Under its overall auspices we have the most conventional establishment-oriented textbooks, devoted to continuing traditional ideas. We have, there, a concentration upon education as it is understood at that level.
My blogs do not appear under traditional headings. They are too anti-establishment to be in college networks, but in their way far too reasonable to be considered eccentricities — in the same fashion, now, that traditional blogs are.
My blogs are attempting to insert new ideas into the world as it now is, by combining the powers of the intellect and the powers of the intuitions — in other words.
We have been dealing with the magical approach, and let me gently remind my blog readers that I have said we must be willing to change all the way from the old system of orientation to the new, if we want the new approach to work fully for us in our lives. That will, as it happens, include our approach to traditional thought, of course.
As I have said before, also, when faced with the difficulty, the conventional, rational approach tells us to look at the problem, examine it thoroughly, project it into the future, and imagine its dire consequences — and so, faced with the idea of a disclaimer.
That is an excellent example of what not to do.
Some people indeed, will begin to pull out of that, and at least question the approach. In the meantime, of course, our nervous systems reacted to the implied threat against our problems, a threat that now existed in the past, present and future.
We are protected. Our work is protected. When we realize that, we act out of confidence. We indeed catch ourselves. When we realize that we are protected, our own intellects can be reassured enough through experience so that they do not feel the need to solve problems with the rational approach in instances where that approach is not feasible.
In the deepest of terms it was not reasonable to nearly assume that a disclaimer, if used, would therefore be retroactively and then continuously used. It was not a conclusion based upon fact, but a conclusion based upon a reason that applied to one probability only, one series of probable acts — or based upon the probable act of a disclaimer being used to begin with. So again, what we are dealing with is an overall lesson in the way in which the reasoning mind has been taught to react. These are really instances where the intellect has been trained to use only a portion of its abilities, to zoom in the most pessimistic of any given series of probable actions — and then treat those as if they were facts.
I will, of course, have more to say in future blogs, that will hopefully allow our intellect to use in a clear fashion, to better our performances. We are quite right, again, to say that “There are elements in this situation — or any given situation — impossible for my intellect to know,” so the intellect can take that fact into consideration. Otherwise, we expect it to make deductions while denying it the comfort it should have, of knowing that it’s deductions need not be made on its own knowledge alone, but on the intuition’s vast magical bank of information — from which, in larger terms, all of the intellect’s information must spring. So I think we are finally trying to use a new approach in that direction.
The magical approach will get us through, if we use it.
“The light of the universe.”
It’s obvious that in this blog adventure I have once again cleverly protected myself from confronting the full creative blast of the life of the universe by allowing myself just a peek at it, and a careful one at that, at the top of a door. As a physical creature I’d be overwhelmed if ever I came even close to facing that awesome conscious and creative power.