the things I was born into, but they don’t amount to much emotionally any more – country, family, geography, ethnicity.

You are proud of your talents, if not necessarily the use you have made of them. There is many a person who is quietly as proud as Lucifer; it is part of the human situation. You can even be proud of your humility, you know.

But is it pride we are driving at?

Consider.

I can’t quite get it. Yes, pride is involved, but it isn’t as simple as “we are special,” I don’t think.

There is that aspect. But perhaps more to the point is that it is an identification with a part rather than with the whole of oneself, even sticking to 3D considerations.

A keeping to the familiar rather than broadening out to the whole?

In more senses than one. Thoreau, as you well know, said “We are all provincials in the universe,” but identifying with any subset tends to blur that distinction.

Sort of inevitable, isn’t it? We naturally would identify with what is closest to us.

Yes, but we are looking at the effects it has, when one considers oneself as if he were only a member of an inner circle, rather than also a member of the vast indistinguishable mass as seen by every other inner circle.

It seemed a simple thought. People draw a circle and include themselves among a self-perceived elite, and treat others within the circle differently than they do those without it.

Yes, and it is a valid insight, only we aren’t all that concerned with social conditions except as they affect the potential for individual expression. And every position offers that potential.

I guess this session is more of a how-to than a discussion of substance, huh?

You see a distinction?

I guess I do, yes. How to use a flashlight is one kind of subject. What the flashlight illuminates when used is a related subject, but not the same subject.

If you will remember that words may be sparks as well as billboards, you may see this session differently.

Well, maybe. Okay, see you next time.

 

TGU on dreams and feelings

Thursday, April 18, 2019

  1. 5 a.m. Guys, what’s the point of dreams we can’t remember, or, if we do remember, can’t make sense of? I understand the use of dreams we can comprehend, but what is the use of the ones that never come into our consciousness, or come in indecipherable bits? It isn’t as simple as, “You need to learn to pay attention,” I think.

You might look at it this way: You – 3D you – aren’t the intended recipient, or, we might say, the cooperating partner. Dreams don’t have to be aimed at the conscious 3D self to be doing important work.

Well, we’re willing to be enlightened.

Just as your consciousness has to span various time/space moments (though it appears to you that you move from one to the other, to us you span them all)

That was interesting enough that it knocked out the rest of your thought.

What, the span? Remember, outside of 3D, we don’t see time as sequential in the way you do. So why expect us to see it – or conceive of it – in the way that seems natural to you?

I don’t know that I had any conscious expectations about it at all, one way or another.

If you were to pursue the implications, you would find that they illustrated – or illuminated, rather – many things. But let’s continue about dreams. We were pointing out that you are not the center of your self.

Our 3D self, formed around the ego, is not the center of what Jung called the Self, capitalized, the larger being of which our 3D self is only a part.

Don’t ascribe to Carl Jung what he did not avow in 3D, but yes. You – your 3D self – is not the center of the larger you. Therefore, it doesn’t get to drive, so to speak. Its responsibility centers on the 3D world, and functionally, it is blind or nearly blind to the larger world that 3D is a part of. So how could it direct?

I can understand that, without difficulty. So you are implying that in a way, dreams may be none of our business.

Well, no. No, it was an advance for Freud and Jung and their associates to break up the rationalist mind-set of Western culture, and dreams demonstrated by their connection with neurosis, and with transformative potential, that they were a real force; that, in other words, men were more than merely rational, merely sensory. And dreams may still be used that way; you have seen it yourself. But your understanding the dream is less important than your experiencing it.

I don’t understand that. I mean, I sort of do, but I wouldn’t be able to explain it or provide an example of how it works. I recognize, of course, that our understanding is far less important than our grokking something. But you’d better continue.

A prime responsibility of a psychologist may be to help the client move deeper than understanding, and get into feeling, and knowing. Transformation does not come through understanding. Understanding may be the doorway, but it can never be the decision to walk through the doorway. But when you feel something, you tend to respond to it.

This sounds screwy to me, in a way. Or, not screwy, but twisted up, out of order. What of people who go to psychiatrists because their feelings are out of control, including those who are unable to feel)?

You need to go very slowly here, to not get carried along by associations in a way that prevents you from settling in to a new place.

Breath, I know. Recalibrate. Okay, shoot.

You have read that feelings are the language of the soul. (This uses the word soul in the sense that we would use the word spirit, as the soul is the 3D creation; but it is an easy translation to make, as long as you are aware of it.) You have never been very clear on the difference between emotions and feelings. Let us define an emotion as a near-time short-lived feeling, and a feeling as a more persistent, more long-term mental space, that is not intellectual, not logical, but may affect intellect and may skew logic. These are not textbook definitions, but they will serve.

Easily remembered, I’d guess.

So what do dreams stir, emotions or feelings?

I don’t know that I would have said they stir either.

Yet you may wake up from a dream in a certain emotional state. What produced the state but experiencing the dream? And does this ever happen – awakening in a given emotional state – without your remembering at least something of a dream?

“Ever” is a long time, but no, I suppose I have moved from the dream into a waking state consciously enough that I feel that emotion.

That is backwards, though. You experience the feeling strongly enough that you become conscious.

Hmm. But – feeling? Not emotion?

The confusing thing in this explanation will clarify when you realize that the difference between feelings and emotions, in so far as they are measured in duration, does not apply outside of 3D time. What is a relatively clear-cut distinction to you in 3D is at most a relative distinction “here” in All-D, and so is of little importance.

More important is what is going on. It’s similar to the background thoughts we have, isn’t it?

Very similar. Think of it as processing going on in the background, sometimes as you sleep, sometimes as you put your conscious attention on other things. Just because you aren’t conscious of it, doesn’t mean the rest of you sleeps.

So dreams are you putting in your oar, saying “pay attention to this”?

They may be, and those dreams will tend to wake you up. But they may be merely your larger self processing, taking stock, reassessing, weighing what is being underplayed or exaggerated. The intent is always to assist, naturally (given that identity of being implies identity of interest), but that is no guarantee that the intent will be recognized.

So what is our best practical approach to unremembered or partly remembered dreams?

Pay attention to the feelings you wake up in. Feelings are more reliable than concepts or logic. They should be counter-checked, lest you wind up in Psychic’s Disease, but they are more reliable nonetheless.

And that’s enough for now.

Okay, thanks as always.

 

Upton Sinclair on psychic exploration

May 16, 2007

7:40 AM. Somebody described yesterday’s exchange as “author to author” which is a different way to think of it! Not one that had occurred to me, or would have occurred to me. I suppose it is true enough from one point of view.

All right, Mr. Sinclair, shall we talk about Spiritualism and where we (our society, and the human race in fact) go from here?

The prime difficulty today will be your usual nervousness around facts, regardless of whether you really know the fact or are painfully aware that you don’t know, or are firmly convinced of something that didn’t happen, or in some way isn’t true. It is so easy to tie yourself into knots over all this – easy enough at best, without adding difficulties. So if you will just let it come, good bad and indifferent and will let each person sort out for himself or herself what is believable, and useful, you will get along easier. This is what they will do anyway, of course!

Well, how about if we do this as a sort of Q. and A.? That might make it easier for me.

Certainly. You will have bite sized information that way, and will retain control, and it will contain your anxiety.

All right. First question. [Blank pause.]

I am smiling over here. You could see that your first question involves an essay on your part – which would require so much work that you wouldn’t be able to do this as well. If I may make a suggestion – do the fast Q. and A. and fill in later, with extensive interpolations if needed. The bracketed material will stitch it all together, but can be done at a less keyed up state.

Now I’m smiling. You’ve done this before. “Once or twice,” as we say.

Many, many times, and without tape recorders, or Hemi-Sync training wheels or social support except the kind that is sometimes as much constriction as support. The scientific environment couldn’t have been less supportive; the social environment alternated ridicule with superstitious fear. Our best friends otherwise regarded us as cracked for taking this seriously.

In other words our situation is a pale shadow of yours. I know that, of course.

Not everyone who reads this will. Imagine experimenting with telepathy in go-ahead America before J.B. Rhine or Carl Jung or quantum physics as a support. Imagine having to do so when the only available lens to look through was half-religious leftover. In any case, proceed.

First question. You worked through “controls” even though you didn’t really believe in them. Why, and was that your only option?

That is two questions. Three, actually, and I’ll try to deal with them separately.

I had come upon undoubted phenomena. It isn’t that something had happened to me; such an event carries great conviction, but there are too many possible individual factors that might make it only a quirk not worth investigating except as a problem in individual psychology. But when it was something that had happened not just in my neighborhood but around the world, and was continuing to happen every day, that made it sound worth investigating. And the fact that it was happening and being widely reported in certain circles and resolutely ignored by society at large – “official” society – why, that made it all the more important. There was the society, there were the mediums, there was the procedure and the printed record and the circle of people open-minded enough to allow you to go on. So that is the answer to your first, implied, question.

Was it my only option? Let’s say it was the only option ready to hand. I was an explorer who had heard of wonders in darkest Africa. I could wander in on my own – perhaps unwittingly prey to lions and snakes and other things totally beyond my experience – or I could travel in an expedition at least until I had enough experience to know the jungle from the savannah. Your expedition was the Monroe Institute and Hemi-Sync tapes. Where was I to find the equivalent, 100 years ago? And if you are with an expedition, you conform to the expedition’s rules and expectations as best you can, for several reasons. For one, there might be a good reason for them! For another, your going your own way on something that seemed trivial might get you lost. For a third, you incur a certain responsibility when you join an expedition not to unnecessarily disrupt it, lest others lose their labors.

Your third question really asks – well, you ask it.

Well, tell me about working through a “control” – in the light of my experience. I guess what I thought of first was having you reevaluate your experience in light of what you know now.

Remember though that contrary to what you thought, we don’t know everything just because we are on the other side, no longer bounded by bodies and held in consciousness of one bit of time-space “at a time.” It is true, we have access to all knowledge, but we don’t necessarily focus on it without a specific stimulus. So your question to me, or to Joseph, or to anyone, will often stimulate sudden awarenesses on our side. The potential knowledge was always there, but we didn’t necessarily actively connect to it before then. If you have a calculator, as long as the battery is in it, you have potential access to every mathematical operation that exists in it. Potentially you know the square root of every number. But until you key in a specific request so that the calculator provides a specific immediate focused access, you may not know 7 x 15.

Vivid analogy, and I do see it. All right, then, since I am punching the proper keys, what do you see?

You have been recording the various fumbling stages of your own exploration. I don’t mean “fumbling” as in any way a criticism. That is what exploration is! If you already know where to go and how to get there, that isn’t exploration, it’s commuting. Your record of your failures and doubts and discouragements is probably of more value to newcomers than any record of success could be. Success proves it can be done – but fumbling proves that it doesn’t require a superman to do it! I was careful to show Lanny Budd’s discouragements and confusion and inability to settle in his mind just what he was dealing with – and where do you suppose that data came from?

I never doubted it.

I had written the book you own and haven’t read – Mental Telegraphy – and mostly people didn’t read it, or if they did they didn’t know what to do with it, so it was clear enough that I could write more books to sit on the shelves of the ASPR or the British Society – or I could insinuate the subject into a huge fictional work (though I thought at first it was going to be only two or three volumes) and see if I could get some people to listen. The thing I tried to get across, besides the fact that these things happen, is that the people exploring them weren’t nuts and frauds, and had their own puzzlements and discouragements. I thought, if I make them human enough, and don’t claim even half of what I know has happened repeatedly all around the globe, maybe I can interest a few and entertain the rest.

You were trying to crack their shells.

Yes.

I’m going to take a break and enter this in the computer. It’s only 15 minutes in, but I don’t seem to have stamina as I did last year.

Not enough protein. Eat some eggs.

After a while, okay.

Upton Sinclair and five decades of the 20th century

Tuesday, May 15, 2007

(7:30 p.m.). Finished The Return of Lanny Budd, Upton Sinclair’s most vehement novel, far more vehement against the Communists as a threat than against the Nazis, perhaps because the communists had become a greater threat even than Hitler had been.

It occurred to me a while ago today, maybe talk to Upton Sinclair. Would that be of interest to you?

I know what you think of me, of course, or what you think you think of me. It comes with the territory, as you say.

“Think I think” because opinions change over time?

Because at any given moment we are aware of only those facets of a subject that meet us in that moment, and so most of anything is hidden from us. The best we can do is accumulate viewpoints and try to modify rather than redraw the total picture time after time.

When I was given A World to Win as a gift in 1994, I was astounded at how it pushed all my buttons – history, politics, warfare, ideology, culture, high life and low life, psychic matters taken seriously – it was an amazing tour de force, and as you know from dipping into my mind, I went searching in various cities between Petaluma and New York until I had all eleven, and have read them repeatedly. But this – somewhat forced – rereading has been very different.

Your views have changed.

More than that, I say – or less, I don’t know how to put it. Your perpetual sniping at the Catholic Church was just bigotry; so was your total dismissal of jazz, and of blacks except Prettyman. Your best arguments – I realized with surprise this time – were in Robbie’s mouth, though that did not make Lanny wrong exactly.

Your readers will be lost at this point.

Would you like to describe your eleven-volume World’s End series?

Having certain advantages in my background – being intimately familiar with society and yet also with the poor, I created a protagonist who had been born with the new century (or in mid-November 1899 which amounted to the same thing). The boy was precocious and lived on the Mediterranean coast of France. His society mother – well, his well-off mother, let us put it that way – and his far-off but emotionally important father between them teach him about the world from their upper-class point of view. Her brother makes him aware of the previously unsuspected existence of poverty all around him which many years later will make him into a socialist.

He is too young to enter into World War I, but his slightly older friends, one English, one German, serve and are each wounded. Lanny is taken to Connecticut when the U.S. declares war, and for the first time sees something of his native land.

Etc. etc., and by the magic wand of the author, he sees events on two continents – and eventually four – firsthand or at close secondhand, so that the reader may have it served up in melodrama.

By the time the last volume is finished, Laney is very near 50 and the reader has received an education as representative as I could make it of various forces that had shaped – or deformed – the unhappy first half of the 20th century. Fascists, Nazis, Socialists, Communists, plutocrats, democrats, monarchists, economic royalists, the military, the financiers, street brawlers, the industrialists, the leisure class, the patrons and executors of the arts – they are all portrayed, as are true psychics, frauds, astrologers, mystics and mystagogues, and all those in their orbits.

If at the end of these volumes you don’t have a better idea of what those years meant, I wasted a lot of effort and passion and study and grief and time.

True, very true. Yet – scarcely a mention of the show trials, or the moral depravity of Stalin’s rule. Nothing of the murder of three Baltic states and unnumbered minorities economic or ethnic or national or racial.

No, and perhaps there should have been, if only to keep people from being taken in so completely by the Soviet line. Yet in my defense, remember that I was doing what I could – I, an elderly author – to give aid and comfort and understanding to Hitler’s enemies, just as much as Churchill was.

Yes, but –

I know. I do know. But I can only plead as Churchill pled: he said something like, “Cromwell was a great man, but he placed his country in great danger by continuing to focus on Spain and underestimating the great danger represented by the growing power of France,” and then explicitly drew the comparison to himself and to Germany and Russia. If he could be blinded by the extremity of peril, I suppose I have the right to at least equal blindness.

I will harass you about it no more, for that is a convincing response. We can only do our best, and our best is none too good.

Thank you. On the other hand –

Yes. On the other hand you gave ample space to your investigation of psychic abilities and your wonder as to what they are really, and you never discredited the subject by undue credulity or forcing (trying to force) belief by bald statement or plot device.

Yet you find plenty to quarrel with in your mind. No, not “quarrel with,” you are correct, but plenty that does not or did not square with your own experience.

That’s right. Yet it turned out to be invaluable, and now I see one reason why I felt impelled to reread the eleven volumes yet again, because since the last time I read them has come my experiences starting with Joseph in December 2005, and close to 200,000 words brought down just like these.

It has been only half an hour but I am tired and will enter all this, then more later, either tonight or after. Thank you for that massive effort, Mr. Sinclair. All my reservations about it don’t wash out what is a mammoth achievement.

Thank you. The test will be to see if the volumes are revived yet again [as they were, in paperback, in the 1970s], and become seen as classics in the way that those of Balzac or Henry James are classics, or if this time they will die because those who lived in those times or learned of them as you did are mostly gone. Art is long, but from my present perspective perhaps not all that long.

Gene Roddenberry on society and assumptions

Monday, May 14, 2007, continuing

(1:15 p.m.) Ready if you are.

[Gene Roddenberry:] You as an individual are not what your society thinks you are. It is difficult to generalize because different subsets of society have different beliefs, but most would agree that you are one unit, proceeding moment by moment along the present that still somehow keeps being the past moving into the future. (A close look would reveal the absurdity of this view of things, but there it is.) If your subset is religious or is in some way psychically connected and intellectually congruent with the connection, it will say that you extend before birth and after death, though each will differ in specifics. Meanwhile – during your life on Earth – you are seen as having a physical heredity and perhaps a spiritual heredity; and a family, and certain interests and surroundings, and a given set of gifts and liabilities.

All well and good, and as epicycles, very serviceable. As descriptions of who and what you are – pathetic. This is a cartoon view of humanity. Because it is so, societies shaped around this view become cartoons as well. But they aren’t very funny.

No one in the Star Trek crew is an individual in the sense of existing in isolation, an end and a means to himself. The idea is an absurdity, easily seen in so small a mirror of earth life. Yet societies are set up either as one great beehive (Mao’s ideal for China) or as a series of megalithic organizational units (Hitler’s or Stalin’s ideals) or as tribes or families (multiple examples around Earth past and present) or as individuals. And it is the cult of the individual that is so dangerous in your time, as the cult of the beehive or the megalith was in mine.

Who can live without trees on the earth?

A moment to re-center.

The quality of life is in the perfect interplay of millions of details. A good meal of nutritious and well prepared food doesn’t just happen. And if individualism is allowed to run far out of control, there can be a situation where it becomes impossible to have such a meal because too many necessary links have been snapped.

If the world air were to become unbreatheable, the ability to purchase canned air wouldn’t be lifesaving; it would only buy a postponement of the inevitable.

A society full of illiterates does not make possible [even] for those who can read the depth of services and knowledge offered by societies of widespread literacy – and this despite how much money one may offer for special services.

In other words, some things must be done for all if they are to be done for any.

That doesn’t sound exactly right.

No, you are right. It is hard to bound this.

You were doing fine sticking to Star Trek. Perhaps abstractions can’t really be taught except as specifics.

That is exactly what Star Trek was all about.

All right, I’ll try it that way. Star Trek kept the assumptions that past, present, future was the basic orientation. Travel into “the” past or “the” future still held on to these assumptions, but proposed exceptions to it. In the same way, travel to other dimensions, alternate probable worlds – you name it – still by implication assumes the same reality, “ordinary” reality.

What if we had made other assumptions and had been able to keep our audience with us? Suppose we had said, there is only the present (doing things one way) and it is 1/30th of a second ahead of whatever your senses report, and it is where the true magic of the world resides.

[long interruption — a couple of hours.]

(5:40 p.m.) This is the first time I can think of where I felt that the person on the other end of the line was having trouble, rather than me.

We do what we can.

I know the feeling. Can you proceed?

If Captain Kirk had been actively aware of all his other lives, active within his everyday consciousness, alive as he was, interacting continuously with him and with each other – and if he had realized that every one of them (and he himself, of course) was vitally tied to multitudes of others whose vibrations they had matched, would he have been the same man?

To look at it backwards, if he hadn’t been aware of himself as just one member of the crew, had thought of himself as the only important person, would he have been the same?

What if Kirk had been able to keep his sense of being one member of a team and had extended it internally as well? You are the captain of your extended self (from your point of view) because you are at the present, the point of application. Others in your group are too, from their point of view and in their present-point. So you have complete cooperation and complete individual free will and it all depends upon awareness of interconnection.

There it is, in a nutshell. And yes, this wasn’t so easy to bring across. We are not supermen here unless we were supermen there.

Stop, I hear you say, and I agree that this is a good thinking-place. Thanks for making that effort, and I look forward to see what tomorrow brings. Thanks, too, for Star Trek. That was a good thing you did.

TGU on karma and free will

Monday, April 15, 2019

7:10 a.m. Gentlemen, yesterday you said a phrase that struck me: “freeing his will from his karma (so to speak.”)

You don’t want to put that conversation out for everyone to see, but there isn’t any reason why you can’t quote a part of it. Quote from “We did the best we could” to “… effectiveness as a man.”

Okay.

[We did the best we could, maybe.

[We weren’t criticizing then, we aren’t criticizing now. But there’s a point to be made here: Biography makes history. Personal interactions with oneself and with others spill over into what you might be tempted to think of as the “external” world. The better you deal with your own demons – or say problems, if that less dramatic phrasing suits you better – the greater the effect you may have on society.

[You can’t be saying that only the more balanced and mature and self-aware rise to the top! We have a lot of evidence to the contrary!

[No, it isn’t a matter of social position, but of effectiveness. Herman Hesse made no attempt at a political career – why on earth should he have done? – but had a much greater effect upon world thought and culture after he went into analysis with Jung than before. In freeing his will from his karma (so to speak) he vastly increased his effectiveness as a writer, which was only a side-effect of increased effectiveness as a man.]

So, although I think I know what you mean by “freeing his will from his karma,” I get the feeling there’s more to be seen. I know, I know, there is always more. But –?

Here is a simple way to put it, and let’s see how far this brings us. We’ll say “you” rather than “one,” as it will sound less formal, almost affected, but we mean, anybody, everybody, not any one person.

Understood.

You are a society of other lives, in a way. That’s one way to see any individual, as a present-day personality holding, and comprising, many previous individuals, and your living your life is them getting to know each other more intimately, you might say. They are cohabiting a new structure (you) rather than being the new structure, as when they were containers themselves.

Clear to me, but I’m not sure that it will be clear to those who have to come to it only through words.

You are welcome to rephrase it, if you like.

I understand you to say that each of our strands is itself a 3D individual in another time – is in the driver’s seat there; is the ring holding together its own group of strands. So, when I die, that’s it for me being the holder of the ring; when (if) I return to 3D life, it will be as a strand in some new 3D individual.

Although that description contains a few distortions, it is close enough to be serviceable. Yes, that is what we meant to convey.

Now, you all know from personal experience that you are born with, and need to learn to deal with, certain contradictions within yourself. You might look at a horoscope as a chart depicting what energy patterns can emerge as individuals at any given 3D moment. That is, it describes the angles and cross-purposes and reinforcements and oppositions within you. But we don’t intend to hare off into a discussion of astrology. We use it merely to show external evidence of the fact that no one is born an empty slate. Everyone is born with patterns of inner behavior built into the structure.

I think that would be better phrased, we are born with certain automatic reaction-patterns – the equivalent of instincts, in a way, only different for each of us – and what we are born with obviously has nothing to do with anything that will happen to us (and has not yet happened) in our new life.

Now we will correct you. You mean, the pattern can’t be caused by what hasn’t yet happened.

That’s right. I meant it can’t have been caused by events and our reaction to events (our choices) that haven’t yet occurred. The pattern we bring into life is the pattern brought forth by the intermingling of whatever traits comprise us. If they all fit together harmoniously, we will have one kind of temperament. If they don’t, we’ll have a different temperament.

Yes. So in a way you could say that an individual’s karma is formed of the unfinished business of its strands, plus the interaction of its strands. This forms patterns of automatic behaviors, which interacts with events.

Maybe say, “which are triggered by otherwise neutral events”?

Not neutral in the sense people will take that to mean. Better slow down, take a breath or two, refill your coffee mug. We’ll need to go a little slower.

Okay.

Remember, too, this is all “in a way.” It isn’t exact, it’s a pointer.

You are a personality, interacting with a world that you experience as “around you,” as “external.” Nothing wrong with that; that’s the design, only there isn’t any harm in seeing more deeply. That personality that expresses you is not exactly you. It is more like a ratio between you and your life in the world. It is a necessity, but it should not be mistaken for what it is not. (One use of meditation is that it helps some people to realize for the first time that they are not the personality they have always assumed themselves to be, but are distinct from it and prior to it.)

Your personality expresses your internal tendencies in various circumstances. This is one reason to choose your circumstances, including your associates, your media-driven mental environment, your aspirations. If you wish to be conscious, the way to do so is to choose rather than drift. (Drifting is not the same thing as remaining receptive to what comes, though they may appear similar.)

And choosing is done within limits. (One goal of your choice may be to widen the limits!)

Those limits are, initially, the baggage you bring into your life by who your strands were. Do you think this is understood?

I think we have said it about as clearly as possible. Presumably anyone finding it unclear will ask for more.

Well, that initial pattern may be called your karma. It is your inventory as you enter into a 3D life. It is at the same time a valuable resource and a source of difficulties, depending on what is happening. But you are not helpless, here, if you choose not to be.

Which takes us back to my initial request for clarification.

It is obvious now, surely? Herman Hesse was being driven by his inherited (call it) tendencies, conflicts, passions, contradictions, etc. In analysis, he learned how to make what was unconscious (and hence out of his control), conscious (and hence malleable). In learning who he was, he gained the freedom to choose rather than be buffeted by the winds.

And haven’t we been stressing the duty and value of choosing, from the beginning?

The more you gain control of unconscious forces within you, the wider your areas of choice; the freer you are to choose to be this rather than that. We have talked about this in terms of values, but it is at least equally true in terms of personal evolution. And your own personal evolution cannot be separated from any larger abstraction like “humanity as a whole,” or “the greater good,” or whatever. Your personal task is always conducted within the context of everything you are connected to, which, if you look at it widely enough, is everything.

Okay, thanks. I’ll put it out and see if we have cleared up anything or obscured it, or what. Till next time.