The relationship with others if good, generally speaking. They may be gifted in any field, but their primary interest will be in passing on their knowledge or that of others. They are usually traditionalists, therefore, although they may be brilliant. In a way they are equally related to the family Gramada, and to the Sumari, for they stand between the organized system and the creative artist. They transmit “originality” without altering it, however, through the social structures.

I say that they(the Sumafi) do not alter the originality. Of course any interpretation of an event alters it, but generally they teach the disciplines while not creatively changing the content. As historians, for example, they pass down the dates of battles, and those dates are considered almost as immaculate facts, so that in the context of their training they see no point in questioning the validity of such information.

In the Middle ages they faithfully copied manuscripts. they are custodians in a way. Again, there are infinite variations. Many music or art teachers belong in that category, where the arts are taught with a love of excellence, a stress upon technique–into which the artist, who is often a Sumari (although not always, by any means) can put his or her creativity.

Sometimes its members follow immediately after a revolutionary social change. Their organizational tendencies are expressed in any area of life. They are behind art schools, for instance, though they may not be artists themselves. They may set up colleges, although they may or may not be scholars.

The founders of giant businesses often belong to this family, as do some politicians and statesmen. They are active, vital, and creatively aggressive. They know how to put other people’s ideas together. They often unite conflicting schools of thought into a more or less unifying structure. they are, then, often the founders of social systems. In most cases, for instance, our hospitals, school and religions, as organizations, are initiated by and frequently maintained by this group.

These people (the Gramada) have excellent abilities in putting together solitary concepts that might other wise go by the wayside. They are organizers of energy, directed toward effective social structures. They usually set up fairly stable, fairly reasonable governments, schools, fraternities, although they do not initiate the ideas behind those structures.

You cannot consciously begin to alter the framework of our life, unless we realize first of all that we form it.. The melody is our own. It is not inevitable, nor is it only tune that we can play.

To some extent we can actualize portions of our own unknown reality, and draw them into the experienced area of our life. There is an obvious relationship between one note and another in a musical composition. Now in terms of physical families and in larger terms of countries, there is a relationship between realities, which constantly change as the notes do. To some extent our reality is picked up by our contemporaries. they accept it or not according to the particular theme or focus of their lives.

In those terms, we are not a part of any reality that is not our own. If we share it with others, it is because others are concerned with variations of the same theme. This applies in terms of world goals “at any given time.”

In certain terms, we are working with the challenge of how best to use the world’s resources. Some countries will overproduce. Others will underproduce. Contradictions seem to occur. Some people will be overfed while others starve; some sated with material conveniences, others relatively ignorant of them. These are variation of the same theme, we see. In overall terms contemporaries are working on the same group of challenges, though either oversupply or great lack might show itself at any particular place. Perhaps, however, the challenges could not be clearly delineated without those extravagances of degree.

As contemporaries, counterparts choose a particular time framework. The time format alone makes certain focuses clear, that in our terms could not be made in another context. What we learn in our present about industry–“progress”–and the equitable sharing of the earth’s products, could only be learned in a context in which industrialism was experienced as going too far, where technology was seen and known as a growing jeopardy.

In terms that are difficult to describe, the creative solutions will change the course of history in the past, so that variations are taken, and technology does not progress in the same way that it “has” in our experience.

We can change our past from the present. The same applies to civilizations.

We would understand that I am not contradicting myself. We would not say, “Why would anyone write a composition like Tchaikovsky. Why would a composer choose a somber mood? The music itself would have its own sweep and power, and would be beautiful beyond all concepts of good and evil manner, even a tragic composition of midst of the deepest emotions of tragedy, or even of defeat. In such cases the tragedy itself is chosen as an emotional framework upon which the psyche plays. The framework is not thrust upon its, but indeed chosen precisely because of its own characteristics–even those of despondency, perhaps.

Tasting those qualities to the utmost, from that framework the psyche probes the fires of vitality and being as experienced from that specific viewpoint, and the despondency can be more alive then an unprobed, barely experienced joy. In the same manner, certain individuals can do choose life experiences that involves great brings into experience, through comparison, the great vitality and thrust of being.

This does not mean that a tragic life is more vital than a happy, simple one. It just means that each individual is involved in an art of living. There are different themes instruments, melodies–but existence, like great art, cannot be confined to simple definitions.

From the outside, for instance, it might seem as if a young person dies because in one way or another he or she is dissatisfied with life itself. Certainly it is usually taken for granted that suicides are afraid of life. However, suicides and would-be suicides often have such a great literal lust for life that they constantly put it into jeopardy, so that they can experience what it is in heightened form. The same applies to many who follows dangerous professions. It is fashionable to suppose that these people have a death wish. Instead, many of them have an intensified life wish, so to speak. Certainly it seems destructive to others. To those people, however, the additional excitement is worth the risk. The risk, given them an intensified version of life.

This is obviously not the case with all suicides or would-be suicides,or all risk-takers. But those elements are there. A person who dies at 17 may have experienced much greater dimensions of living, in our terms, than someone who lives to be 82. Such people are not as unaware of those choices as it seems.

This does not mean that we cannot alter our experience at any given point.