Category Archives: Electrical Reality

Daily language deals with separations, divisions, and distinctions

To some extent our language organizes our feelings and emotions. The language of the psyche, however, has at its command many more symbols that can be combined in many more ways, say, than mere letters of an alphabet.

lljhgf

In daily language, objects have certain names. Obviously the names are not the objects, but symbols for them. Even these symbols, however, divide us as the perceiver from the rest of the world, which becomes objectified. We can ourselves understand far more about the nature of the psyche, for example, than we think we can. To do this, however, we must leave our daily language behind at least momentarily, and pay attention to our own feelings and imagination. Our language tells us that certain things are true, or facts, and that certain things are not. Many of our most vivid and moving feelings do not fit the facts of our language, so we disregard them.

laghth

These emotional experiences, however, often express the language of the psyche. It is not that an understanding of our psyche is beyond us: It is usually that we try to understand or experience it in one of the most difficult ways — Through the use of daily language.

The imagination belongs to the language of the psyche. For this reason it often gives experiences that conflict with the basic assumptions upon which daily language is based. Therefore the imagination is often considered suspect.

langyy

We might stand alone in our doorway, or in a field — or even on a street, surrounded by many people in a large city — look upward, suddenly struck by the great sweeping clouds above, and feel oneself a part of them. We might momentarily experience a great yearning or feel our own emotions suddenly filled with that same moving majesty, so that for an instant we and the sky seem to be one.

Mundane language tells us, as we think with its patterns, that our imagination is running away with us, for obviously we are one thing and the sky is another. Us and the sky do not equate — or as friend Spock would say: “It is not logical.” The feeling swiftly fades after bemusing us briefly. We might be spiritually refreshed, yet as a rule we would not consider the feeling to be a statement of any legitimate reality, or a representation of our psyche’s existence.

llagg

The emotions and the imagination, however, give us our closest contact with other portions of our own reality. They also liberate our intellect so that its powers are not limited by concepts it has been taught are true. Instead, such concepts are relatively true — operationally true. For example, the example, the physical laws that we are familiar with operate where we are. They are true, relatively speaking. In those terms we are one person physically objectified, staring upward in the scene just mentioned at an objectified sky. We weigh so many pounds, tilt our head at such-and-such an angle to peer upward at the skyscape, and physically speaking, we can be categorized.

In those terms the clouds could be physically measured, and shown to be so far above us — composed of, say, winds of a certain velocity, ready to pour down a precise amount of rain or whatever. Physically speaking then, obviously, we are separate from the clouds, and so in those terms our momentary experience of uniting with them would seem to be a lie — at least not factual, or “the product of our imagination.”

languuu

Instead, such an event is a direct expression of the psyche’s knowledge. It senses its quite legitimate identification with nature, exercises its mobility, and feel its own emotional power leap. Our emotions in such a case would be momentarily magnified — raised, say, to a higher power. There are multitudinous such examples that could be given, as in each day our psyche presents evidence of its own greater being — evidence that we are taught to overlook, or to dismiss because it is factual.

What is imaginary is not true: We are taught this as children. The imagination, however, brings us into connection with a different kind of truth, or a different framework in which experience can be legitimately perceived. The larger truths of the psyche exist in that dimension.

tuou7

From it we choose physical facts. Thoughts are real. Only some thoughts turn into physical actions, of course. Despite distorted versions of that last statement, however, there is still obviously a distant difference, say, between the though of adultery and its physical expression.

thoujt

We cannot treat thoughts and imagination in such a literal manner, nor in a large respect should we try to “guard our thoughts” as if they were herds of animals that we wanted to keep purely bred. Our thoughts do form our reality. If we do not fear them, however, they create their own balances. The psyche dwells in a reality so different from the world we usually recognize that there good and evil, as we think of them, are also seen to be as operationally or relatively true as the difference between the perceiver and the object perceived.

The language of the atoms and molecules in our own private way.

We mark the universe. We impress it, or “stamp” it, or imprint it with our own identity. Henceforth it always recognizes us as us and no other. We are known.

In larger terms, while we speak our own language, the universe also speaks “our” language as it constantly translates itself into our private perception. We live in our psyche somewhat in the same way that physically we dwell in the world.

atom

That world has many languages. Physically we are like one country within our psyche, with a language of our own. People are always searching for master language, or for one in particular out of which all others emerged. In a way, Latin is a master language. In the same manner people search for gods, or a God, out of which all psyche emerged. Here we are searching for the implied source, the unspoken, invisible “pause,” the inner organization that gives language or the self a vehicle of expression. Language finally become archaic. Some words are entirely forgotten in one language, but spring up in altered form in another. All of the earth’s languages, however, are united because of characteristic pauses and hesitations upon which the different sounds ride.

at4tt

Even the alterations of obvious pauses between languages make sense only because of an implied, unstated inner rhythm. The historic gods become equally archaic. Their differences are often obvious. When we are learning a language, great mystery seems involved. When we are learning about the nature of the psyche, an even greater aura of the unknown exists. The unknown portions of the psyche and its greater psyches out of which the self emerged — as for example Latin is a source for the Romance Languages.

atommewe

Using language, we speak with our fellows. We write histories and communications. Many books are meant to be read and never to be spoken aloud. Through written language, then, communication is vastly extended. In direct contact, however, we encounter not only the spoken language of another, but we are presented with the communicator’s person as well. Spoken language is embellished with smiles, frowns, or other gestures, and these add to the meaning of the spoken word.

Often when we read a book we silently mouth the words, as if to reinforce their symbolic content with a more emotional immediacy. The language of the psyche, however, is far richer and more varied. Its “words” spring alive. Its “verbs” really move, and do not simply signify, or stand for, motion.

aaaath

Its “nouns” become what they signify. Its declensions are multi-dimensional. It verbs and nouns can become interchangeable. In a way, the psyche is its own language. “At any given time,” all of its tenses are present tense. In other words, it has multitudinous tenses, all in the present, or it has multitudinous present tenses. Within it no “word” dies or becomes archaic. This language is experience. Psychically, then, we can and we cannot say that there is a source. The very fact that we question: “Is there a God, or a Source?” shows that we misunderstand the issues.

ati24t

In the same manner, when we ask: “Is there a master language?” it is apparent that we do not understand what language itself is. Otherwise we would know that language is dependent upon other implied ones; and that the two, or all of them, are themselves and yet inseparable, so closely connected that it is impossible to separate them even though our focus may be upon one language alone.

Awwewee2e

So the psyche and its source, or the individual and the God, are so inseparable and interconnected that an attempt to find one apart from the other automatically confuses the issue.

The existence of one person implies the existence of all others who have lived or will live.

Our own existence is implied therefore in everyone else’s and theirs is implied in us.

eeexggh

Languages gain their meaning largely from the pauses and hesitations between sounds. They obviously gain their meaning also because of the sounds not used, so that any one language also implies the existence of all others. To that extent, all other languages reside silently within any given spoken language. The same applies to language written upon a page. The written characters make sense because of their arrangement, and precisely because they are chosen over other characters that do not appear. In the same kind of manner, our focused existence is dependent upon all other existences that are not us presently. We are a part of them. We ride upon their existences, though we are primarily us and no other.

eexxy6yy6

The same applies, however, to every other person. Each of them becomes a primarily focus or identity within which all others are implied. In Ordinary terms, we do not “make ourselves.” We are like a living language spoken by someone who did not originate it — the language was there for us to use. The language in this case is a molecular one that speaks our physical being. The components of that language or the earth elements that form the body were already created when we were born, as the alphabet of our particular language was waiting to be used.

exyrh45

Our very physical life, then, implies a “source,” a life out of which the physical one emerges, — the implied, unspoken, immaterialized, unsounded vitality that supplied the ingredients for the physical, bodily, molecular “alphabet.” Our physical life therefore implies a non-physical one. We take our particular “language” so for granted, and use it so effortlessly, that we give no thought at all to the fact that it implies other languages also, or that it gains its meaning because of inner assumptions that are never spoken, or by the use of pauses in which no sounds are made. We live our lives in the same fashion.

ee

There are many languages, though most people speak one, or two, or three at most. Languages also have accents, each somewhat different while still maintaining the original integrity of any given language. To some extent we can learn to speak oneself with an accent, so to speak, in which case, still being oneself, we allow ourselves to take on some of the attributes of another “language.”

We can read the world in a different way, while still maintaining our own identity, or we can move into a different country of oneself that speaks our native language but with a different slant. We do this to some extent or another whenever we tune in to broadcasts to which we usually pay no attention. The news is slightly foreign, while it is still interpreted through the language that we know. We are getting a translation of reality.

exsssu

The psyche, always in a state of becoming, obviously has no precise boundaries. The existence of one, implies the existence of all, and so any one given psyche comes into prominence also because of the existence of the others upon which its reality rides. One television station exists in the same manner, for if one could not be tuned into, theoretically speaking, none could.

These inner communications, reach outward in all directions. Each identity has eternal validity within the psyche’s greater reality. At one level, any person contacting his or her own psyche can theoretically contact any other psyche. Life implies death, and death implies life — that is, in the terms of our world. In those terms life is a spoken element, while death is the unspoken but still-present element “beneath,” upon which life rides. Both are equally present.

exas2

To obtain knowledge consciously other than usually available, we pay attention to the pauses, to the implied elements in language, to any felt or sensed quality upon which the recognizable experiences of life reside. There are all kind of information available to us, but it must be perceived through our own focus or identity.

eeexxawd

All events occur at once — a difficult statement to understand. All identities occur at once also. Each event changes every other. Present ones alter past ones. Any one event implies the existence of probable events which do not “emerge,” which are not “spoken.” Physical world events therefore rest upon the existence of implied probable events. Different languages use sounds in their own peculiar manners, with their own rhythms, one emphasizing what another ignores. Other probabilities, therefore, emphasize events that are only implied in our reality, so that our physical events become the implied probable ones upon which other worlds reside.

Almost any question that we can ask of God, can be asked of the Psyche as well.

It seems to us that we know ourselves, but that we take the existence of our psyche on faith. At best, it often seems that we are all that we know of our psyche, and we will complain that we do not know oneself to begin with. When we say: “I want to find myself,” we usually take it for granted that there is a completed, done, finished version of oneself that we have mislaid somewhere. When we think of finding God, we often think in the same terms.

We are “around ourselves” all the time. We are ever becoming oneself. In a manner of speaking we are “composed” of those patterns of oneself that are everywhere coming together. We cannot help but be oneself. Biologically, mentally, and spiritually we are marked as apart from all others, and no cloak of conventionally can ever hide that unutterable uniqueness. We cannot help but be ourselves.

ffffffm

In a way, physically we are a molecular language that communicates to others, but a language with its own peculiarities, as if speaking an accepted tongue we spoke with a biological accent that carried its own flavor and meaning.

When we ask: “What is my psyche, or my soul, or who am I?” we are seeking of course for our own meaning as apart from what we already know about oneself. In that context, God and the psyche are constantly expanding– unutterable, and always becoming.

ffwf

We will question, most likely, “Becoming what?” for to us it usually seems that all motion tends toward a stat of completion of one kind or another. We think, therefore, in terms of becoming perfect, or becoming free. The word “becoming” by itself seems to leave us up in the air, so to speak, suspended without definitions. If I say: “You are becoming what you already are,” then my remark sounds meaningless, for if you already are, how can you become what is already accomplished? In larger terms, however, what we are is always vaster than our knowledge of oneself, for in physical life we cannot keep up with our own psychological and psychic activity.

In a way our bodies speak a biological language, but in those terms we are bilingual, to say the least. We deal with certain kinds of organizations. They can be equated with biological verbs, adjectives and nouns. These result in certain time sequences that can be compared to sentences, written and read from one side, say, to the other.

sfgwe

Pretend that our life’s experience is a page of a book that we write, read, and experience from top to bottom, left to right, sentence by sentence, paragraph by paragraph. That is the you that you know– the wold view that we understand. But other quite as legitimate “yous” may write, read, and experience the same page backwards, or read each letter downward and back up again, as we would a column of figures. Or others might mix and match the letters in entirely different fashions altogether, forming entirely different sentences. Still another, vaster you might be aware of all the different methods of experiencing that particular page, which is our life as we understand it.

We think that our own consciousness is the only logical culmination of our body’s reality. We read oneself in a certain accepted fashion. In the “entire book of life,” however, just physically speaking, there are interrelationships on adjacent levels that we do not perceive, as other portions of our own biological consciousness or biological language relate to the entire living fabric of the world. In physical terms we are alive because of substructures — psychic, spiritual, and biological — of which we have hardly any comprehension at all.

TEGERGB

These are implied, however, in the nature of our own consciousness, which could not exist otherwise as we know it. As language gains and attains its meaning not only by what is included in it, but also by what is excluded, so our consciousness attains its stability also by exclusions.

What we are is implied in the nature of what we are not. By the same token, we are what we are because of the existence of what we are not.

trgggg3

We read ourselves from the top of the page to the bottom, or from what we think of as the beginning to the end. Our greater reality, however, is read in terms of intensities, so that the psyche puts us together in a different way. The psyche does not mark time. To it the intense experiences of our life exist simultaneously. In our terms they would be the psyche’s present. The psyche deals with probable events, however, so some events– perhaps some that we dreamed of but did not materialize — are quite real to the psyche. They are far more real to it than most innocuous but definite physical events, as for example yesterday morning’s breakfast.

God and psyche

The inner events of the psyche compose the greater experience from which physical events arrive. They cast an aura that almost magically make our life our own. Even as two people encountered precisely the same events in their lives at precisely the same time, their experiences of reality would still hardly be approximately connected.

Before the birth of images and words, the world existed in different terms.

Images as we consider them had not taken the form that we recognize. It seems to us that visually, for example, the natural world must be put together or perceived in a certain fashion.

boyp

Whatever our language, we perceive trees, ,mountains, people, oceans. We never see a man merge with a tree, for example. This would be considered an hallucinatory image. Our visual data are learned and interpreted so that they appear as the only possible results of those data. Inner vision can confound us, because in our mind we often see images quite clearly that we would dismiss if our eyes were open. In the terms of which we are speaking, however, the young species utilized what I have called the “inner senses” to a far greater degree than we do. Visually, early man did not perceive the physical world in the way that seems natural to us.

When a man’s and woman’s consciousness, for example, blended with that of a tree, those data, became “visual” for others to perceive. When a man’s/woman’s consciousness merged with an animal’s that blending became visual data also.

dddrw3

In a manner of speaking, the brain put visual information together so that the visual contents of the world were not as stationary as they are now. We have learned to be highly specific in our physical sight and interpretations. Our mental vision holds hints as to data that could be, but are not visually, physically perceived. We have trained ourselves to react to certain visual cues which trigger our mental interpretations, and to ignore other variations.

These later can be described as too subtle. Yet actually they are no more subtle than those cues we acknowledge.

bori

Data, we say, are stored in the chromosomes, strung together in a certain fashion. Now biologically that is direct cognition. The inner senses perceive directly in the same fashion. To us, language means words. Words are always symbols for emotions or feelings, intents or desires. Direct cognition did not need the symbols. The first language, the initial language, did not involve images or words, but dealt with a free flow of directly cognitive material.

A man or woman, wondering what a tree was like, became one, and let his or her own consciousness flow into the tree. Man’s/woman’s consciousness mixed and merged with other kinds of consciousness with the great curiosity of love. A child did not simply look at an animal, but let its consciousness merge with the animal’s and so to some extent the animal looked out through the child’s eyes.

ddffse

In ways most difficult to explain, man and woman “absorbed” an animal’s spirit before he/she killed it, so that the spirit of the animal merged with his or her own. In using the animal’s flesh, then, the hunter believed that he or she was giving the animal a new focus of existence. He/she could draw on the animal’s strength, and therefore were one.

Our own kind of focus emerged from such a background, so that within ourselves we contain myriad consciousnesses of which we are unaware. Through our own particular focus, the consciousnesses of the natural world merged to form a synthesis in which, for example, symphonies can emerge. We act not only for ourselves, but also for other kinds of consciousness that we have purposefully forgotten. In following our own purposes, which are ours, we also serve the purposes of others we have forgotten.

dirr

In thinking our own private thoughts, we also add to a larger psychic and mental reality of which we are part. Our language program our perceptions, and limit our communications in certain terms, as much as they facilitate it.

A musician writing a symphony, however, does not use all of the notes that are available to him. He or she chooses and discriminates. His/her discrimination is based upon his/her knowledge of the information available, however. In the same way, our languages are based upon an inner knowledge of larger available communications. The “secrets” of language are not to be found, then, in the available sounds, accents, root words or syllables, but in the rhythms between the words; the pauses and hesitations; the flow with which the words are put together, and the unsaid inferences that connect verbal and visual data.

6690

As a species “We” sought certain kinds of experience. Individually, and as tribes or nations, we follow certain “progressions” — and yet in so doing we act also on the part of the whole of nature. We take into our bodies in transmuted form the consciousness of all the things we consume.

The consciousness then merge to perceive the world in a fashion we call our own. Through our eyes the beasts, vegetables, birds, and dust perceive the dawn and sunlight as we do — as us, and yet on the other hand our experience is our own.

tlt879

To some extent it is true to say that languages emerged as we began to lose direct communication with our own experience, and with that of others. Language is therefore a substitute for direct communication. The symbols of the words stand for our own or someone else’s experience, while protecting us or them from it at the same time.

y90y

Visual data as we perceive them amount to visual language; the images perceived are like visual words. An object is presented to our visual perception so that we can safely perceive it from the outside. Objects as we see them are also symbols.

Consciousness is far more mobile

Operationally, we have focused ours primarily with the body. We cannot experience subjective behavior “from outside,” so this natural mobility of consciousness, which for example the animals have retained, is psychologically invisible to us.

wi5w6u

We think in terms of units and definitions, so even when we consider our own consciousness we think of it as “a thing,” or a unit — an invisible something that might be held in invisible hands perhaps. Instead consciousness is a particular quality of being. Each portion of “it” contains the whole, so theoretically as far as we are concerned, we can leave our body and be in it simultaneously. We are rarely aware of such experiences because we do not believe them possible, and it seems that even consciousness, particularly when individualized, must be in one place or another.

wihrh6

In those early times, then, consciousness was more mobile. Identity was more democratic. In a strange fashion this does not mean that individuality was weaker. Instead it was strong enough not to accept within its confines many divergent kinds of experience. A person then, looking out into the world of trees, waters and rock, wildlife and vegetation, literally felt that he/she was looking at the larger, materialized, subjective areas of personal selfhood.

winddfwe

To explore that exterior world was to explore the inner one. Such a person, however, walking through the forest, also felt that he or she was also a portion of the inner life of each rock or tree, materialized. yet there was no contradiction of identities.

wit34t

A man/woman might merge his/her own consciousness with a running stream, traveling in such a way for miles to explore the layout of the land. To do this he/she became part water in a kind of identification we can barely understand– but so did the water then become part of the man/woman.

wi56

We can imagine atoms and molecules forming objects with little difficulty. In the same way, however, portions of identified consciousness can also mix and merge, forming alliances.

 

We see in nature only what we want to see.

We provide ourselves with a pattern or model of nature that conforms with our beliefs.

n=A8U

Love and devotion are largely seen as female characteristics. Societies and organizations of church and state are seen as male. It is not so much that the male and the female be considered equal as it is that the male and female elements in each person should be released and expressed. Immediately, many of us may be annoyed or alarmed, thinking that of course I mean sexual expression. Of course, sexual expression can come in a lot of ways – self (with toys like a thrusting dildo or vibrators) and with another human. That is a portion of such expression. But I am speaking of releasing within each individual the great human characteristics and abilities that are often denied expression because they are assigned to the opposite sex.

5yhweh

In our present framework, because of the male-female specialization– the male orientation, the implication that the ego is male while the psyche is female– we force upon ourselves great divisions in which operationally the intellect seems separate from the Intuitions, and we set up a situation in which opposites seem to apply where there are none. When we think of a scientist, the majority of us will think of a male, an intellectual, an “objective” thinker who takes great pains not to be emotional, or to identify with the subject being examined or studied.

na35y

There seems to be a division between science and religion, for even organized religion has an intuitive basis. The male scientist is often ashamed of using his intuitions, for not only do they appear to be unscientific, but female as well. It is what others will think about his masculinity that such a man is concerned with. It be “illogical” is a scientific “crime” — not so much because it is an unscientific attribute, but because it is considered a feminine one. Science has followed the male orientation and become its epitome. Up until the present, science has consistently tried to do without the so-called feminine qualities. It has divorced knowledge from emotion, understanding from identification, and stressed sexuality over personhood.

natfu

To an extent, some people in the sciences manage to behind the so-called female and male characteristics. When they do so, seeming oppositions and male contradictions disappear. To whatever degree, more than their contemporaries, they do not allow sexual roles to blind them psychologically. Therefore they are more apt to combine reason and emotion, intuition and intellect, and in so doing invent theories that reconcile previous contradictions. They unify, expand, and create, rather than diversify.

bio265huj

Einstein was such a person in the sciences. While he was tainted to some extent by conventional sexual beliefs, he still felt his own personhood in such a way that he gladly took advantage of characteristics considered feminine. As a youngster particularly, he rebelled against male-oriented learning and orientation. This rebellion was was psychological — that is, he maintained an acceptable male orientation in terms of sexual activity, but he would not restrain his mind and soul with such nonsense. The world felt the result of his great intuitive abilities, and of his devotion.

Because of the world situation, and the overall male orientation of science, the result of his work were largely put to the uses of manipulation and control.

c1

Generally, reason and intellect are then considered male qualities, and the frameworks for civilization, science, and an organized world. The intuitions and the impulses are considered erratic, untrustworthy, feminine, and the impulses are be controlled. The world exists because of spontaneous order. Civilization began because of the impulse of people to be together. It grew spontaneously and came into order. We only see the outside of many processes because our objectified viewpoint does not allow us the identification that would show us more. It seems to us then that all systems sometime break down — become less orderly or fall into chaos.

gghrt

We apply this belief to physical systems and psychological ones. In terms of sex, we insist upon a picture that shows us a growth into a sexual identification into “sexual disorder.” It does not occur to us that the original premise or focus, the identification of identity with sexual nature, is “unnatural.” It is us, then, who form the entire framework from which our judgement is made. In many cases the person is truer to his or her own identity in childhood or old age, when greater individual freedom is allowed, and sexual roles are more flexible.

tyrw2

Any deep exploration of the self will lead into areas that will confound conventional beliefs about sexuality. We will discover an identity, a psychological and psychic identity, that is in our terms male and female, one in which those abilities of each sex are magnified, released, and expressed. They may not be so released in normal life, but we will meet the greater dimensions of our own reality, and at least in the dream state catch a glimpse of the self that transcends a one-sex orientation.

Such an encounter with the psyche is often met by great artists or writers, or by mystics. This kind of realization is necessary if we are to ever transcend the framework of seeming opposites in which our world is involved.

tannsq

The overly specific sexual orientation, then, reflects a basic division in consciousness. It not only separates a man from his own intuitions and emotions to some extent, or a woman from her own intellect, but it effectively provides a civilization in which mind and heart, fact and revelation, appear completely divorced. To some degree each person is at war with the psyche, for all of an individual’s human characteristics must be denied unless they fit in with those considered normal to the sexuall identity.

The View From Above

Some time as you walk down a street, pretend that you are seeing the same scene from the sky in an airplane, yourself included. On another occasion, as you sit inside your house imagine that you are outside on the lawn or street. All of these exercises should be followed by a return to the present: We focus our attention outward in the present moments as clearly as possible, letting the sounds and sights of the physical situation come into our attention.

vrf

The exercises, will in fact, result in a clearer picture of the world, for they will facilitate the very motion of our perceptions, allowing us to perceive nuances in the physical situation that before would have escaped our notice. We will be dealing with practical direct experience. It will do us no good if we are simply intellectually aware, but practically ignorant. Therefore the exercises will be important because they will offer us evidence of our own greater perceptive abilities.

vbnfn

Continue to rely upon known channels of information, but implement these and begin to explore the unrecognized ones also available. What information do we have, for example, presently unknown to ourselves? Try your hand at predicting future events. In the beginning, it does not matter whether or not your predictions are “true.” We will be stretching your consciousness into areas usually unused. Do not put any great stake in your predictions, for it you do you will be very disappointed if they do not work out, and end the entire procedure.

vsvw4

If you continue, you will indeed discover that you are aware of some future events, when such knowledge is not available in usual terms. If you persist, then over a period of time you will discover that you do very well in certain areas, while in others you may fail miserably. There will be associative patterns that you follow successfully, leading toward “correct” precognitions. You will also discover that the emotions are highly involved in such procedures: You will perceive information that is significant to you for some reason. That significance will act like a magnet, attracting those data to you.

vr53

Now, in the normal course of events we attract experience in the same fashion. We anticipate events. We are aware of them before they happen, whether or not we ever succeed in conscious, predictions. We form our life, however, though the intimate inter-workings of our own conscious goals and beliefs.

vervr

While our future can on occasion be correctly perceived ahead of time by a gifted psychic, the future is too plastic for any kind of systematized framework. Free will is always involved. Yet many people are frightened of remembering dreams because they fear that a dream of disaster will necessarily be followed by such an event. The mobility of consciousness provides far greater freedom. In fact, such a dream can instead be used to circumnavigate such a probability.

vrvv

Only if we understand our own freedom in such areas will we allow ourselves to explore alternate states of consciousness, or the environment of dreams. Such exercises are not to be used to supersede the world we know, but to supplement it, to complete it, and to allow us to perceive its true dimensions.

veek

There is no need to divorce the waking and dreaming states in the particular fashion that currently operates– for they are complementary states, not opposite ones. A good deal of life’s normal dimensions are dependent upon our dream experience. Our entire familiarity with the world of symbols arises directly from the dreaming self.

In certain terms, language itself has its roots in the dreaming condition– and man/woman dreamed [that] he/she spoke long before language was born.

v

He/she dreamed of flying, and that impetus led to the physical inventions that made mechanical flight possible. I am not speaking symbolically here, but quite literally. The self is not confined to the body. This means that the consciousness has other methods of perceiving information, that even in physical life experience is not confined to what is sensed in usual terms. This remains fine theory, however, unless we allow ourselves enough freedom to experiment with other modes of perception.

Awake While Asleep

Suggest that instead as we falling to asleep, we will come into another kind of wakefulness. Try to imagine that you are awake when you sleep. On other occasions when we go to bed, lie down and settle yourself, but as you fall asleep imagine that you are awakening the next morning. I will not tell you what to look for. The doing of this exercise is important– not the results in usual terms.

a6th

There are different kinds of knowledge; so will this exercise bring us in contact with knowledge in another way. Done over a period of time, they will open up alternate modes of perception, so that we can view our experience from more than one standpoint. This means that our experience will itself change in quality. Sometimes when you are awake, and it is convenient, imagine that your present experience of the moment is a dream, and is highly symbolic. Then try to interpret it as such.

d8l8l

Who are the people? What do they represent? If that experience were a dream, what would it mean? And into what kind of waking life would you rise in the morning?

yjyj

The qualities of consciousness cannot be elucidated. This exercise will bring us in contact with other kinds of knowing, and acquaint us with different feelings of consciousness that are not familiar. Our consciousness itself will then have a different feel as the exercise is done. Certain questions that we may have asked may be answered in such a state, but not in ways that we can anticipate, nor can we necessarily translate the answers into known terms. The different modes of consciousness with which I hope to acquaint you are not alien, however. They are quite native, again, in dream states, and are always present as alternatives beneath usual awareness.

asw4554545

We express very little of our entire personhood

This remark has nothing to do with our accepted concepts of the unconscious portions of the self. Our idea of the unconscious are so linked to our limited ideas of personhood as to be meaningless in this discussion. It is as if we used only one finger of one hand, and then said: “This is the proper expression of my personhood.” It is not just that there are other functions of the mind, unused, but that in those terms we have other minds. We have one brain, it is true, but we allow it to use only one station, or to identify itself only one mind of many.

848

It seems evident to us that one person has one mind. We identify with the mind we use. If we had another, then it would seem as if we must be someone else. A mind is a psychic pattern through which we interpret and form reality. We have physical limbs that we can see. We have minds that are invisible. Each one can organize reality in a different fashion. Each one deals with its own kind of knowledge.

bjryj46

These minds all work together to keep us alive through the physical structure of the brain. When we use all of these minds, then and only then do we become fully aware of our surroundings. We perceive reality more clearly than we do now, more sharply, brilliantly, and concisely. At the same time, however, we comprehend it directly. We comprehend what it is apart from our physical perception of it. We accept as ourselves those other states of consciousness native to our other minds. We achieve true personhood.

ooo8

In terms of history, some ancient races achieved such goals, but in our terms, so long ago that we cannot find evidence of their knowledge.

Through the centuries various individuals have come close, yet had no vehicle of expression that would have enabled the members of the species to understand. They possessed ,methods, but the methods presupposed or necessitated a knowledge the others did not possess.

tw4t

The dream and painting, are aspects of another kind of perception. A nonverbal comprehension that will, on another level, reorganize some of our beliefs. We can accelerate mentally to a certain degree, and find an additional energy source. Activate certain portions of the brain that connect it to another mind, that people do not as yet realize they possess.

The Other Ways Of Receiving Information Than Those We Take For Granted

There are other kinds of knowledge. These deal with organizations with which we are generally not familiar. It is not merely a matter of learning new methods to acquire knowledge, then, but a situation in which old methods must be momentarily set aside– along with the type of knowledge that is associated with them.

trannn

It is not a matter, either, of there simply being one other category of knowledge, for there are numerous other such categories, many of them biologically within our reach. Various so-called esoteric traditions provide certain methods that allow an individual to set aside accepted modes of perception, and offer patterns that may be used as containers for these other kinds of knowledge. Even these containers must necessarily shape the information received, however. Some such methods are very advantageous, yet they have also become too rigid and autocratic, allowing little room for deviation. Dogmas are then set up about them so that only a certain body of data is considered acceptable. The systems no longer have the flexibility that first gave them birth.

trw4ty

The kind of knowledge upon which we depend needs verbalization. It is very difficult for us to consider the accumulation of any kind of knowledge without the use of language as we understand it. Even our remembered dreams are often verbalized constructs. We may also use images, but these are familiar images, born of the educated and hence prejudiced perceptions. Those remembered dreams have meaning and are very valuable, but they are already organized for us to some extent, and out into a shape that we can somewhat recognize.

5tehh

Beneath those levels, however, we comprehend events in an entirely different fashion. These whole comprehensions are then packaged even in the dream state, and translated into unusual sense terms.

tr5yt34

Any information or knowledge must have a pattern if we are going to understand it at all. Information has nothing to do with words but an overall comprehension of the nature of, a direct knowing. Use one’s own abilities as a container. This direct kind of knowledge is available through desire, love, intent or belief.

tykj7k

Many kind of knowledge. Think of them as states of knowledge. Perception of any of these takes a consciousness attuned to each. In our “waking” condition. We can operate at many levels of consciousness at once, and deal therefore with different systems of knowledge. In our “dream” condition, or rather conditions, we form links of consciousness that combine these various systems, creatively forming them into new versions. “Waking” again, we become consciously aware of those activities, and use them to add to the dimensions of our usual state, creatively expanding our experience of reality. What we learn is transmitted automatically to others like us, and their knowledge is transmitted to us.

terg3

We are each consciously aware of these transmissions. In the terms usually familiar to us, we think of “the conscious mind.” In those terms, there are many conscious minds. We are so prejudiced, however, that we ignore information that we have been taught cannot be conscious. All of our experience, therefore, is organized according to our beliefs.

tergr

It is much more natural to remember our dreams than not to remember them. It is presently in the vogue to say that the conscious mind, as we consider it, deals with survival. It deals with survival only insofar as it promotes survival in our particular kind of society. In those terms, if we remembered our dreams, and if we benefited consciously from the knowledge, even our physical survival would be better assured.

te5t5

One level of dream life deals particularly with biological condition of the body, giving us not just hints of health difficulties, but the reasons for them and the ways to circumvent them. Information about the probable future is also given to help us make conscious choices. We have taught ourselves that we cannot be conscious in our dreams, whoever, because we interpret the word “conscious” so that it indicates only our own prejudiced concept. As a result, we do not have any culturally acceptable patterns that allow us to use our dreams competently.

ign

Trance states, daydreaming, hypnotism — these give us some hint of the various differences that can occur from the standpoint of waking consciousness. In each, reality appears in another fashion, and for that matter, different rules apply. In the dream state far greater variations occur. They key to the dream state, however, lies in the waking one as far as we are concerned. We must change our ideas about dreaming, alter our concepts about it, before we can begin to explore it. Otherwise our own waking prejudice will close the door.