Tag Archives: Infinity

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.

We are part of the world, and yet we are oneself.

This does not confuse us, and we follow our own sense of identity without difficulty, even though we are everywhere surrounded by other individuals.

human

Using this as an analogy, we are a part of our psyche or our soul, dwelling within it, easily following our own sense of identity even though that psyche also contains other identities beside the one that we think of as our own. We draw sustenance from the world, and grow through its medium. We contribute our abilities and experience, helping to form the world’s civilization and culture. To some strong degree we bear the same kind of relationship to our own psyche.

Through ordinary methods of communication we are able to tell what is going on in other countries beside our own, even without traveling to them. News telecasts acquaint us with conditions around the world.

humtmt

Now there are also inner “broadcasts” going on constantly — to which, however, we are not consciously attuned. These keep us in constant touch with the other portions of our own psyche. We are so a part of the world that our slightest action contributes to its reality. Our breath changes the atmosphere. Our encounters with others alter the fabrics of their lives, and the lives of those who come in contact with them.

hu5

It is easy for us to see how the cells of the body form it — that is, we understand at least the cooperative nature of the cell’s activities. An alteration on the part of one cell immediately causes changes in the others, and brings about a difference in body behavior. It is somewhat more difficult for us to understand the ways in which our own actions and those of others combine to bring about world events. On the other hand, each individual alive on the planet at any given “time.” It may seem that the individual has little power. On the other hand, each individual alive is a necessary one. It is, each of our actions is so important, contributing to the experience of others whom we do not know, that each individual is like a center about which the world revolves.

If we did not do what we did today, for example, the entire world would be in some way different.

huiik7

Our acts ripple outward in ways that we do not understand, interacting with the experience of others, and hence forming world events. The most famous and the most anonymous person are connected through such a fabric, and an action seemingly small and innocuous can end up changing history as we understand it. In metaphysical terms, we have our being in our psyche or soul in somewhat the same manner. Identities are obviously psychic environments, primarily, rather than physical ones. Physical objects cannot move through each other, as a table cannot move through a chair. Mental events behave differently. They can mix and merge, move through each other while still maintaining their own focus. they can interact on psychic levels in the way that events do on physical levels, but without physical restrictions. Though we are a portion if our psyche, then, our identity is still inviolate. It will not be submerged or annihilated in a greater self. It carries a stamp — a divine mark — or its own integrity. It follows its own focus, and knows itself as itself, even while its own existence as itself may be but a portion of another “identity.”

suool7u

Moreover, there is nothing to stop it from exploring this other greater identity, or moving into it, so to speak. When this happens both identities are changed. In greater terms, the psyche or soul nowhere exists as a finished product or entity. On the other hand it is always becoming, and that becoming happens on the part of each of its own portions.

soul

Our very physical stance and existence are dependent upon portions of our psyche’s reality, or our soul’s existence, of which we are normally unaware. Those portions are also dependent upon our existence, however.

hummmstyj

We take our breathing, our moving, for granted, though they are unconsciously produced. In certain terms, however, “at one time” we had to learn how to do these things that we are not consciously concerned with. At still other levels of reality, activities that we now consciously claim as our own have — in those same terms and from another viewpoint — become unconscious, providing a psychic history from which other identities emerge, as it seems that our own identities emerge from unconscious bodily activity.

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.

Channels of interrelatedness

Connecting all physical matter — channels through consciousness flows.

Man’s/woman’s identification with nature allowed him/her to utilize those inner channels. He/she could send his/her own consciousness swimming, so to speak, through many currents, in which other kinds of consciousness merged. The language of love is one basic language. Man/woman loved nature, identified with its many parts, and added to his/her own sense of being by joining into its power and identifying with its force.

inneeri,

It is not so much that “Man”/”Woman” personified the elements of nature as that he/she threw his or her personality into its elements and rode them, so to speak. Love incites the desire to know, and communicate with the beloved; so language began as man/woman tried to express his/her love for the natural world.

Initially language had nothing to do with words, and indeed verbal language emerged only when man or woman had lost a portion of his/her love, forgotten some of his or her identification with nature, so that he or she no longer understood its voice to be his/her also. In those early days man and woman possessed a gargantuan arena for the expression of his/her emotions. He or she did not symbolically rage with the storms, for example, but quite consciously identified with them to such a degree that he or she and his or her tribesman or tribeswoman merged with the wind and lightning, and became a part of the storm’ forces. They felt, and knew as well, that the storms would refresh the land, whatever their fury.

inrtert4

Because of such identification with nature, the death experience, as we understand it, was in no way considered an end. The mobility of consciousness was a fact of experience. The self was not considered to be stuck within the skin. The body was considered more or less like a friendly home or cave, kindly giving the self refuge but not confining it.

The language of love did not initially involve images, either. Images in the mind, as they are understood, emerged in their present form only when man or woman had, lost a portion of his or her love and identification, and forgotten how to identify with an image from its insides, and so began to view it from outside.

inttrree

In a way the language of love followed molecular roots — a sort of biological alphabet, though “alphabet” is far too limiting a term.

Each natural element had its own key system that interlocked with others, forming channels through which consciousness could flow from one kind of life to another. Man and woman understood himself/herself to be a separate entity, but one that was connected to all of nature. The emotional reaches of his/her subjective life, then, lept far beyond what we think of as private experience. Each person participating fully in a storm, for example, still participated in his or her own individual way. Yet the grandeur of the emotions was allowed full sway, and the seasons of the earth and the world were jointly felt.

bittrr

The language or the method of communication can best be described perhaps as direct cognition. Direct cognition is dependent upon a lover’s kind of identification, where what is known is known. At that stage no words or even images were needed. The wind outside and the breath were felt to be one and the same, so that the wind was the earth breathing out the breath that rose from the mouths of the living, spreading out through the earth’s body. Part of a man or woman went out with breath — therefore, man’s and woman’s consciousness could go wherever the wind traveled. A man or woman’s consciousness, traveling with the wind,became part of all places.

A person’s identity was private, in that man/her always knew who he/she was. He or her was so sure of his/her identity that he/she did not feel the need to protect it, so that he or her could expand his/her awareness in away now quite foreign to us.

natbhet

Take the English sentence: “I observe the tree.” If the original language had words, the equivalent would be: “as a tree, I observe myself.”

Or: “Taking on my tree nature, I rest in my shade.” Or even: “From my man/woman nature, I rest in the shade of my tree nature.” A man/woman did not so much stand at the shore looking down at the water, as he/she immersed his/her consciousness within it. Man’s or woman’s initial curiosity did not involve seeing, feeling, or touching the object’s nature as much as it involved a joyful psychic exploration in which he or she plunged his or her consciousness, rather than, say, his or her foot into the stream — though he or she did both.

intter

If that language I speak of had been verbal, man/woman never would have said: “The water flows through the valley.” Instead, the sentence would have read something like this: “Running over the rocks, my water self flows together with others in slippery union.” That translation is not the best, either. Man or woman did not designate his or her own as the only kind of consciousness by any means. He/she graciously thanked the tree the gave him or her shade, for example, and he/she understood that the tree retained its own identity even when it allowed his or her awareness to join with it.

In our terms, the use of language began as man and woman lost his/her kind of identification. I must stress, that the identification was not symbolic, but practical, daily expression. Nature spoke for man/woman and man/woman for nature.

intur

In a manner of speaking, the noun and the verb were one. The noun did not disappear, but expressed itself as the verb.

In a kind of emotional magnification unknown to us, each person’s private emotions were given an expression and release through nature’s changes — a release that was understood, and taken for granted. In the most profound of terms, weather conditions and the emotions are still highly related. The inner conditions cause the exterior climatic changes, though of course it now seems to you that it is the other way around.

natyet

We are robbed, then, or we rob ourselves, of one of the most basic kinds of expression, since we can no longer identify ourselves with the forces of nature. Man and woman wanted to pursue a certain kind of consciousness, however. In our terms, over a period of time he/she pulled his/her awareness in, so to speak; he/she no longer identified as he/she did before, and began to view objects through the object of his own body. He or she no longer merged his or her awareness, so that he/she learned to look as a tree as one object, where before he/she would have joined with it, and perhaps viewed his/her own standing body from the tree’s vantage point. It was then the mental images became important in usual terms — for he or she had understood these before, but in a different way, from the inside out.

birt55

Now he and she began to draw and sketch, and to learn how to build images in the mind that were connected to real exterior objects in the presently accepted manner. Now he/she walked, not simply for pleasure, but to gain the information he or she wanted, to cross distances that before his/her consciousness had freely traveled. So he or she needed primitive maps and signs. Instead of using whole images he/she used partial ones, fragments of circles or lines, to represent natural objects.

hyhghy

He/she had always made sounds that communicate emotions, intent, and sheer exuberance. When he/she became involved with sketched or drawn images, he or she began to imitate their form with the shape of his/her lips. The “O” was perfect, and represents one of his or her initial, deliberate sounds of verbalized language.

 

 

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.

It was desirable in practical terms that a man have many wives.

So that is man died in battle his seed might be planted in many wombs– particularly in times when diseases struck men and women often in young adulthood.

I76I78

When physical conditions are adverse, such social traditions have often emerged. In times of overpopulation, so-called homosexual and lesbian tendencies come to the surface– but also there is the tendency to express love in other than physical ways, and the emergence of large social issues and challenges into which men and women can throw their energies. There are “lost” portions of the Bible having to do with sexuality, and with Christ’s beliefs concerning it, that were considered blasphemous and did not come down to us through history.

ut

It is natural to express love through sexual acts–natural and good. It is not natural to express love only through sexual acts, however. Many of Freud’s sexual ideas did not reflect man’s natural condition. The complexes and neuroses outlined and defined are products of our traditions and beliefs. We will naturally find some evidence for them in observed behavior. Many of the traditions do come from the Greeks, from the great Greek playwrights, who quite beautifully and tragically presented the quality of the psyche as it showed itself in the light of Grecian traditions.

The boy does not seek, naturally to “dethrone” the father. He seeks to emulate him; he seeks to be himself as fully as it seems to him that his father was himself. He hopes to go beyond himself and his own capabilities for himself and for his father.

cwc2

As a child he once thought that his father was immortal, in human terms– that he could do no wrong. The son tries to vindicate the father by doing no wrong himself, and perhaps by succeeding where it seems the father might have failed. It is much more natural for the male to try to vindicate the father than it is to destroy him, or envy him in negative terms.

mdfcv

The child is simply the male child. He is not jealous of the father with the mother, in the way that is often supposed. The male child does not possess an identity so focused upon its maleness. I am not saying that children do not have a sexual nature from birth. They simply do not focus upon their maleness or femaleness in the way that is supposed.

To the male child, the penis is something that belongs to him personally in the same way that an arm or leg does, or that his mouth or anus does. He does not consider it a weapon. He is not jealous of his father’s love for the mother, for he understands quite well that her love for him is just as strong. He does not wish to possess his mother sexually in the way that adults currently suppose. He does not understand those terms. He may at times be jealous of her attention, but this is not a sexual jealousy in conventionally understood terms. Our beliefs blind us to the sexual nature of children. They do enjoy their bodies. They are sexually aroused. The psychological connotations, however, are not those assigned to them by adults.

lufmjfu

The beliefs involving the son’s inherent rivalry with the father, and his need to overthrow him, follow instead patterns of culture and tradition, economic and social, rather than biological or psychological. Those ideas serve as handy explanations for behavior that is not inherent or biologically pertinent

 

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.

The Stamp of Identity

Any word, simply by being thought, written or spoken, immediately implies a specification. In our daily reality it is very handy to distinguish one thing from another by giving each item a name. When we are dealing with subjective experience, however, definitions can often serve to limit rather than express a given experience. Obviously the psyche is not a thing. It does not have a beginning or ending. It cannot be seen or touched in normal terms. It is useless, therefore, to attempt any description of it through usual vocabulary, for our language, primarily allows us to identify physical rather than nonphysical experience.

bbe

I am not saying that words cannot be used to describe the psyche, but they cannot define it. It is futile to question: “What is the difference between my psyche and my soul, my entity and my greater being?” for all of these are terms used in an effort to express the greater portions or our own experience that we sense within ourselves. Our use of language may make us impatient for definitions. The psyche’s reality escapes all definitions, defies all categorizing, and shoves aside with exuberant creativity all attempts to wrap it up in a neat package.

hmnsyts

When we begin a physical journey, we feel oneself distinct from the land through which we travel. No matter how far we journey–on a motorcycle, in a car or plane, or on foot, by bicycle or camel, or truck or vessel, still we are the wanderer, and the land or ocean or desert in the environment through which we roam. When we begin our travels into our own psyche, however, everything changes. We are also the vehicle and the environment. We form the roads, our method of travel, the hills or mountains or oceans, as well as the hills, farms, and villages of the self, or of the psyche, as we go along.

t5t35t5t

When in colonial times men and women traveled westward across the continent of North America, many of then took it on faith that the land did indeed continue beyond–for example–towering mountains. When we travel as pioneers through our own reality, we create each blade of grass, each inch of land, each sunset and sunrise, each oasis, friendly cabin or enemy encounter as we go along.

irm

Now if we are looking for simple definitions to explain the psyche, I will be of no help. If we want to experience the splendid creativity of our own being, however, then we can use methods that will arouse our greatest adventuresomeness, our boldest faith in oneself, and paint pictures of our psyche that will lead us to experience even its broadest reaches, if we so desire. The psyche, then, is not a known land. It is simply an alien land, to which or through which we can travel. It is not a completed or nearly complete subjective universe already there for us to explore. It is, instead, an ever-forming state of being, in which our present sense of existence resides. We create it and it creates us.

twt4

It creates in physical terms that we recognize. On the other hand, we create physical time for our psyche, for without us there would be no experience of the seasons, their coming and their passing.

b35668

There would be no experience of the privacy of the moment, so if one portion of our being wants to rise above the solitary march of the moments, other parts of our psyche rush, delighted, into that particular time-focus that is our own. As we now desire to understand the timeless, infinite dimensions of our own greater existence, so “even now” multitudinous elements of that unearthly identity just as eagerly explore the dimensions of earth-being and creaturehood.

dfcm

Imagine the odd effects that might occur if we tried to take our watch or other timepiece into other levels of reality. Now, when we try to interpret our selfhood in other kinds of existence, the same surprises or distortions or alterations can seem to occur. When we attempt to understand our psyche, and define it into terms of time, then it seems that the idea of reincarnation makes sense. We think “Of course. My psyche lives many lives physically, one after the other. If my present experience is dictated by that in my childhood, then surely; my current life is a result of earlier ones.” And so we try to define the psyche in terms of time, and in so doing limit our understanding and even our experience of it.

tll

Let us try another analogy: You are an artist in the throes of inspiration. There is before you a canvas, and you are working in all areas of it at once. In your terms each part of the canvas could be a time period–say, a given century. You are trying to keep some kind of overall balance and purpose in mind, so when you make one brushstroke in any particular portion of this canvas, all the relationships within the entire area can change. No brushstroke is ever really wiped out, however, in this mysterious canvas of our analogy, but remains, further altering all the relationships at its particular level.

aset

These magical brushstrokes, however, are not simple representations of a flat surface, but alive, carrying within themselves all of the artist’s intent, but focused through the characteristics of each individual stroke.

b356y

If the artist paints a doorway, all of the sensed perspectives within it open, and add further dimensions of reality. Since this is our analogy, we can stretch it as far as we like–far further than any artist could stretch his canvas. Therefore, there is no need to limit ourselves. The canvas itself can change size and shape as the artist works. The people in the artist’s painting are not simple representations either– to stare back at him with forever-fixed glassy eyes, or ostentatious smiles, dressed in their best Sunday clothes. Instead, they can confront the artist and talk back. They can turn sideways in the painting and look at their companions, observe their environment, and even look out of the dimensions of the painting itself and question the artist

bst

Now the psyche in our analogy is both the painting and the artist, for the artist finds that all of the elements within the painting are portions of himself. More, as he looks about, our artist discovers that he is literally surrounded by other paintings that he is also producing. As he looks closer, he discovers that there is a still-greater masterpiece in which he appears as an artist creating the very same paintings that he begins to recognize.

bkmy

Our artist then realizes that all of the people he painted are also painting their own pictures, and moving about in their own realities in a way that even he cannot perceive.

bgderee

In a flash of insight it occurs to him that he has been painted — that there is another artist behind him from whom his own creativity springs, and he also begins to look out of the frame.

The Earth is composed of many environments, so is the Psyche

As there are different continents, islands, mountains, seas, and peninsulas, so the psyche takes various shapes. If we live in one country, we often consider natives in other areas of the world as foreigners, while of course they see us in the same light. In those terms, the psyche contains many other levels of reality. From our point of view these might appear alien, and yet they are as much a part of our psyche as our motherland is a portion of the earth.

t5t43t

Different countries follow different kinds of constitutions, and even within any geographical area there may be various local laws followed by the populace. For example, if we are driving a car we may discover to our chagrin that the local speed limit in one small town is miles slower than in another. In the same manner, different portions of the psyche exist with their own local “laws,” their different kinds of “government.” They each possess their own characteristic geography.

t64

If we are traveling around the world, we have to make frequent time adjustments. When we travel through the psyche, we will also discover that our own time is automatically squeezed out of shape. If for a moment we try to imagine that we were able to carry our own time with us on such a journey, all packaged neatly in a wrist-watch, then we would be quite amazed at what would happen.

t5

As we approached the boundaries of certain psychic lands, the wristwatch would run backwards. As we entered other kingdoms of the psyche our watch would go faster or slower. Now, if time suddenly ran backward we would notice it. If it ran faster or slower enough, we would also notice the difference. If time ran backward very slowly, and according to the conditions, we might not be aware of the difference, because it would take so much “time” to get from the present moment to the one “before” it that we might be struck, instead, simply with the feeling that something was familiar, as if it had happened before.

tulk

In other lands of the psyche, however, even stranger events might occur. The watch itself might change shape, or turn heavy as a rock, or as light as a gas, so that we could not read the time at all. Or the hands might never move. Different portions of the psyche are familiar with all of those mentioned occurrences–because the psyche straddles any of the local laws that we recognize as “official,” and has within itself the capacity to deal with an infinite number of reality-experiences.

tuuioglkj

Obviously our physical body has capacities that few of us use to full advantage. But beyond this the species itself possesses the possibilities for adaptations that allow it to exist and persist in the physical environment under drastically varying circumstances. Hidden within the corporal biological structure there are latent specializations that would allow the species to continue, and that take into consideration any of the planetary changes that might occur for whatever reasons.

t34t

The psyche however, while being earth-tuned in our experience, also has many other systems of reality “to contend with.” Each psyche, then, contains within it the potentials, abilities, and powers that are possible, or capable of actualization under any conditions.

ttjg

The psyche, our psyche, can record and experience time backward, forward, or sideways through systems of alternate presents, of it can maintain its own integrity in a no-time environment. The psyche is the creator of time complexes. Theoretically, the most fleeting moment of our day can be prolonged endlessly. This would not be a static elongation, however, but a vivid delving into that moment, from which all time as we think of it, past and future and all its probabilities, might emerge.