Chronological Manuscript

RAYMOND IANNELLO

FULL MANUSCRIPT

1985 – 1998

@First Preface

December 27, 1987

I have never been able to write anything of significance in terms of a particular topic, notion, idea, etc. focused upon, appropriately defined and dealt with. Rather, my inclinations have always taken me to more fundamental levels which have usually resulted in broadening my field of thought so much that the baggage I carry prevents me from ever making noticeable strides. As such, I have been unable to achieve a large number of things that matter to me. There seem always to be barriers (usually money, credentials, or people) separating me from living the life I would like while still being able to fulfill family obligations. Thus, I have never had the luxury of being able to think and write within a certain time frame and without distraction. I have always had to work at jobs I disliked until three years ago when I dropped everything and began a career services (resume writing) business out of my home in order to allow me the opportunity to think and to write. What follows is the result of having had at least some opportunity for achieving this purpose.

This “manuscript” contains personal thoughts on a broad range of subjects, not least of which, is thought itself. It is not a work in the sense of a book or series of related papers, but something more like sketches of the thinking process itself; that is, sometimes brief remarks about a particular notion or concept, and sometimes a fairly lengthy paper on a given topic–this, always dependent upon the intensity of my feelings at the moment as well as the manner in which my thoughts played themselves out.

I read somewhere where Bertrand Russell is supposed to have said that “To utter a single word is already to start down the road to confusion.” I understand his meaning and am somewhat proud of the fact that I was able to work up (or down) to this conclusion on my own. I, of course, had lots of help along the way; a highly challenging (though incomplete) formal education in philosophy whose major stimulus came more from the play of personalities and the differing points of views of faculty members, than it did from my readings, although a great number of these were of great interest to me. If I had to choose a few names from among those philosophers who have influenced me most, I would have to choose Plato, John Locke, William James, John Dewey, and Ludwig Wittgenstein. Wittgenstein’s “Philosophical Investigations” has been of particular importance to me over the past fifteen years even though I have been unable to get past the first third of his book. This is not because I am a slow reader but because Wittgenstein’s so called “remarks” represent what appears to be rudimentary elements of a long journey in thought which he had taken prior to assembling his book. But, even though he offers his thoughts in an apparently spontaneous fashion (as though he were thinking out loud), it soon becomes obvious to the reader that such remarks represent the end of a long journey rather than its beginnings. Wittgenstein claimed that this assemblage of thought was the best he could do toward writing a coherent work but, oh, what power residing in those elements!

When one discusses a given topic and applies various notions and concepts in the treatment of it, the forms of `application’ are readily apparent and understood by all. But when one’s subject matter becomes the forms or applications themselves the so called cart gets put before the horse and one immediately senses the difficulty in trying to apply a thing to itself! Here, there doesn’t seem to be a real application (or human activity) that could be construed as reflexive in this sense–like using a given tool upon itself.

Nevertheless, poets and philosophers do continue to express and think about thought itself. Such endeavors have been considered by many as futile attempts whose impetus derives from a confusion regarding language or the employment (that is, misuse) of concepts in wrongful contexts. This seeming capability for doing the impossible, some might say, derives from a mistaken sense of our dualistic natures or our perceived ability to choose or not choose, focus or not focus, upon things in the world.

And it is true that all sorts of common everyday notions run into all sorts of contradictions and general confusion when subjected to further analysis. There appears to be ends to thought, terminal points that defy further advancement. Understanding the reasons for this is to understand thought itself, to my way of thinking, while understanding the crucial differences between sensation (or perception) and description (or classification), is to get to the very bottom of the matter. Our dualistic natures, while having a sound basis in fact, resembles little of what we have made of it–said of it–posited from it–or described.

Thus, what follows in my own writings, unlike Wittgenstein’s remarks, are thoughts as they occurred (for better or worse) in oftentimes very rough form. Sometimes my thoughts concern myself, family members, or business and vocational goals as I attempt to balance my own interests and drives with those of my immediate family and the need for an adequate income. I have left this sometimes sensitive personal writing for the sake of honesty, maybe, or, perhaps, as a disguised plea for assistance. At any rate, if anyone does find this material of interest, perhaps through a shared conceptual familiarity or identification with the same, I believe that he or she will receive at least some stimulation and, perhaps, will find a point of departure for some conclusion or far reaching conception of their own. My sincere hope is that it will have some application to an issue of importance to us all. This would be in keeping with the impetus driving me, for it has always been difficult to think about anything at all without also thinking about its potential application or benefit to myself, family, society, and, of course, the world at large.

And ours surely is a world of confusion and turmoil deserving such thought. My own experience has led me to the belief that to a very large degree, many, if not most, of the major problems currently confronting us, are conceptual in nature, and derive from, and continue to feed off of, our own ignorance regarding this very fact and their own underlying natures. The hierarchy of concepts which we have built up and have learned to live with over these many years–disguises and makes superficial many of our current day notions regarding a great number of things. Thus, to a very large degree, many of the answers to these same problems are presently within reach–within the current body of knowledge–but for one reason or another, have not been brought out into the open. It is this failure, more than anything else, that irks me to no end; that makes me impatient and sometimes cruel toward others, but always caring and driven still more to think upon such matters. It is this “conceptual” challenge, more than anything else, that affords us (our species) its greatest chance of survival; for while prevalent confusion continues to further bog us down, our technology continues in its rapid and uncertain advancement, thus, out pacing our maturity for being able to handle it. I believe that the next major revolution will be a world wide “conceptual’ one and will present us with the greatest door opener ever. I, for one, would like to be a contributor. #

#

@SECOND PREFACE
March 28, 1990

I spent a good deal of time engaged in personal thinking and writing between 1985 and 1997. My thoughts were loosely compiled into a manuscript of sorts and I had hoped that I would one day use them as a basis for writing a series of essays or an integral work. For whatever reason, that day has eluded me to date.

I must warn you beforehand that most of what I’ve written is not for everyone, to say the least. There’s a lot of boring, highly repetitive thinking (musing, striving, moaning, longing, crying), repeating the same themes over and over again “ad nauseum,” as the expression goes. The point is, this writing represents a process of thinking (out loud, if you will) and not simply making attempts at writing completed articles or essays. For me, every day was a new day and I always felt that something new would arise from these same, repetitive starting points. I’d like to think I was right and that some good might yet come of it.

Be that as it may, I’m in the process of putting most all of this writing on my website as is, for better or for worse, and in sequence by date written. Whatever editing I’ve done, was really done as I wrote, briefly rereading the material making minor changes here and there. You will find very little finality (and a great deal of confusion) within these pages which is pretty much keeping with my own state of mind. Much of this material is highly personal even to the point of being somewhat embarrassing in many respects. I have chose, however, to overlook such negative associations in keeping with my belief that all of us need to be more forthcoming about who and what we are; that is, more forthcoming regarding feelings, emotions and true belief. For it is my opinion that once uncloaked, our species may not present such a pretty sight, nor should we despair over this fact. On the contrary, we should welcome, rather than shield ourselves from the shadow or hidden sides of our personalities. For today, more than ever before, we are finding that much of what we have thought to be perverted or abnormal is far too prevalent to continue to maintain such views. And because we have chosen to shield ourselves (rather than face) the true facts of our natures, we have made it increasingly inevitable that a large number of personal and societal problems will continue to go unanswered.

But don’t think that what I have to admit to is all that juicy–it isn’t. On the other hand, my rather mundane life makes it fairly easy to reveal personal feelings and (oftentimes embarrassing) emotions without having to suffer adverse consequences. Think of it this way. It has been said and I believe that most, if not all, Jungian psychologists would claim that neurotic (and even, psychotic) behavior begins with normal behavior gone awry; that we are all subject to exhibiting rudimentary forms of such behavior under certain circumstances. Well, I can’t personally say that this thinking would be true of all behavior (especially those behaviors thought to be innate or instinctual), but I can say with relative certainty that, unless these–let’s call them “border line” behaviors–are brought into the light of day, nothing good will come of them. So it’s all a matter of degree in the final analysis. For how can I ask others to reveal feelings, emotions and behaviors which society might consider immoral or perverted, if I can’t even reveal a few embarrassments of my own? To stress my point even further, let’s examine a couple of highly charged behaviors that are considered to be abnormal by a large segment of the world’s populations.

Two cases come immediately to mind: pedophilia and homosexuality. My God, how many examples do we need to remind us that such tendencies are part and parcel of the human fabric no matter how abhorrent some of us might regard either. How many of us can relate some incident (from our childhood) involving a parent, uncle or family friend that would be considered abusive today? If we were open about it, how many of us (males for example) would be forced to admit that, at one time or another,we have experienced arousal at the sight of some pretty teen? How many teachers would it take to draw our attention to this fact? It may be safe to say that these are only minority tendencies, but we are currently finding that these “minorities” are much larger than we care to admit. If nothing else, the current crises in the Roman Catholic Church should alert us to this fact. Which point of view do we wish to hold: that such men are “immoral perverts” who simply seek conducive environments in which to exercise such tendencies? Or that they are truly moral and dedicated to serving others, but simply cannot control such tendencies? Then too, who in their right mind would ever choose to be homosexual given the general attitude of society?

Now it could be said that what I am here advocating (that we try to be more open to admitting our true emotions and feelings) is tantamount to opening up a “Pandora’s box.” And surely there are good reasons for thinking as much. For isn’t it the case that religions have sought to shield us from many such “instinctual” tendencies, while our legal systems have sought to do their part by enforcing the same through laws and punishments. Only none of these measures have lessened or eradicated these tendencies. So blatant have they become of late that we must now ask ourselves whether or not we are presently prepared to confront these issues head on. Not confrontation in the sense of continuing our denial, or wishing more than ever to punish and bury such tendencies or to educate them out of existence. No, I mean confronting the challenge that their admission into the human fabric will undoubtedly cause. Are we willing to risk challenging our religious, moral and legal systems in this regard? If so, what are we going to do about strongly abhorrent behaviors (like pedophilia) which may not be predominate in nature, but seemingly have “natural origins” all the same? Do we dare travel this path of openness? I certainly hope so.#

#

@THOUGHTS

1985-1986

I have all but given up on ever being able to write something in coherent form; you know, with a definite format, content and purpose in mind. Not that I believe that this is the way most writing takes place–I don’t. But when it does take place in this way, I am convinced that it is either leaving too much out, or simply isn’t about very much. For thoughts have a way of escaping the shackles we try to impose upon them. They have a way of slipping out to join their counterparts and relatives which we are forced to exclude from the framework out of necessity, but whose magnetism remains ever present, drawing and tempting us beyond the boundaries we have tried to set.

I must confess at the outset that I have never been able to impose an order or provide a structure or framework in which to place my thoughts. I have tried numerous times. I have failed in every case. And I am certain that I will continue to fail so long as l cannot bring myself to sever or ignore the numerous relationships forcing me beyond the point I wish to go. You know the all too familiar saying of our teachers when helping us to decide on a topic for study: “Limit yourself!”, which is to say, focus on a much smaller, more manageable topic. But what they really mean by “manageable” is a topic small enough to limit (or disguise) the necessary “hacking off” of related ideas which must surely take place. Limitation serves to disguise the behind the scenes blood letting, making it, at least, more tolerable for those who understand such realities.

Surely you haven’t forgotten that barnyard cows and chickens look a good deal different from what we are accustomed to seeing in our supermarkets; no bloody carcasses–only pleasingly presented made to order packaging. In a similar way, knowledge has come to be packaged to suit our own individual palettes and consumption habits. While wholesale intellectual butchery remains a blatant obscenity and embarrassment to those who recognize it as such, small scale “paring” does not. And, it seems to be the job of academicians to decide the “limits of rationality” for all of us. On the other hand, we might question how this could be otherwise, for, in the final analysis, to escape the need for severing related knowledge, one would need to be omniscient! An honorable quest the skeptic might assert (knowing full well that this is his ultimate criterion for certainty), but hardly a solution to progression. Nonetheless, it does seem that “certain” or “definitive” knowledge, if ever this is possible to achieve, must rest upon definition. And this is not intended as a play on words. While definition has in fact provided us with our strongest claims to knowledge, it is nonetheless an arbitrarily chosen, closed system. The fact that 2+2=4 is certain does not derive from some fact in the world, but rather because we defined it as such. The skeptic would remind us that such definitions are always arbitrary in the sense that they can be altered.

But even without comprehensiveness or certainty regarding the roads we travel, we do in fact progress, or, at least, continue to witness, if not create, change. If we chose, instead, to await the coming of the ideal, we would stand as idle as a stone. No knowledge. No belief. #

#

@WHAT AM I?

An extremely selfish, defiant and frustrated individual who cannot bring himself to accept, or find peace and relative contentment in this world…

A person who is confused, frustrated and overwhelmed by his own ignorance or lack of knowledge regarding himself, the world, and his place within it…

A person who carries a love/hate relationship with the world, and who has continually, throughout his lifetime, felt himself entangled and trapped trying to reconcile the competing drives of self gratification and social justice…

A person who is driven by an overriding desire (or obstinacy) for wanting to understand the rules of life prior to agreeing to play by them; a person who cannot succumb to having to live a life limited to relative, piece meal understanding, only to be followed by the uncertain outcome of death…

A person with unlimited (though stagnant) interests, which, driven by an apparent desire for certainty, forfeits in depth explorations of specific topics for forced glances into relationships abounding within the total body of knowledge…

A person who has not been able to successfully cope with the world in terms of securing relative satisfaction, peace, comfort, personal and material success.#

#

@SEARCHING

How sad it is flitting from one hope to the next; from one ideal, one salvation to another. How sad it is not being certain of anything except that, if this current journey winds up like all the others– I’ll fall ever deeper into my own confusion. How pathetic I must appear to those who know me, to family members who are continual reminders of my forever shifting situation.

Why me? Why must the world be so out of reach for me? Others seem to be content within their surroundings; seem able to accept and work within their given spheres of reality–why can’t I? Why have I never been able to effect at least this much? All that I ask, dear God, is for a modicum of peace, solace if not truth. Define my world if you must; confine me within limiting parameters if you wish; but please, please allow me something to know. Give me at least this much!

“Oh, what’s the use,” I muttered, as I raised myself from the large rock I was sitting on and began to walk toward the water. It was time to walk the shoreline anyway, I thought, knowing instinctively which act of the drama was coming next. I had been doing this now, or something very close to it, for nearly as long as I could remember. It was the time for it. Spring always brought a new sense of hope, a hope that would initiate my annual pilgrimage’s to the sea. I should say “lake”, really, because this is what it usually was. There were a couple of occasions I can remember when I did have the pleasure of a real ocean, but for the most part, I generally had to exercise my imagination.

Such pilgrimage’s provided me with a lonely peace and uncertain serenity, however, though not altogether unpleasant. It’s strange, but I sometimes dare to imagine that this was its ultimate purpose, forbid the thought. How morbid! Could I really be this desperate! Could my pilgrimage’s be funeral processions mourning a failure to find true love or God, perhaps. Could these be “wakes” designed to soothe and renew, rather than a longing for truth as I had always imagined. How many kinds of loneliness are there?

I stopped now to look out across the lake. Lake Ontario is a very large lake and I truly enjoyed not being able to see the opposite shore. If I could, it would have spoiled everything. My setting would be finite in that case, something that would leave me with a feeling of incompleteness. (How ironic that a sense of the `infinite’ could satisfy my need for `completeness’.) As it was, there was no evidence that could lead me to believe that this water did not stretch on forever. Indeed, my sensations proved me right.

I continued my walk, heading now toward the long break wall that jutted out into the lake. I was enjoying the fact that the only sounds I could hear were of the water and gulls. This made it my personal serenity, I thought; a private chapel worthy of an audience with my creator. It wouldn’t be right if others were to share in this setting; after all, this was to be a private affair–an affair between one who knows and one who does not. Oh, how I relished the thought of whatever revelation might come. A sign, a thought, a completed feeling–anything to lighten my burden. Only I knew in advance that I would not be satisfied. As always, I remained waiting naked in the sun,–vulnerable, receptive, and appropriately humbled,–but no one ever came.

I began now to move into my next act with a degree of force. The philosophical side of me now taking hold, I began to prepare myself for penetration. If revelation was not forthcoming, then I would disentangle the matter for myself. I would make order of my own chaos! With frustrated humility now turned to anger, my mind began to flood with emotion. “I didn’t ask for this game. I don’t like the rules. And I certainly don’t appreciate being forced to play! Whatever happened to choice?” No, choice never enters the picture unless one chooses to exit it; rather, we are faced with having to come into the world without understanding and leaving it in the same way. How queer and totally unfair it all seemed, that our nature’s should require something finite to be grasped, but which cannot be grasped so long as it remains finite. How dirty!

“There you go again”, I suddenly snapped to myself. “You’re dreaming! Why don’t you get on with it for crying out loud; quit feeling so damn sorry for yourself and try tasting life rather than always trying to contemplate it. Experience!”

It’s true. this drama was by now getting as sickening as it was old. Frustration, futility, tightened stomach muscles, all down to the last detail–fully expected. That’s what sickens me most–knowing all my lines by heart, all my feelings from memory. At most, I could only claim rekindled hope as new, and this, of course, had crashed like so many times before,–so many other places. I knew that I would soon be walking away from this place; body aching; mind in tormented confusion–nothing different–nothing ever was.

“How pathetic…pathetic”, I kept muttering to myself as I began walking up the steep bank toward my car. “You’re a sorry sight!–a real loser if I ever saw one.” Oh well, perhaps things will be better on my drive home… or should I even go home? I thought to myself feigning real consideration. “Maybe I’ll just drive around and not go anywhere in particular–just go.” This too I knew to be a pretense, simply another attempt at driving to nowhere in particular in order to try to duplicate the very thing I had just left.

I simply couldn’t let it go. I knew full well that being “nowhere in particular” would provide a new setting for the same kind of thought–an appropriate chapel for a renewed sense of hope. I also knew that, in the end, such expectations would fail; that I would need to construct still another waiting room, and another… All the same, I couldn’t let it go.

Heading south, and knowing full well where I was going, I simply chose to accept my illogical response to a prompting I couldn’t grasp. I only knew that my newest chapel would require beauty, unbounded beauty if possible, and so I entered the beautiful Bristol Hills. Here, I could lose myself in the imagined immensity of an infinite waiting room; all old stuff by now, to be sure. Confusion followed by frustration, followed by mourning, followed by renewal of hope, followed by crushed expectations–over and over the cycle ensues. No, there would be no new surprises within this forty four year old drama.

My thoughts now flashed to some of the earlier settings of my youth. There were so many chapels to remember; so many episodes of loneliness to rekindle. One of my favorite chapels was the creek bank of my home town, Le Roy. It was a beautiful setting; two white bridges at either end, complete with gently curving arches and old fashioned lamp posts atop their respective railings. The creek at the point I was imagining (at the bend) was about fifty or seventy-five yards across and maybe two hundred yards from bridge to bridge. Its banks curved away from me like a nearly opened horseshoe, too perfect not to have been planned that way. The opposite bank was covered with trees, blocking all of the houses on the street above. I remembered that only a portion of the jailhouse was visible from this view, and below that, and to the right on the waters edge, was a small stone building which held the mechanism for opening and shutting the dam. The building rested at the farthest end of a ten foot high waterfall which curved for forty or fifty feet until it connected to the main street bridge on the right. And, as if this setting weren’t beautiful enough, there were swans to further grace this setting.

As I continued my drive, I considered it somewhat amazing that I could remember so many of these details. But, then, during the course of my life, I spent numerous occasions reveling in such fond remembrances. Sometimes I even paid a visit to the old hometown to sort of reestablish my feelings or, perhaps, to ensure that they would never be forgotten. I was always somewhat uncomfortable sitting on the creek bank during one of these visits. What if someone were to recognize me? What reason could I give for being there? What might they understand by this scene? Well, regardless, and ever so appropriate, no one ever came.

I was well into the Bristol Hills by now heading south toward the town of Naples. I knew that I would have to get off the main highway for everything to work. “It’s all so crazy”, I considered, but I knew that my knowing where I was would spoil things. It would have the same effect as my being able to see the opposite shore of the lake I had left earlier. It simply wouldn’t do. So I made a right turn at the very next opportunity and headed west down a road that was unfamiliar to me. Although I still understood my approximate location, this would have to do. Perhaps, after a few more turns, I would succeed in losing myself. But for now, my thoughts drifted back to the creek bank of my home town.#

#

@PERSONAL BELIEFS

CHARACTERISTICS

I love beauty. I seem to have a deep appreciation for art, music, crafts, design (interior, architectural, & landscaping), and nature. I enjoy creation and creating.

I love order and organization. I am compelled toward analysis and abstraction, consolidation and synthesis. I enjoy philosophy, literature, and writing (and find all three extremely frustrating). I enjoy the intrigue of the unknown or of novel conceptions, and the challenge of understanding them.

I am both fascinated and disappointed by human behavior. I have been an acute observer of the same throughout my life. I empathize with those who are struggling and cannot see their way clearly. I derive a great deal of pleasure in `showing the way’. I have a definite affinity for the subjects of education, psychology, and sociology.

VALUES

I believe in protecting the uniqueness of individuals, even if, our `uniqueness’ remains more an abstraction than a matter of fact. We are all integrally bound up with everything surrounding ourselves. As such, we must regard genetic endowments, personal characteristics, as well as knowledge, as initially coming from without. The only real case that can be made for individuality, in my opinion, is that we can point to our bodies and claim that all such characteristics `reside’ here. That we are an interactive repository. It is not the conception of `uniqueness’ I take issue with–only its various applications.

I believe that as we progressively become more and more integrated with our fellow beings, we are at the same time becoming more and more `social entities’ leaving our individuality a little further behind. Since all of our characteristics were inherited through birth and culture initially, (that is, became or came to us), we must necessarily be consistent with the world at large. This ought to provide us (as a society) the impetus for taking the `good’ with the `bad’, while utilizing a single standard for dealing with either. We ought, in other words, to be consistent with those beliefs and values we claim to hold.

I believe in the universal notion of the `family of man’. That is, that we must continue to strive toward building a consensus of belief, first about ourselves, and then about our group, community, nation, and world at large. While working within such beliefs, we must always consider the possible consequences of our actions upon others who remain outside our respective groups or immediate interests. Since all peoples inhabiting the earth presently are, in fact, already affected by one another, we must continually strive to locate common denominators enabling each one of us to remain consistent with our own beliefs. And we must not apply a double standard in such interactions–one for our own welfare, and one for theirs!

I, therefore, believe in the sanctity of an individual’s right to self preservation. That is, the right to voice his or her opinions and have an equal opportunity toward ensuring that individual differences will be given equal consideration. Upon this base rests the rights of groups and societies to warrant the same for themselves. Since all values, beliefs, cultural norms, etc. are derived from shared interests; and since there will always be individuals who will not share such interests (even if willing to abide by the same), there is a continual need for flexibility within, and re examination of, the status-quo. The degree of rigidity or inflexibility fostered upon such beliefs is what distinguishes a democratic society from an authoritarian society. The more democratic a society is, the more flexibility it will demonstrate in changing (or redefining) the rules to fit a larger segment of the population. Since all persons were not created the same nor given equal opportunities, for that matter, then we must impose an all encompassing general principal allowing them, at least, the freedom to foster their own aims. And so, while leadership remains essential to the direction society will take, it is essential that the majority sanctions the same.

I believe that nothing short of `omniscience’ would be necessary to regulate human behavior for the benefit of all. I, therefore, reject authoritarianism as the most viable means for creating order and regulating a given economy. For this reason, I accept the capitalistic process as being most consistent with personal aims and differences which I feel must always be accounted for. The primary danger of capitalism is that it may tend toward rigidity of the law, societal values and beliefs. Our greatest avenue for protection is more democracy. That is, a greater willingness to re-examine, re-define, re-implement practices and beliefs which will encompass a still greater number of persons and individual differences.

I don’t believe that any person has the right to abort another’s life. I believe that we must regard the fertilization of sperm and egg as the beginning of life and therefore subject to the right to life. I believe that preventative measures should be taken to restrict unwanted pregnancies, and that options should be promoted and encouraged for those mothers saddled with unwanted pregnancies as well as children in general. The difficulties encountered in bearing children as a result of rape, incest, etc. must be withstood by the mother, family, or general society at large which must bear the final burden of support.

From the above considerations, I conclude that: abortion is not an individual’s right as capital punishment is not. They may, however, be societal rights if a society believes it beneficial overall to allow individuals such rights. What needs to be safeguarded is the right to refuse to commit such acts against one’s will. Nevertheless, the imposition of `force’ is within the rights of the majority ultimately. On the other hand, potential opportunities for making individual exceptions must always be explored, outlined, and acted upon.

Prisons are, for the most part, a waste of taxpayer money. Crimes committed in a given community need to be paid for within that same community. Only when a prisoner is dangerous or unwilling to comply with his punishment (as prescribed by law within that community), should he or she be confined to an institution. Society is ultimately responsible for individual wrong doings, but it should not have to make a negative restitution for it unless it has to. Whenever possible, social restitution for individual wrong doings must be constructive, rehabilitative, etc. attempting to ameliorate those circumstances which may be judged as having fostered the initial crime.

Responsibility for unemployment insurance and various welfare programs needs to rest with society per usual. But this does not mean that individuals cannot be held responsible for their own actions. Society must provide the options, means, and rules from which individuals must choose. Opportunities for `free rides’ can, and should, be made almost nonexistent. Creative options of all sorts must be planned to minimize costs and maximize benefits.

I am against capital punishment in keeping with my belief regarding the sanctity of life. The death of any human being must be treated in a class by itself because it is in a class by itself! It, therefore requires the most judicial approach possible. Was the murder premeditated? Could the murderer be rehabilitated? Could the murderer serve society during confinement? Can the murderer be forgiven? That is, could the murder be understood in terms of a `normal’ understanding of human behavior.

I believe that all crimes against persons, corporations, institutions, or society at large, ought to be paid for through monitored restitution by the person committing the crime to the party suffering it. Such restitution may or may not include a loss of freedom (restriction, imprisonment, etc.) while the restitution is being made, but in any case, must never be restricted to confinement solely.

I believe that a society has the obligation to look after its own just as it has the obligation to punish behavior that, restricts, hinders or abrogates human rights and freedom. In the same way that individuals must be held accountable for making restitution to crimes committed, so too must individuals be held accountable for paying back what they receive from the society at large. I recognize the danger here of fostering a permanent `slave class’ similar to the workings of some `tenant farmer’ and `migrant worker’ relationships with land owners employing them. We must find a way of guarding against permanent indebtedness that restrict individuals from ever advancing from the welfare/payback situation they find themselves to be in. I believe that all such individuals can and should be made to contribute something for the general welfare or for themselves. Again, the results must be verifiable, and whether the payback is to be made in ones own behalf or to the society, is a question to be determined by individual circumstances.

U.S.-SOVIET RELATIONS

I believe that the Soviet system suffers an inherent weakness from its basic tenant or assumption that a multi-faceted world can both be understood and directed for the benefit of the society at large. Such omniscience will never be had by any individual or group, and it is this very fact that underlies our need for greater, not less, democracy.

I believe that the Soviet people and its leadership (in the final analysis, and in consideration of special difficulties suffered by and through its present circumstances) is at bottom just as dedicated and hopeful of a better and safer world as any of the other peoples inhabiting our planet. I am mindful of the possibility that such a system may at present be steeped in corruption. My contention is only that it is the system and not the makeup of the individuals comprising it that makes it more corrupt than some other.

I believe that the Soviet Union should not have the right to force upon its citizenry a system of government that is not held accountable to this same citizenry. Individuals should have the right to voice disagreements without fear of reprisal as well as freedom to move to any location of their choosing. Thus, I believe that we should work against such a system out of our respect for, and belief in freedom for individuals.

On the other hand, I understand that `freedom’ is a concept and, as such, is relative at best. Our citizenry is freer relative to the Soviet citizenry, but a case can still be made for the Soviet citizenry being `free’. If some of their `freedoms’ look like `restrictions’ to ourselves, that is only because we have defined our concepts differently. Our conception of freedom cannot be used as a measuring stick for their practices. Our fundamental principal for action should involve the idea of `basic human rights’ that we have tried to foster over the past years. This is the wedge that can serve to undermine those practices which we consider to be repressive.

I believe that we should make every effort toward undermining a buildup of arms throughout the world at large. Every effort should be made short of endangering ourselves. This means that we should be prepared to take the first initiative toward disarmament even at the risk of slight vulnerability. Such vulnerability may be what it takes to gain the confidence of our adversaries or competitors. We should find a way to demonstrate “good faith”.

If the Soviet Union ignores our efforts and demonstrates an obvious reluctance to seek disarmament, we must remain at least as strong as they while making the strongest effort possible toward fostering communications and interaction with them on every conceivable plane!

I believe that time is on our side and not theirs. In a short time, our respective economies will begin to interact in various ways, both in the economic and communications spheres. Increasing diversity and ever easier communications among the peoples of the world will unite us in ever new ways. Such diversity will be increasingly difficult to understand and control thereby forcing the Soviet leadership to throw up their hands in the face of it all. In the meantime, transnational corporations and interests will do the rest. The more complex the world becomes, the further removed the Soviet system will become. It will grow more ineffectual as it becomes increasingly dependent upon other nations in the world.

RELIGION/GOVERNMENT

I believe that religion, and in particular, evangelism, has served as a guise for powerful psychological endeavors by persons seeking control over other human beings for their own gain. Such tactics of indoctrination demonstrate the extreme power that individuals may exercise along with governments and institutions at the expense of human freedom and dignity.

Again, the concepts of “freedom” and “dignity” are just that–concepts! Can’t individuals have the right to indoctrinate (and perhaps exploit in so doing) other individuals in the same manner that countries foster patriotism, or religious institutions foster certain beliefs held to being beneficial to those they are indoctrinating? Who will judge whether or not a particular indoctrination is for the benefit of those individuals or not? Or will we simply take a hands off approach, not wanting to abrogate an individual’s freedom to participate in whatever he or she wants? In that case, shall we allow the sale of illegal drugs? Or shall we make certain types of information or indoctrination illegal, and then restrict them? Do we stand by while less educated people (or vulnerable from any other standpoint) are taken advantaged of through manipulation? How about where children are concerned?

It is all a question of control at bottom. When does an individual, group, institution, or government have a right to initiate and exercise control over other individuals or groups? And when do they not have that right?

We don’t question a parent’s right to influence, guide, or control his child, even if some level of deceit or coercive action is used! We don’t question a religious faith’s promulgating its beliefs and tenets through indoctrination. Nor do we question our educational institution’s (local or state boards) deciding what courses of study will be made available to our children, how they will be treated, the rules they must follow, the practices they must engage in, etc.! Nor do we question the right of a nation to promulgate certain beliefs and attitudes among the populace, i.e., belief in free enterprise, God, allegiance to one’s nation, the work ethic, abeyance of the law, paying taxes, choosing a representative government, or maintaining the status-quo!

Questions regarding the right to institute prayer in school, whether to pass or enforce a law, or restrict a practice in general, are all matters of control. While we allow the right of an individual to believe anything of his or her choosing, we do not allow anyone the right to practice the same! On the one hand, we allow the right of any individual to express himself, move within or without the society at will, alter his circumstances, etc. while we at the same time allow others the right to control such events! Thus, government has the right to impose laws and the individual has the `freedom’ to try to change them, or if all fails, to leave the society. Schools have the right to determine what your children will be taught. The individual has the `freedom’ to try and change this, or if all fails, to leave the country. Schools are all pretty much the same. Government controls seem to be immune from individual preference, and are the most difficult to avoid. A person simply cannot change governments like he can change employers.

I believe that there is an inherent danger in any government increasing its control over its populace. Since other controls promulgated by individuals, corporations, societies, etc. can be equally as dangerous, government must become further involved in order to protect us from the others. The problem is, how do we prevent government from exerting its influence, power, and controls in their stead? #

#

@CONCEPT OF NUMBER

When we think of numerals we think of counting. The practice of counting objects gives us a sense or conception of number. Without an idea of sequence, we could not work with numerals. There needn’t be anything mystical about how we come to such conceptions. On the other hand, we must not suppose that we simply leaped to them.

The formulation of the concept of consecutive most probably had its roots in imitation; that is, something `standing in for’ some object or another. There first had to be some recognition of a one to one correspondence between the symbol (drawing, finger, etc.) and the objects “named”; that is, a notion of what it means to have something “stand in” or represent something else.

The next step would be to allow just anything to stand in. The variable `a’ is set to = 2. In like manner, a single finger could stand for one goat, a second for another, and so on. The realization of quantity is not immediate. For example, one can learn rather quickly that two geese are more than one, or that one given piece is larger than another–once one has experienced something corresponding to the objects. Such would be our perceptions when the correspondence is with hunger or eating generally. Once we have experienced eating at first something small, and then something larger (more filling), we begin to formulate some notion of quantity or size. Without this correspondence, such notions could not have been formulated at all.

We cannot ask: “What is the meaning of the numeral 5?” and expect an intelligent answer. Nor can we ask what the numeral 5 “stands for”. We might attempt to answer the former question by explaining the use of the numeral 5, or the latter by explaining the concept of number, which amounts to the same thing as explaining the use of the numeral `5′. Screwdriver is to tool what numeral is to number. We have as much right to speak of the “concept of tool” as we have the “concept of number”. In either case, we are both talking about the concept of words–not words in general–but these specific words. It seems likely that the use of particular tools had to have preceded a concept of tool. An understanding of what it is to be a tool implies a shared commonality; imitation, standing in for a particular object with a form of the particular object, a one to one correspondence; a non look a like form which could be applied to any object.

Mathematics is everywhere. One divides the sky when noticing that the day is half over. Further like divisions constitute a formulation of the development of the concept of time. A conception of time requires repetition. No notion of time without recurrence of divisible parameters. Time is division. It is immediately perceivable or conceivable. Thus time is relative to motion. Not just any motion, but recurring motion. Recurrence makes division possible and division makes up our notion of time. We can move in relation to other objects or objects can move in relation to ourselves. Life and death furthers our notion of time because it allows us to witness changing occurrences which become terminal. In order to cover a distance, there must be a space in which to do so. In order to change, undergo change, there must be “time” in which to do so. Or is this so? How are time and space really different? Our conceptions of them I mean. Even though our concept of time could not have been derived without repetition or recurrence, its advanced meaning was made possible through our perception of changing recurrence. Thus, we move from one realm to another measuring our distances by lifetimes, alteration and final destruction of objects, and other definable things. My grandfather lived and died, begot my mother who lived and died, and both without recurrence. Movement within space–change within time. Only such change needs to be terminable or non recurring. Time marches on–we don’t. We terminate “within” time. Such expressions give us our basic conception of time. We are in awe of what it is we are actually glimpsing. We ask: “Are time and space one and the same?” How are they related to one another? Why can’t we get a clear notion of what they really constitute? Why do we say that they are conceivable when we cannot conceive of their parameters? How far does space extend, anyway? How long will time go on? How long has existence gone on? How long has non existence gone on? That apart from material things I mean. #

#

@EPISTEMOLOGICAL BELIEFS

I believe that we are all borne into a universe which is unfathomable; that is, a universe which, for all practical purposes, may be considered infinite or as comprising infinite possibilities for our own successive understandings of it. As such, we can never hope to know all of it, but, instead, must content ourselves with learning more about it.

I believe that our powers must be limited to exist at all. That is, that our limitations are what makes our concepts intelligible; that without the same, there could be no perception, no sensations whatever. Thus, no knowledge. Without limits, parameters, boundaries, etc., there could be no opposites or neutral states defining our perceptions. Our ability to perceive difference is consciousness itself. Without differences, there could be no dichotomy between ourselves as observers and the observable world. Without limitation there could be no progression. Thus, omniscience itself would be stagnate; which is to say that there is something wrong with our concepts or with the way we have formulated them.

I believe that differences made possible through limitations regarding our perceptions, are what allows us to project concepts of an unlimited nature. That is, limitations make possible impossible conceptions through extension. Thus we come by our conceptions of `god’, `infinite’, `universe’, omniscience, etc. and all of the various mental constructs associated with them.

I believe that the universe is ordered inasmuch as there are recurrences of events. Without recurrences, there could be no expectations, anticipations, and thus nothing for knowledge to take root. Knowledge requires repetition. Repetition provides the foundations for knowledge.

I believe that all knowledge is classified; that is, involves descriptions and definitions of what is to be the case. In such a way, we define the world through classification and then base our knowledge upon it. Since the classifications are in some ways arbitrary and in other ways supposed to be true representations of things in the world, then the individual is always free to accept or reject the veracity of such definitions. In this manner, the individual remains the ultimate criterion for his own beliefs.

I believe that all individuals tend toward omniscience; that is, toward ordering their lives, making clear their beliefs, etc., in a holistic way. Completeness is the key to certainty as regards knowledge. We feel certain and satisfied by assertions like: “the whole is equal to the sum of its parts”, or “a whale is a mammal” and like assertions which are merely true by definition. Thus, the syllogism becomes a model of certainty, or for certainty; something we know is right because we defined it as such.#

#

@METAPHYSICAL NOTIONS

We have subjective conceptual understandings. Our personal notions of `god’, `right’, `wrong’, etc.
We have objective conceptual understandings; general notions such as `table’ and `stone’, etc.
How many levels might there be to understanding?

When we ask “What is the meaning of x?”, are we asking for a definition or for the formulation of a definition?
Sometimes our questions require `yes’ and `no’ answers. Sometimes they ask for a general discussion of pros and cons or for a formulation of appropriate responses stemming between the `yes’ and `no’ extremes, or the `do’ and `don’t’

What are our sources of confusion? Can we outline these? Ill logic, lack of information, lack of familiarity of information, personal desires in conflict with other person’s desires?

A decision maker must have the means and capability for correcting a confusing situation. Being able to order it, structure it, in order to understand it.

If one is able to offer a complete and comprehensive view of a matter, it is because one has left the world. He has bowed out of the picture in order to create his own. This is a static rather than dynamic undertaking. Expedience or actual application does not enter the picture.

If things were black and white, obvious to us, could we live with them? Things would never come into questions. We would be back where we started from; that is, without consciousness. Consciousness has to do with perception and no perception; have and have not. Consciousness is our ability to perceive the difference! A sort of “on-off” dualism.

Not all words have opposites like hot and cold. Some words have “on-off” characteristics like tickle not tickle. Opposites really have neutral states which is the “off” position. “Hot-off-cold” may be a construct from “hot-off” and “cold-off”. May not have been able to formulate “hot-cold” as opposites unless a single thing could be both;  e.g., water going from hot to cold. Such opposition would not have been formed from “hot sun” and “cold ice”. Is the same true of relational words like “over-under”, etc.?

THERE MUST BE LIMITATIONS!

From limitations we project concepts of infinitude, making possible our projections of the inconceivable. Infinity, God, etc., are inconceivable constructs which are extensions of thought.

Counting has no end. This appears conceivable as It is part of the definition, an open-ended process. We say that it is theoretically possible to count forever. We set the process in motion and let it go.

The assertion “the universe is infinite” is not conceivable.
The assertion “the universe is finite” is not conceivable.
Why can’t we conceive of either?

What we mean by universe is “all that exists.” If we now ask: Is “all that exists” finite or infinite?, we are liable to get a response of “Nonsense! All that exists is finite by definition.” It is like asking “Is all that exists all that exists?”

Its parameters, completeness, is already understood.

Could we then say that the universe is “all that exists within all that is”? Within the “void” or something to this effect? Could we limit our conception to this “inner” universe of existing things (perceptible things). Then we’re right back where we started.

Is the outer universe finite or infinite? Since outer universe means “all that exists outside of the perceivable universe”, then it must be finite too since it is all of it– ad infinitum.

Limitation make existence possible.

We cannot conceive of a creator without limitations.
We cannot conceive of a creator with limitations.
We settle for degrees of acceptance-no opinion-rejection.
Faith-agnosticism-atheism
On-neutral-off

Counting seems to be a good case for our ability to conceive of an infinite process. But it is a process! Dissection would be another case in the opposite direction.

BASIC QUESTIONS

Is it to certain people’s advantage not to want to participate in fostering the common good? Does confusion or chaos work to their advantage?

Can anything ever be mutually advantageous to all parties? What?

Can certain actions be mutually advantageous to certain groups without being detrimental to certain others? When are such actions mutually exclusive and when not?

Relative freedom in a world of controls. Can individual freedom live harmoniously with controls? Are controls necessary to harnessing or setting parameters for such freedoms? Are they inherent in nature? How much is good? How much bad? How do we tell?

What has resulted from our having a system of laws? What benefits? What detriments? Law within nature. Primitive. Among different species of animals.

What takes place when matter contacts matter? Organism contacts organism? Culture contacts culture?

How is inanimate matter affected by world of same? Organisms within organizations and cultures? How do affects and effects differ from one organizational level to another?

KNOWLEDGE & UNDERSTANDING

Classification (vagueness, refinement ambiguity), order in nature, structure in language or thought (overlapping, inconsistency, contradiction, judgment, choice), cause & effect (determinism), recurrence, sameness (laws of nature), general terms, concept formation, system formation (resolving conflict, reflexiveness, dualism, … ALL KNOWLEDGE SEEMS TO INVOLVE CLASSIFICATION!

Class, file, list, register, catalogue, alphabetize, grade, regulate, co ordinate, division, separation, preparation, part, interval, discord, bisect, apportion sub division, order, regularity, uniformity, symmetry, harmony, course, routine, arrangement, compose, consecutive, precedence, consequence, premise, antecedence, precursor, priority, preference, prelude, succession, fix, place, form, space, rank, group, parcel, allot, assign, plan, preparation, distribution, sorting, assortment, allotment, organization, grouping, analysis, systematization, standardize, time, step, method, codification, array, system, disposition, discipline, subordination, gradation, progression, series, rank, place, continuity, sequence, succession, category, head, section, department, province, domain, sphere, …

For thousands of years man has tried to structure his universe in order to attain truth and certainty. Order out of chaos [Einstein] and applying order (structure) to newer contemplation of chaos. But what we get is order against order, one person’s structure coming into conflict with another, making the need for objective knowledge necessary. Something that all parties could live with. We never do formulate our own cosmos, we barely get started at all!

Order. It seems that we have to utilize order, structure, logic, classification, whatever, to think or write about anything coherently. Why? Why can’t we just think? Language in thought seems always to be structured so as to express a thought …

Our knowledge stretches from certainty to nonsense, with varying levels of certitude along the way. Knowledge is filled with all sorts of mental imagery (mental constructs) which make it ambiguous. The more ambiguous knowledge is, the more difficult it is to assess it as being so. Therefore, we retain it, thus reinforcing the promotion of more of the same.

We have a vagueness about our employment of concepts. They flow easily from one another and seem to carry a meaning which is understood my ourselves. We can string them together into beautifully sounding utterances that call up all sorts of imagery and notions that seem in some way to fit with what is being said.

When we utter words like: concept, classification, general, method, intelligence, subject, content, analysis, certainty, etc. etc. what needs to be understood in order to judge the effectiveness of our being able to understand what it is being said?

We employ concepts in speech and sometimes systems comprising concepts! Its a classification scheme, an hierarchical structure which we built up and utilize in its most recent developmental stage.

Could it be that as we move from one level to another that our concepts of necessity grow ever more vague? If so, how do we explain our ability to utilize such constructs in gaining ever more knowledge? Is this a bogus picture of the way things actually work?

If we look at advances in knowledge (What constitutes knowledge? What knowledge has advanced?) will we find more certain explanations of phenomena or simply broader pictures and descriptions? Is there refinement of previous knowledge going on or the superseding of previous knowledge by new knowledge?

Values/belief clarification: possible to do by going backwards to more fundamental premises upon which beliefs rests. Decide if still believe such premises or whether need to change mind. Is this possible; that we may get to ultimate foundations by some process? Can we do the same with uncertain or tentative beliefs in order to establish a firm foundation for asserting certitude regarding them? Is there a need to clean out the attic? Can we evaluate our knowledge so as to be able to do this? What types of knowledge never get thrown out? Nebulous? The vaguer knowledge is the more change

There may not be a rational means for arguing against `ought’ statements. Can’t be made to fit models of logic. Can always disagree with the premises. A democracy must always force the decision through voting, judicial decision, etc.

Does ordinary thinking parallel logical models of deductive and inductive reasoning?

Explorations and research gotten ahead of evaluation and synthesis of same? Most research endeavors deal with peripherals whose separations from their knowledge counterparts are rarely bridged.

Precision and truth. Can it ever work? Wouldn’t everyone buy a single product if its superiority were made obvious? Isn’t this the effect of a consumer report? Or do individual differences and interests and preferences save the day?

Plenty of knowledge and research. Do not know how to evaluate it, make use of it.

Those who do understand the workings of the machine explain their uses and give reason, knowledge, certainty, substratum’s, immutable’s, incorrigible’s

Knowledge process is itself ambiguous. Carries all sorts of notions that are not true in fact. A lot of mental imagery and its mental constructs get in the way of our thinking. We are duped into believing that our knowledge affects change when it is other factors (power, influence, special interests, sanctioned institutions, etc. ) that get the job done. Since knowledge facts are thrown around in the process, we falsely assume that they initiate the actions. It is the failure of knowledge to affect change that leads us to taking arbitrary measures to get the job done.

Branching out of knowledge without synthesis has led to ignorance of the whole. In similar ways, educational practices have taken so many routes that it is difficult …

Myopia. Need to know relative position in realm of knowledge as we do our physical location in the world. We must order our surroundings to act. Must we also order our knowledge? No such thing as `knowledge’? Nebulous concepts not needed in world? Thought is chaotic. Is this because of misunderstandings regarding it? Could it be simplified for us? Revealed in its proper sense? Can we thereby eliminate the frustration emanating from our confusion?

Knowledge gets vague and more vague as it grows, goes up the ladder to concepts and more general terms. What is the nature of this climb? Is there increasing ambiguity or less? Does it parallel classification? How do these compare?

Integration, interpretation, definition, classification, analysis, logic, deduction, induction, language.

Understanding. Nebulous, mechanical. Utilizing tools without understanding them. Is this alright? Can it really be any different? Can we teach basic principles alone and allow these to serve in the acquisition of needed contents? Can such principles be laid out in fact? Are these scientific constructs or various concepts employed in the acquisition of knowledge generally? #

#

@RECAP

Certitude has its foundation in individuals. Doesn’t seem to be an outside `objective’ certainty at all. When we act, decide, explain, know, we usually do so without having anything remotely resembling certainty; our philosophical definition, that is.

Ordered & disordered personalities. Some live orderly and certain lives. Others do not. What are the differences? What are the reasons? Could it be that the former has accepted arbitrary knowledge; has accepted on faith or utility, perhaps, an ordered view of reality? Refuses to look at disorder, or anything out of place? Does such a view represent some sort of `world view’ which serves such individuals in meeting and putting into this order, new facts as they present themselves? Or is it more arbitrary still; no world view but a steadfast attitude? Could such individuals reject out of hand (without providing reason) anything which is questionable that would require decision, analysis, thought, etc.? Is there this dogmatic sense which they might operate on? Arbitrary `orders’ of different kinds? Why don’t all individuals behave in this way? Why do some take the opposite track? And between these two extremes, how does it work? Some order, some confusion, mixtures of the two. Is any of it even important to living our lives? Is such thought or confusion really besides the point? One could be plagued by it or choose not to be. It really doesn’t matter to living unless one allows it to matter? Is there something to this? Extra baggage that we don’t need? A sideline for the scholar or anyone who wants to explore such matters as a hobby? Some order, some confusion, mixtures of the two. This is where most of us are. Why the dichotomy? Why the dichotomy? Why all such dichotomy’s? Figure it out! It’s got to be elementary! It’s got to be so obvious, that its being so is what obscures it. Get it!

SOCIAL CHANGE
Seemingly unresolved by knowledge alone. Without an acceptable objective standard which all parties could agree to work with, no such thing is possible.

Things do not get done from certain knowledge or beliefs. They get done from partial knowledge and belief, and also from needs and interests of those powerful enough to effect the change. We are duped into thinking otherwise. This goes along with our faith that so long as we move with the herd (general society) we will find security and protection.

Present day initiatives have future consequences. Someone in future will get credit or blame for something affected in the past.

INSTITUTIONS
Can’t justify own existence at times. Can’t evaluate own success.

INDIVIDUAL & SOCIETY
President Reagan is circumventing many of the power groups in order to direct the country back to a simpler base. Wants to exchange the social impetus for individual impetus, reverse the process that has been taking place over so many years. Going back to private initiatives rather than governmental or public ones. President Reagan believes in the primacy of the individual, individual initiative, private enterprise over public.

Group given same characteristics as individuals as though there were no differences. To what extent are we social beings? Individuals?

Grouping is the same as classifying. Both treat of generalities and ignore differences. Both run into difficulties as a result of this. Does the group emulate the individual?

We pretend that the group is no more than an extended individual. We are being more and more social beings rather than individuals. We have grown increasingly dependent upon the knowledge and security that is derived from remaining with the herd. It is so much easier and less taxing to go along with the current.

Freedom vs. control opposing individual needs and beliefs cause social problems as well as prevent their resolution. Same forces at work in either case? Their resolution comes arbitrarily after such forces have been allowed to play for some time. Sometimes done as process of negotiation where each side sees some benefit to themselves, sometimes as a matter of decree. Sometimes a matter of force or consensus through voting. Would students, if given freedom to follow own inclinations, follow exactly what the society wants or needs?

Freedom leaves open access. Like channel for love leaving open vulnerability to pain. Free society leaves open access to, or participating in sex, crime, pornography, alcohol, drugs, violence, etc. free enterprise? Do such occurrences reinforce similar type behavior? Yes! What is extent of individual rights compared to extent of societal rights. Who will decide what constitutes wrong behavior? If the public, then how will those that are being duped see their way out of the clouds that are blinding them? Leadership? Force? Law? How does youth fit into this? A separate case altogether? Maturation involved?

Individual clashes with society as we are forced today to become more and more social beings. As knowledge intensifies and social …….. increases in complexity, the individual becomes more and more dependent thus losing his individuality.

CURRICULUM & LEARNING
Much of what is learned in school today is irrelevant. Content is emphasized over learning, searching for, and doing. Too much emphasis on liberal training but never effected in fact. No one gets liberal training, only a semblance of it. Thus, they get little or nothing since the other tasks are not being attempted. Need new practices. Need to `connect up’

Computer can rescue many poor practices but is so far misunderstood and little difficult to disentangle these in order to see what they constitute in fact.

Grading. Large number of possibilities or permutations. (See paper)

Learning. Quick is not better. May even be a sign of dullness.

Learning seems to involve vicarious experiences based upon the experiences of others, their descriptions and explanations. Should reflect factual and conceptual approach depending upon subject matter

Learning involves much more than education. Genetic endowments, physical characteristics, environmental characteristics and influences, personal experience,

When we can’t understand the thing itself, we look without for our answers. This is what educators are doing presently.

We have as yet to really examine the educational process in each of our schools. Generalities will not help us much here. Too many specifics

Knowledge in reverse. Comes from climbing the ladder and then trying to describe the climb from the beginning rather than from the ladder that one just got off of. Perhaps we need to bounce back and forth like a computer or brain scans. This may be true of knowledge acquisition or concept formation itself.

What kind of curriculum would satisfy today’s needs? What methodology, content, and other services need to be employed in our schools today?

Schools deal with constants, age, level, grading procedure, teaching method, teacher, time provided, subject area, subject content, etc. ignoring differing intelligence levels, individual characteristics and problems, interests, aims and goals. We are dehumanizing our youth by forcing them to fit!

What is a student, parent, community, teacher, educational institution, and what does one do, not do, (responsible for and not responsible for); know in order to perform his or its function successfully? (Knowledge to learn?) What should one or it learn? (Knowledge to grow? To work

TECHNOLOGY
Technology simplifying lives of most, even if growing more technical. Is further specialization necessary to grasp the whole of one of the parts, or can we still grasp the whole itself? Is there a sense in which we can claim that we are leaving the ladder that allowed us to climb behind us, no longer required. This would make the hopelessness of accelerating change a false assumption, as well as the loss of a democratic foundation. If false, individuals could grasp the whole of what is going on and would not risk being duped! #

#

@DECEPTION VS. VULNERABILITY

When you deceive someone, you tell a lie, misrepresent the facts of a given situation, or intentionally try to convince someone of something which you know to be otherwise. When you trust someone, you believe that person is telling the truth, or, at least, believes it to be true, and, therefore, is not knowingly trying to deceive or mislead you. When a person is vulnerable to lies, he or she is in a position to be hurt or misused. A trusting person is made vulnerable merely by trusting!

Deception is ever present in nature. In many ways our lives depend upon our ability to deceive effectively; and in these cases, deception is condoned. Deception is commonplace when we attempt to convince others that we are wealthy when we are not, in pain when we are not, at some location when we are not, or that we are a certain type individual when we are not. Deception is oftentimes subtle–but sometimes no more than blatant lying.

Pain most always results when the deceived person uncovers the deception. Why? Why can’t deception be understood and accepted through understanding? Why can’t a loving parent simply accept a child’s deceptiveness or vice-versa? Why is this more difficult than acceptance of deception, say at the office? Obviously, consequences have a part to play.

A person easily deceived is not only considered vulnerable, but may be considered a dupe, fool, sucker, or simply stupid! He trusts when he should not, and, perhaps “should know better”. Think about the mentally retarded individual who is not aware of his being duped when it is obvious to others around him. Think about how commonplace this behavior is among adults when dealing with children. Is there a difference between the two cases or is this only a matter of degree?

Less intelligent individuals are easier targets for deception than are more intelligent ones. But intelligence is not the only factor nor is it the primary one. Again, when an individual trusts that he will not be deceived, in so doing, he sets himself up for the same. Trust goes hand-in-hand with vulnerability–two sides of the same coin. When one dares to trust, protection is tossed aside, defenses ignored. Those who are trusted are considered deserving and vulnerability is simply not a concern. But why be vulnerable at all? Why trust at all?

In a physical sense, each of us is very much alone in the world. Yes, we communicate and interact with others on varying levels, and we share common concerns as members of the same species; but, each of us knows that we are capable of feigning, that we in fact do so from time to time, and that others are capable of the same. We discredit such behavior, to be sure, but really aren’t concerned about its consequences; rather, we think that it has a way of taking care of itself over the long run. A liar will be found out eventually and will find it more difficult to deceive the next time, we say; a single lie demands another and another to keep it alive. We refuse to look at, or fail to understand the far-reaching dimensions of lying.

There are levels to lying: blatant lies, undisclosed truths, lying for one or another’s benefit; that is, for the benefit of the liar or the deceived. Think about the roles of parent, teacher, boss or politician. Think about the various uses to which deception is put. We might better ask: “When are we obligated to lie and when not?” or “When is truth warranted, and when not?” All of a sudden, the act itself loses significance. It is no longer a part of the question–only an instance or example of use.

We might conclude from this that it makes little sense for us to cling to moral dictums which claim that lying, stealing or killing are always wrong. The “Thou shalt not’s…” not only seem to run in direct opposition to what we see to be the case, but also, seem overly shallow when subjected to “rational” examination. On the other hand, while reason may in fact diminish such notions as being simplistic, it also diminishes itself by confusing the situation. In short, it takes us out to sea and leaves us there, either to continue the journey, or to find our own way back. Its promise is never realized. Thus, while we can discuss such notions as deception and vulnerability in expressive or descriptive terms, “reasoning” to normative conclusions about the same, seems forever beyond our reach. Why?

Perhaps the answer to this resides in our quest for certainty–for those “absolutes” and “universals” philosophers speak of–for those “simple truths” (like commandments) which we hope will finally end our turmoil. A commandment, like simple definition, is something which can be grabbed on to, held close to ourselves, and, if “trusted”, can in fact satisfy this basic quest for lasting, immutable truth. A dangerous fact of nature–a relative notion, to be sure–but nonetheless true. And, whether we choose to pin our faith to “The Book”, some Dictator, Government, Organization or Group–we must never refuse to acknowledge why it is we do so.#

#

@CHRISTIANITY

How many of us are handicapped in our everyday actions by unconscious moral dictums at work behind the scenes? In our everyday lives, we act and react in accordance to beliefs and convictions learned and stored away in our unconscious minds. Beliefs and convictions that influence (if not dictate) our behavior in a given situation. If we are products of a Christian culture, as most of us are, then there comes with this a whole set of `Christian luggage’ which we carry with us. Luggage which determines how we will act (or react) in a given situation; luggage which in great part determines the quality of our very lives.

Christ taught us to accept the world as it is, or the fact that evil exists along with good. He taught that we are to accept injustice as it comes to us, that we should “turn the other cheek”, if you will. “Our father made the sun to shine on both the good and the evil”, Christ said, and for us to be perfect as the father, we must accept the world as it is!

The difficulty here is that the world we find ourselves living in seems to work quite differently from the world Christ describes. Our world is an extremely competitive one whereby life begets life only through assuring its own survival. A world where dangers are found to be everywhere; life feeding on life, the strong, the successful, winning survival. It is not through an acceptance of adversity, but through overcoming it, that the struggle is won. We resist evil at any cost and believe our actions a deterrent to further evil in most cases. Without a counter force, we feel, evil would simply flourish. Why couldn’t Jesus see this for himself? Was his a philosophy for the weak and meek, for the humble and downtrodden, for the losers in life? By “turning the other cheek”, are we to assume that this has nothing whatever to do with improving our lot or world?

It would seem from this that we are rejecting Christ’s dictums each and every time we counter evil or hold out hope for a better world. We counter evil in every way that we can in order to better assure our survival on this earth. Everything about us and our world tends to support this strongest of drives within us. We cling to our lives as though there were nothing else but life, that death is the absence of life and is nothing else! #

#

@ON THOUGHT
(1/85)

Thinking is an open ended process. How do you control thought? How do you manage its seemingly uncontrollable paths? How do you tie varying notions together, classify and make them coherent with other things, lay them out under a single heading?

The computer has characteristics of thought itself. It is a vehicle of thought like arms and legs are appendages of our bodies. The uses to which this vehicle can be put are open ended, bounded only by the strength of our imaginations.

Thoughts can originate in us and flow out of us just as fast. Or may come whole from outside us and simply pass through and out.

What we remember may be something different entirely. We don’t know why the differences, but we know that there must be some difference else why can we quickly recall some things and not others?

Associations play a large part. One remembers a dangerous situation. Why? Why not the petals on a particular flower seen twenty-two years ago at no place in particular?

Perhaps we are dealing with more than one process. Those coming to us through normal channels of perceptions (our five senses), and those coming to us through these same channels but accompanied by some emotional (or chemical) impact.

Perhaps our brains are always working, always scanning its own contents (like a computer), awaiting some action or command–external stimuli! The “command” may not derive from the philosophical “self” running the machine, but from some haphazard memory giving rise to another memory related to it, and so on. At what point it develops into a complete thought, something with coherence, boundary, classification, etc., is anyone’s guess. We do know that its as though a light goes on, a print out made, the mind stops for a moment to hold a picture in place–an “idea”!

Structure is involved. Our perceptions come to fruition when they become “wholes”, even if these are but parts to some more encompassing “whole”, and so on.

Is it our mobility and ability to interact with our environment that makes all the difference? Cause and effect, stimulus and response, everywhere present in nature–working? How does evolutionary theory tie in with this? From simple to complex? Can this be reversed? That is, can we ever go from complex to simple? If not, why not? This might have some bearing on the nature of the processes we are attempting to explain.

The printed word (a thought expressed) gives you immediate feedback. It gives you “hard copy” which becomes but another perception reinforcing the former or strengthening it like a strong emotion does to one’s memory of a fearful incident. As I write my thoughts, I am also observing them on my video screen. I am able to glance at the top of the screen and re-experience (perceive again) those thoughts I had just moments ago. Writing thus becomes a tremendous vehicle for thought as it holds or “freezes” them allowing ever new combinations to arise!

Reading allows us to experience the thoughts of others. Since such thoughts were based upon prior experiences which the reader may or may not have had, and yet have the ability of re-creating them (vicariously) within the reader’s mind–reading becomes an extremely powerful vehicle to thought!

Our ability to share one another’s “wholes”, coherence, pictures, etc., when blended with our own packages, accelerates us beyond belief. [Vicarious acceleration of maturation processes?]. Reproductions of sensations through video, sound and writing!

When we interact with our environment, say, playing baseball, our attention is focused. “Attention” is a puzzlement to us. When we are physically engaged, our brains seem to be “pre-occupied”. It’s as though brains were only capable of doing one thing at a time (like the computer), although we know it is doing many other things besides. But, its incredible speed may only make it appear as though it is acting simultaneously, when this may not be true in fact. The important thing to note is that, while it is in active participation with the environment, it seems to be in “active” rather than “passive” mode. The difference here is that the brain is focused on the activity and, as such, is not open to receiving things outside it: like relationships drawn from memory images or casual interactions with the immediate environment. One might even claim it to be temporarily out of “thinking mode”!

Perhaps this explains why very active people appear to be less conceptual than inactive (more idle) sorts. Idle persons can’t help but learn since brains are always running. Their problems may result from a lack in sensation or the receiving of new information. We need periodic input of new data. We keep adding new perceptions, concepts (coherent perceptions)

Does our economy work like a chain letter? Must there be an end–a time for paying up? Which model might it represent: “perpetual motion” or “conservation of energy”?

Is it a linear progression or cyclical?

The brain is busy–very busy. Constantly scanning, paying attention to body functions, stomach aches, nervous feelings, etc. and directing us accordingly. Can the brain run into a snag? Can it hang-up like a computer? Is it a complete system, taking in data just as our bodies take in food for its systems. Think about systems of systems that make up our one body system.

Why are we able to override our brains or sensations. Eat when we are full or do something we feel we shouldn’t do? Is this an illusion just like the illusion that the computer or brain is doing things simultaneously?

Only closed systems can snag if new material is introduced that runs counter to that system programming.

If something cannot be assimilated? Like going off one’s rocker due to shock?

Blending of concepts (systems) must be very powerful. Puts thought on high planes. History of ideas should do the same for an individual. Should give a tremendous boost which could accelerate advancement in thought.

Ability to create new perceptions out of memories of real ones, although put into different configurations, is astounding. How are we able to do this? Why do we do this (begin to daydream) or do this when at sleep in the form of dreams?

Why is it that a sequence of thoughts seems always to come to an end? It’s as though they play themselves out, come to their natural end, the end of the program, if you will. At this point it usually does no good to try to continue on. It’s like trying to re dream a dream. It just is too difficult.

Are we dealing with systems of thought? “Closed” systems? Programs of thought? Is it like looking up a definition in a dictionary and following it through from definition to definition. I am told that you will eventually come full circle. There will no longer be any words listed in any definition that you haven’t already looked up!

The dictionary is a closed system, isn’t it? It does receive input when new data is entered, but such data in the form of new words is carefully assimilated. If there is anything radically different about such words, then it will affect the whole system in a radical way. The entire system or some part of it may have to be altered to receive this new data. Its overall purpose may even be changed to some larger or broader one encompassing the new whole.

The dictionary is by its own makeup a cross reference system of sorts…Perhaps. Maybe the cross referencing begins with the words (synonyms) used to define a given word and ends when we’ve completed the full circle as described above. We usually don’t need to go to such lengths, however, when we want a definition.

When we run out of thought and want to continue thinking, we can go back to some former part of the process, (provided we can remember or have hard copy in the form of printed words), and re stimulate our brain at a different juncture perhaps. If we use just any place in this process of thought, will a new or different process take off? Is there some sense to the notion that we may begin with “gulps” of direction when starting to think? Is the scenario already there to be played out? If so, how does this become possible?

“When active in sports or some other intense activity, do we refrain from passive thinking?” I just re-read this earlier passage to test out this notion of new departures, and following the last line–I did take on a new direction. At least I think I remember myself as having this. I’ve since forgotten it as I was writing my experience down. I reread the paragraph anew hoping to be able to continue, but, like a dream, nothing happened. The opportunity did not re-present itself a second time!

I’ll do the same thing with another paragraph but, this time, will not mention what I am doing. The next thoughts that I put down will represent this experiment.
. . .

I read several paragraphs and two of them stood out specifically. They stood out in the sense that I had an intuitive or immediate awareness of their importance. Their larger parameters were apparent; their scale or compass, understood. One thought had to do with a question I posed concerning the “economy working like a chain letter”. While writing other thoughts, I glanced down at a newspaper laying on the table nearby. The headlines pointed to a drop in the economy, and this coincided with (fit in) with the thoughts I was having. The second thought that stood out had to do with our apparent “ability to override our brains.” I immediately sensed that this too was a large topic that would require a good deal of thought. The word “economy” is a general term encompassing a very large set of ideas and processes. In order to pursue the questions I raised, I would have to take this massive concept, dissect it enough to see if there was a correlation with the “chain letter” concept, whose workings I am not clear on either. Two concepts or systems here. We are not on a first level thought. In the latter instance, we immediately sense that the answer to such a question must come from an understanding of the workings of the brain, and perhaps a recognition that there is (or appears to be) another entity at work here (the “self”) to which we must attribute the ability to override! The fact is, we are able to recognize certain difficult and confusing concepts, and know that we will have our work cut out for in dealing with them!

We sometimes think on ground level, dealing with singular notions such as noting the difference between an ordinary sensation and a dream. Or, again, on some highly abstract level, forcing us to deal with uncertain characteristics of “things” or with the numerous difficulties surrounding general terms, concepts and ideas.

Right now I am tired of thinking any further. I’m not certain whether it is associated with a playing-out of previous thoughts or not. My side excursion may represent only a sophisticated attempt to continue a system of thought that could not have been continued otherwise. Failing in this attempt, and not understanding why, my body (or is it my brain that brings up such feelings) is telling me to quit and perhaps take a nap. I am fascinated by the notion that my brain may in fact be protecting itself from entering a dead-end road, or a thought process which could end in my “spinning my wheels”. When the program ends, or approaches dangerously near a “continuous loop”, unlike the computer, do we simply grow weary and “shut down”, or, unlike the computer, do we have the ability to interrupt “the program” by other means? [What if there were two CPU’s?]

If this line of reasoning is valid, then I should become rejuvenated with a new thought process. What might my brain do for me now to reverse this withdrawal? I’m still tired and I feel the pull of other matters that I need to tend to. This has been a digression for me, although it was an exciting one, and perhaps this is why my brain will not reverse the process. Should I go back to other work and test the hypothesis? No, I think not. I’m going to take a snooze.

30 Minutes later

Well, I just laid down for 30 minutes but couldn’t sleep. It’s about 2:00 P.M. And I’m back at it.

I was thinking about the automobile being an expression of our bodies, perhaps, while the computer may be an expression of our brains! Why not say `expression’? Who after all is the creator of these machines if not our brains?

Surely the wheel is superior to our legs and feet inasmuch as speed can be combined with balance unlike anything we can do ourselves. We can’t propel our legs to go faster than a run! But if we attach wheels to ourselves, there’s no limit to the speeds we can attain.

Why haven’t we done this already. We invented the bicycle, the chariot, and wheel chair. We put motors on each of these for faster propulsion. Why have we ignored making something a little more streamlined for attaching to our legs. Small battery driven chariots that we can carry with us to the mall, attach to our legs or waist, and do our shopping the easy way? It could even be designed as a collapsible unit that when we lean back folds into a chair for resting position.

Attached to our vehicles will be mini dashboards with mini computers, compartments and the like for handling day to day or moment to moment transactions. Perhaps later, we might be able to have such units ride along on a cushion of air, without cumbersome wheels getting in our way. If the computer is an appendage to the brain like the automobile is to our bodies, then we can look forward to some very remarkable things. Just as power driven wheels can outdo legs inasmuch as speed is concerned, so too can the speed of a computer perhaps outdo our very brains inasmuch as concentration on a particular phase is concerned. While the brain must handle the whole shooting match for ourselves, the computer can travel much more lightly (and thus more speedily) with only one or two functions to concern itself with.

A further distinction which seems to be present is that while our brains seem to be in `scan mode’ when not preoccupied with doing a particular thing, the computer remains programmable adhering to whatever is put into its memory. It is predictable unlike the thoughts that are going to come to our brains. If there is programming taking place in our brains, we know that it is being constantly altered with input of new data, thus making it even further removed from our understanding.

If the computer had sensors, it could continually take in new data much like we do.#

#

@SELF ANALYSIS

I want to discover revolutionary thoughts and offer them to the world in return for admiration.

I seek large scale admiration and not that which might be gained from performing small things

I, therefore, reject involvement with small things, holding out for the big events! This results in two things:

1. I lose any admiration that could more easily have been forthcoming had I been involved with simpler things. I am left without a sound self image and also without human involvement and companionship sharing common goals.
2. I am left without extensive knowledge of anything at all. Not wishing to go into depth in any one direction, I choose, instead, to save precious time by looking only at the bare rudiments of knowledge. I hope to be able to put a broad scope of ideas together which will result in a more or less universal perception which may then be pursued in depth in any one direction.

My hope is that looking at the broad spectrum of knowledge is the only way to acquire the broad picture of where we have come from and where we are headed. I want to tie together all of the studies that are presently being made today in order to formulate or reveal `megatrends’ and truths hitherto unknown. I want to establish breakthroughs of immense importance!

I have been such a person all of my life. I have always sought a total explanation of things. I have always fought against ignorance, or ignorance disguised as truth! I have made doubt my home as well as my tool. I seek to explore areas of doubts rather than areas of truths. To discover the unknown rather than the known; uncover ignorance rather than truth.

I have always enjoyed surveys rather than in depth studies. World theories rather than world history; world history rather than American; American history rather than the westward movement, etc.

I have always had a fascination with maps throughout my life. I can now understand why. The globe represents the whole of the earth, the whole of a country, etc.

Am I the way that I am solely because of my desire for prestige and admiration through major knowledge breakthroughs? Could I possibly be this way for some other reason? What else would drive someone toward omniscience?

I am oftentimes angered with my creator because of the difficulty of mastering the game within the time limits set. At most, I have approximately 80 years from birth to death, but, this of course can change without notice! Knowing this and still experiencing the compulsion to understand, forces this skeletal approach to knowledge in itself! My constant sense of mortality, at different times, propels me and stops me cold in my tracks. The time that is lost here only forces a still a more skeletal approach yet. I have always been reluctant to play the game.

I envy those people that have accepted their mortality and have found relative peace and contentment in living their lives however they may unfold. Some of them have chosen to spend a large portion, or all of their lives, healing the sick, studying the stars, the oceans, the earth, the animals and their behaviors. How do they confine themselves?

It’s like the difference between a microscope and telescope. The former takes you into ever new depths of details, while the other provides ever broader vistas of the aggregates of such details. Both approaches may be equally exciting. Both approaches may be equally necessary to the pursuit of knowledge. And, (here comes that dichotomy again), both approaches may be equally natural or inevitable!

For myself, looking toward the infinitely small is just as rewarding as looking toward the infinitely large. For they may in reality be one and the same!

One always looks from a particular location or perception toward new perceptions. After an object has been analyzed, we are left with the results of the analysis plus whatever knowledge of the thing or subject we had prior to analysis. Thus we, as human observers, are at some point (who can say where) between the infinitely small and the infinitely large! Let’s disregard the fact that our concept of `infinity’ may be incomprehensible. Let’s disregard the fact that our notions regarding perception may be incomprehensible as well.

When one looks into space through a telescope, he is performing analysis (of a kind) from within, whatever we perceive to be surrounding us, toward that which is surrounding us, though hidden from our unaided perception. We are not beginning with the `big picture’ in this case, but at some location within it. Analysis through accumulation rather than through separation.

The astronomer no doubt points his telescopes in all directions outward from the center of the earth. In so doing he is able to view various densities of matter (through his knowledge of distances, I guess) and then is able to present us with a `big picture’ containing ourselves (our planet) at its center. Since we can see out past our own galaxy to other galaxies, we are able to know that we are a part of a single galaxy and know our relative place within it. However, so long as the astronomer uses earth as his point of reference, his observations must necessarily place earth at the center of his observations, even if it appears to be otherwise due to a lack of observable material in any one direction from earth.

Our whole earth is contained within, and enveloped by, a sea of empty space, or so we’ve thought.I’m told that it’s empty space, but I’m not sure that this can be true conceptually. At any rate, our conceptions of `material’ and `space’ form the foundation for practically the whole of scientific theory. Or so it would seem.

We think that without a conception of space we would have no conception of motion. Without motion, no boundary, identity to enable us to call a thing a thing. For a thing must be identifiable, separate from other things, in order to move from one location to another. But is this so?

How good I am at digressing. Why can I never stick to the original topic at hand. I wanted to search within me for answers as to what makes me what I am. I wanted such answers in order to make intelligent and logical decisions regarding my future and the future of my wife and children.

I began with self analysis. I talked about my inclination toward wanting to make a big mark on the world of knowledge; that I was perhaps wanting to do so for the prestige and admiration it would bring to me. I discussed various traits I have exhibited in the past leading me to avoid going to deeply into something for fear of not then having the time for exploring other realms. Before I knew it, I was within one of those realms, analyzing and posing ever new thoughts, which were taking me from one subject to the next.

Thus, my original purpose was lost. What went wrong? Why can I never stick to one thing for any length of time? How will I ever compel myself to learn anything useful or beneficial to myself and family in ways of their own choosing?

Should I let go of all such inclinations that attempt to steer me in directions which are adverse to my own inclinations? What would this be like? Wouldn’t it be totally selfish? Totally foolish? How do I know that I ought to do this? That I’m worthy of doing so? Surely, there are lots of others that are much more knowledgeable than myself. Wouldn’t it be wasteful for someone with a lesser chance for success at a given endeavor to engage in it anyway?

And so I continue to vacillate; continue to go in both directions. (There goes that dichotomy again. What is it about opposites that make them appear everywhere where thought is present?) What do I do? If I choose to pursue my own inclinations, how will I go about this? If the entire scope of human knowledge remains my boundary, how do I study even its rudiments. How do I determine my directional priorities? Do I read in the history of ideas first? Do I read summary capsules of the whole of philosophy. Even the encyclopedia of philosophy comprises seven or eight volumes! The history of science, religion, psychology? Physics and astronomy? I need to narrow this down considerably.

What do my thoughts have in common? What kinds of thinking have I been doing for most of my life? Can I make a list, recognize a pattern or area of usual interest, and go from there? Well, let’s give it a try.

I think about thought itself. Concept formation, the truth and falsity of statements, the workings of language and its relationship to thought and perception. I think about perception and its relationship to the world, language, concept formation and thought. I think about morality, correct behavior, education, and injustice. I think about social institutions, war, crime, poverty, and how they can be eliminated. I think about god, politics, the universe. I am a philosopher.#

#

@THOUGHTS
2/85

If I had total freedom to write, what would I write? Where have my thoughts taken me thus far? What are my present inclinations? Anything concrete enough to lay out and embark upon? I would like to take social and political issues pressuring us today and demonstrate how these tie in with or emanate from our emotions on the one hand, and our epistemology on the other. Not epistemological views, but how they arise from a dualism which seems to be construed or intuitively evident to us through our life activities. I want to look at classification and systems in accumulating knowledge and formulating concepts. The goal is to shed light on the resolution of such problems through a much better understanding of how they arise. Could such large issues be studied on a smaller scale?

Knowledge is overwhelming. We cannot participate in everything life has to offer, because there’s simply too much. It’s frustrating knowing that there must be limits, parameters, or particular focuses we are forced to make. It is even more frustrating when we realize that we are continually weaving an ever more complicated web for ourselves and others to follow. The realization that we must play but a small part in the overall scheme of things, when we suspect that we would be able to make a difference had we the larger picture, drives some of us to utter helplessness and despair.

Somehow, we must find a way as individuals to come to grasp the whole of our world, even if a skeletal grasp, or find the means to develop such wholes while working piecemeal in groups or from generation to generation. This entails that we have some ideal of the workings of knowledge and its nature. But does this presuppose a holistic view to begin with? What is the alternative but to simply go about doing what we are going to do, and limit ourselves to questions much closer to what we are involved in. Isn’t this what the scientist does in fact? He acts, attempts to explain results of his actions through probabilities and theories, and then continues in this fashion, throwing out what he wants as time goes on.

It would serve as a good starting point if I outlined the problems of philosophy from a philosophical perspective, and then the problems of psychology, sociology, physics, history, and all the rest. Lay these out and determine whether or not they have common origins

There is a dualism between this sort of thinking and our natural courses of action. It is essentially the dualism between thought and action. The idea of commonality, classification, emanation from a single source, etc. are all notions that we have, and that we apply to our actions. It is the descriptive part of our actions. It seems to be able to superimpose itself on actions as though it were truly separated from the same; that such could be `applied to’ the same, as though it were coming from a different source.

The world of thought being traced back to its common foundation. The world of activities being traced back to its common foundation. The mental and the physical. Plato and Aristotle, realism and subjectivism, empiricism and rationalism, right and wrong, communism and democracy, fear and daring. Our concepts seem to always be dual. Is this the way language works? Is this the way nature works?

Although we can always point to a dualism or opposites, there are many constructs in between. Like taking a line segment and taking half of it, and then half of the half, and so on. Always more to make of something. Does this process end? When does it end? Between communism and democracy, how many other forms have been envisioned. Why just these? Or does it carry on down to each and every one of us and then within each and every one of us since we are not complete or free of this dualism ourselves. We rock back and forth, decided and undecided. Why? Why isn’t it one linear series of actions? How can there be two directions to cause us to `spin our wheels’? Should this study begin with thought or nature? Or both?

The interaction of thought and activity needs to be looked at. How thought gives rise to activity and activity to thought. What part emotion plays between these, or whether we are talking about dual progression or linear progression. We seem to think of the relationship between emotions and behavior much as we ascribe qualities to objects, or memory to perception. They all result from something else. Causes and effects over time. We seem to exhibit a form of control over our actions, a volitional aptitude on our part making it possible to do something other than what we may seem to want to do. My body may cry out for exercise while I choose to ignore it in favor of doing something else. Could I choose to ignore this for no reason? How many reasons might I be overlooking in my skeletal view of what is taking place within my body?

I suspect that language is extremely crude when compared to our bodily functioning. It is this fact, I believe, that gives rise to so many misconceptions we have about our relationship with ourselves and nature. This being so, perhaps an anthropological approach to concept formation and language in general would prove to be a good staring point. After all, man the organism has been developing a lot longer than his language was advanced enough to cause him difficulty. Or is this true? Utterances, groans, physical expression, and the like, may all be construed as language provided there were other organisms to perceive them. Thus, language could be as old as the organism itself! Perhaps the first attempt at writing was the beginning of dualism, the first separation of man and his person. The picture existed outside the person. The person could walk away while the picture remained. But then, any sort of action (such as making a fire, killing an animal, felling a tree, etc., Could be construed in much the same way. Evidence of some action, if something in it were recognizable as being such. Sensation, memory, emotion, memory, expression, memory, description, memory!

I think that we should start with the presentation of a given problem and go from there.#

#

@REAGANOMICS, EDUCATION & JPTA

2-1-85

(Foolishly written as an addendum to a job application)

We are currently experiencing a certain amount of ambiguity and indecisiveness regarding a broad array of political and social issues. Information, explanation, and criticism regarding their specifics is everywhere it seems. While no one is at a loss for words regarding any of these issues, still no one seems able to arrive at definitive or acceptable conclusions. As the debates go on, more and more depth and details from analyses get added to prevalent confusion. And since there rarely is ever a shortage of `scapegoats’ readily available, blame gets passed around like a `hot potato’.

President Reagan, in espousing his new federalism, (along with personal values and social and political goals), has shaken up a good number of people on both sides of the political fence. Both democrats and many republicans are at a loss trying to make sense of apparent inconsistencies in policy. While extolling our need to safeguard our national defense, our social security system, and to protect our citizenry from unnecessary tax increases, the president has, at the same time, asked the congress to attack deficit spending. Such restrictive parameters are mind boggling to most in congress, and would seem to defy simple understanding, much less, compliance.

The democratic party wants to attack these problems logically. They want to `freeze’ government spending across the board, thereby maintaining existing programs. They want to increase defense spending over a longer term, raise taxes somewhat, and eradicate deficit spending altogether while whittling down our massive debt. Why can’t our president see the logic in this, they ask? Indeed, a larger and larger number of republicans are asking the same question. Meanwhile, our national debt continues its upward momentum, while our president continues to appear complacent.

Those of us who also find inconsistencies within such policies, perhaps, ought to take a closer look at the man. It may well be that this president is after much bigger game than what seems apparent from current moves made by him! He has all along espoused conservative ideals, but we suspected otherwise whenever his actions seemed to belie this. He really has indicated time and time again that he dislikes big government and its bureaucratic mushrooming into areas which were never intended for it. He really does believe in federalism, or putting power and responsibility back into the hands of the individual, the local community, and only then, into the hands of state and federal governments. By allowing our national deficit and overall debt to soar, while at the same time setting certain (impossible) parameters in which congress must operate, he has in effect, forced the congress to deal directly with the problem as he sees it. They must continue to cut government spending and programs at an ever quickening pace. Racing against impossible odds, they must eliminate the deficit through cuts alone, since cuts alone are all they have to work with! Being the responsible leaders they are, and not wanting to risk losing their constituencies, they are willing to do exactly what the president has intended for them all along. The “torch” has been passed. Ouch!

These same feelings are carried directly into the social and educational spheres by or president. The feeling is that inefficiency and waste are everywhere prevalent throughout our economy. Practices, programs and expenditures are everywhere out o control. Agencies and institutions have not proven themselves to be effective n meeting their own goals. Values and expectations have seemingly drifted off course, causing many individuals and groups to expect or demand what they ought not to demand. Whatever happened to individual initiative and self reliance?, This president would hasten to ask. How will we turn this situation around?

Study upon study, report upon report, statistic upon statistic, is asked for and received. But little ever comes of these except that further complications and still more difficult choices are added to the general confusion. In the absence of definitive answers from the `experts’, there is little more for the president to do that to break new ground. Since no one seems able to clearly demonstrate the absolute benefit or validity of a program to its constituency, or to the community at large, then the feeling is that maybe the same amount of success can be met despite cutbacks in expenditures. On the other hand, if such cutbacks go hand in hand with more efficient approaches to these programs, then maybe we will gain improvements while we are saving money. President Reagan seems to want to re direct our efforts in this way. What can’t be justified ought not exist. What can’t be surmounted will be ignored or circumvented.

The passing of the job training partnership act of 1982 was in keeping with basic beliefs regarding the benefits of decentralization and also the primacy of our economic base as a foundation from which to build. The act establishes the notion that the private sector, or, more specifically, those businesses and industries existing in a given community, are in the best position for ascertaining their own needs. Likewise, the community as a whole (business, industry, local government, institutions, and general citizenry) can best judge its own needs in light of these.

The underlying notion here is that our economic lives are at the root of basic human needs, and that the economy, therefore deserves primary consideration in tending to such needs. Only when we have fulfilled our basic economic needs (all of us) can we then begin to cater to higher human aspirations. Somehow, we lost this basic truth. We allowed ourselves to get carried away through bureaucratic growth and became blinded to the fact that, perhaps, we couldn’t afford it all. Together, the web of government, institutions, special interests, and the perceived rights ad demands of the citizenry, all tended to obscure just where it was that this money had to come from. The cart got ahead of the horse and few of us looked back to notice.

The job training partnership act is intended to reduce unemployment through the provision of meaningful training and informational services directly related to procuring employment. That is, the emphasis is placed on training for a perceived need. “Getting the job” remains the primary consideration, while getting the individual into the job, with as little expenditure as possible, remains the goal. If a good resume coupled with interview techniques and job information is all that is needed to lad a job, then that’s all that needs to be provided at present. Retraining, in certain circumstances, may not improve the odds of landing a job and, therefore, ma not justify the costs. Taking the most fundamental and direct approach to procuring employment means just that. We need to do as little, and as much, as it takes to get people back to work!

We’ve been hearing the message for some time now that more and better education will be required to meet the needs of advancing technology. While this remains true, it only remains so for a relatively few. Technology has simplified our lives, not complicated them. Jobs have become less complicated as a result. While we are still in need of individuals with strong conceptual understandings, grounded in all of our present day educational disciplines, we do not require this of the majority. Indeed, it may even be dangerous one could argue. We may have already overeducated beyond our needs, for highly skilled, educated persons are everywhere to be found performing simple routine tasks.

On may warn here of the dangerous precedent of possibly polarizing our society into `educated’ and `ignorant’ factions. This notion carries with it several underlying assumptions which, to my thinking, are simply not true. First, it presupposes that unless liberal learning is approached in school, it will stand little chance of being developed by individuals during the course of their lives; that school is where an `appreciation’ of such subjects is developed and where its relative `contents’ are learned. Secondly, it presumes that such developments (the polarization process) will move at an even pace; that individuals will lose their individuality and become simply a part of the `common intelligence’; neither aspiring to nor learning any more than their counterparts. That there would not continue to be, in other words, multiple levels of power, affluence, and knowledge as is the case at present.

I believe that the root of this difficulty can be found in the dichotomy of `learner’ and `subject matter’. The learner has always been considered a repository for knowledge, a vessel to fill. That all that needs to be done through the education process is to fill it! And, this is precisely what we attempted to do. We decided on the aims and content of education and went from there. Unfortunately, `filling’ practices are not conducive to learning processes. `Forceful entry’ simply does not work. If the matter being learned cannot `connect up’ with previous learning or inclination, it is of little consequence to the learner. He must hope that it will remain in memory long enough to pass a quiz.

Not everything presented to a student is going to discount as learning, however. Many things will connect up to previous learner experiences. Some will be real connections (matching a learners conceptual framework) while some will only appear to be connected. These latter type `connections’ may be what comprises most liberal education today. Such connections may, for the most part, be only connections to previous `bogus’ learning still remaining in `limbo’ in our memories. In this way, we are able to build “bogus education”, comprising chunks of facts and ideas related to one another, but not to ourselves. We know this is so because we run into the greatest of difficulty whenever we attempt to express our ideas or factual knowledge in a consistent and comprehensive manner.

The upshot, then, is that we may not be accomplishing what we believe ourselves to be accomplishing in our schools. Rather than actually developing an appreciation for liberal studies, or learning of their contents, we may only be expending tremendous amounts of teacher and student energies needlessly. We might better concentrate our efforts on discovering which of our current practices are worth salvaging and which are not; which parts of our curriculum remain appropriate today and which do not.

And to do this, we might better re focus our attention on the ideal of `individualized learning’ because there is definitely a need to do so. Education is relative to individuals in the final analysis. If there remain unresolved problems, it’s probably because we haven’t yet dealt adequately with this base. The individual’s supremacy within the learning process has never been doubted by educators only that 9it might be difficult, if not impossible, to ever effect such a program. However, with the presence of current technologies (namely the computer), the picture has changed to a large degree. The cost effective `ultimate approach’ to learning seems to be well within our grasp. We are presently in a position to be able to offer `individualized attention’ in a `group setting’ the best of both worlds! As usual, the needed technology seems to avail itself just at the right moment. This is true of so many other issues confronting us as well. And while it would prove interesting to pursue this question alone, it becomes imperative that we begin to apply the research and technology that presently avails itself. That is, it becomes imperative for us to begin to ask the right questions, within a true or realistic framework; that we begin the necessary steps to restructuring our existing frameworks, based upon decided options gleaned from the superabundance of information and technology at our disposal, and get on with it!

We understand why we had to shift our focus from individuals to groups in order to meet the needs of a growing economy at the turn of the century. And we presently understand that we have taken such `group efforts’ well beyond their original purpose, the mass learning of basic skills. This being the case, we may suspect that our having taken this approach may in itself be our greatest source of difficulty in education today. That we have been guilty of using a `model’ for practices for which it was never intended that simply do not fit. What did fit the model (what it was designed for) was already accomplished. Our mistake was in thinking that we could go on adding to what we had without needing to invent new tools for the new purposes we had in mind. We would force the fit! Or so we thought. What resulted was quite another matter altogether. We succeeded only in diluting our original purposes.

Now there would be nothing wrong withthis if we were certain of what we were doing while we were doing it; but most often, we aren’t. That is, we are generally swept along by the inherent structure of whatever it is we are analyzing much the same as our language structure sweeps us along to new phrases and thoughts all without thinking them! In such a way a great number of new ideas of how best to teach reading, writing, and arithmetic skills has been added to the various methodologies originally employed. While some may have been of great benefit, others, it may be said, may have only complicated (weighted down) the original process. Couple this with the imposition of new curriculum requirements and the ever increasing contents of our subject matter, and we may very well have built up the body of a truck over and surrounding a Volkswagen engine. We need, more than ever before, to re evaluate our `progress’ by tracing it back to its beginnings and working forward from there. We need, in fact, to understand more about the process and stature of knowledge acquisition itself. For our lack today is not in knowledge, but in our ability to evaluate it; that is, understand it!

Studies have shown that there will be an even greater proliferation of menial type job in the near future. Trying to foster a large base of liberally educated individuals to satisfy our technological requirements, will simply not work. Indeed, not only will this not work, but it may even reverse the process we are trying to invoke. Dealing with a heterogeneous society in 0 homogenous manner will only serve to develop within us a `bogus semblance’ of a common education. This can only lead us to further ignorance and confusion rather than truth.

In a democracy, the impetus for direction should always flow upwards from individuals to their representatives. The nations of the world, especially those of Marxist persuasion, are watching we Americans closely as we grapple with the very essence of our democracy. They too are looking for direction, something to hang onto. Change has confused all of us, thrown us far too many curves. Many of our concepts and institutions no longer fit their original purposes, and we are presently being forced to alter or shed many of them in favor of new ones. For these reasons, e need to look long and hard at what we are doing.

Education may essentially involve learning, but learning involves much more than education. It takes in genetic endowments, physical characteristics, environmental considerations, and personal experiences all of which go into making up individual differences. As was already intimated, adding to this base of differences, the imposition of `packaged’ courses, age and time restrictions for learning, curriculum content and learning directions, counterproductive grading and evaluation procedures, (done with little or no regard for individual needs and characteristic), is wasteful and counter productive, to say the very least. The costs in terms of personal degradation, resulting frustration and confusion regarding the quality of knowledge and our ability to decide future directions, is too sad to reiterate. Suffice it to say that each year 600,000 high school dropouts get added to the scrap heap of the hard core unemployed.

But then, all of this is old stuff by now. These arguments have been shouted for decades. While the idealists continue to propound their theories and demand broad changes across the whole spectrum of education, very little is ever realized. One reason is that they too often forget to leave us their blueprints to action. Be that as it may, we are left to ignore them or make fumbled attempts at trying to development concrete practices out of their `nebulous’ claims.

Government and educational agencies alike, demand more and more studies and reports t get to the bottom of such reforms and issues. The results are generally inconclusive, demonstrating both positive and negative aspects of the matter in question, presenting ever more evidence and data for ever more positions, and generally going nowhere from there.

When such confusion confronts us, and we are left without a blueprint for action, we seem always to look without for answers rather than within. Instead of sorting through the matter in question, we oftentimes choose to add to it in the hopes that some good will come of it. So, to solve many of today’s problems in education, e are told that what we need to do is to add still more courses to our school curriculums, extend our school days and school year, extend homework assignments, teacher training, and anything else that is extendable! We feel the need to set up better evaluation techniques and testing requirements for students and teacher alike. And we are told that in order to succeed in such endeavors, we will have to be prepared to spend a great deal more money. And why not expect that we’ll get our way? Are we not famous for throwing money at problems? Is congress going o know better than educators what needs to be done?

So we will even deny that there are such problems at all, or deny that the blame for such problems can appropriately be passed on to any one party. And, their arguments are good ones, in most cases, for there is always plenty of evidence to do o claim whatever we like. So rather than accept the challenge at righting perceived wrongs, no matter, who is to blame, we choose, instead, to gloss over them or t pay them lip service. Educators are no different than anyone else. No one wants to join a crusade that they feel is going nowhere. Too many former `campaigns’ have been launched to little avail. Too many disappointments to want to try again. So although we may be “riding on the crest of change” in the words of Alvin Toffler, far too many persons are unwilling to embrace it.

Again, we do not wish to look at our present system of education with scrutiny. Looking for flaws is simply too confusing, too radical, too monumental a task we feel. Parents and community won’t undertake this because they don’t much know where t begin, those that have an interest, that is. The local school board, administration, faculty, and students can’t because they are so imbued in, accustomed to, ad overwhelmed by the present system, that they would find it too difficult to even envision anything different. Even so, they couldn’t do much if they tried. Most major educational considerations having to do with systems and curricula are dictated and sanctioned by the state. Any fundamental and worthwhile change will have to proceed from this point in the final analysis.

And so the existing curriculum, and `force feed’ methods go pretty much unchallenged. No one asks whether such methods might be flawed or not. No one asks if it might not be worthwhile to restructure our curricula. That, perhaps, we ought to succeed in fostering a true appreciation for such studies first before we can think abut taking in its content. That perhaps different approaches need to be made in light of student differences, aims and goals. That perhaps an appropriate and meaningful smaller base of knowledge and basic learning skills will be of much greater significance to an individual, (as well as to the needs of society), than wold vessels filled with nebulous `unconnected’ and irrelevant knowledge.

Why do we continue to claim that we are fostering a liberal education when we certainly are not? Why do we claim we are fostering an appreciation for the same when we are obviously not? Why do we continue to throw our students into situations an, so called `educational experiences’, without giving them the conceptual tools necessary to understanding them? Plunging into the earliest history of western civilization with a conception of time and continuity developed from ten or fifteen short years of life, is utterly futile. Plunging into eastern civilization and culture, in like manner, can only constitute the greatest ignorance of what is involved. Our government itself has difficulty enough trying to understand cultural differences between east and west. How can we expect a ninth grade student to bridge this gap?

A case may also be made for teaching certain courses in `reverse’, which is to say, in he order that they were actually developed. A true appreciation of history must begin with the present; why suppose it worthwhile to study it from the past? It is only after one has experienced the lineage of events from present to past, that it becomes possible to appreciate the continuity of time and events.

In like manner, we learn to speak our native tongue between the ages of one and four without having the benefit of grammar. And we pretty much have it mastered prior to starting school. (Don’t say that a child’s parents `taught’ him to speak. This isn’t how it happens.) The child learns to speak through the context of human activities which give meaning to words and utterances, as well as to physical expressions. Why then, attempt to teach language through grammar or through descriptions or listings of its elements? Why attempt to make this a primary means to learning our own or alternative languages? Grammar has its place, to be sure, but it’ a much smaller one than we dare to imagine. Why not concentrate on a conversational approach involving human activity out of which language is born?

And can we not say the same for mathematics and science? Are we so certain that we cannot effect a better understanding of these disciplines by beginning with the `complicated’ present or present day `state of the art’? Are we so sure that we can’t go from the complex to the simple in as meaningful a way as the other way around? At very least, this approach will serve to build a better appreciation for a given course of study prior to engaging it from its `simple’ beginnings. A broad outline of current day applications of `state of the art’ technologies would, I am sure, provide the impetus to further inquiry. Such outlines may be skeletal, but, also need to be quite comprehensive. That is, “an introduction to current day technologies” needs to be made as meaningful and comprehensive a course as “an introduction to western civilization”. The same would be true for “an introduction to the world of work”, or to “home management”, “history of ideas”, “educational concepts”, “social concepts”, and the like. Understanding concepts is to liberal studies what application is to technological advancement

Again, the entrenched practices of any given bureaucracy are difficult to change even when we know what it is we want, or understand just how it is to be implemented giving tuition tax credits to private schools may prove to be a back door approach to forcing a move toward private education in general. Our president may be trying to circumvent our educational institutions, feeling that only competition ill knock educators out of their complacency. That if it becomes less expensive t send our children to private schools, there will be a general upswing in private school development. That is, quality, enterprising individuals may leave public education to begin or work in private institutions. In such a way, public education will be forced to compete or falter. As it is now, it remains difficult to force a monopolistic enterprise to do anything that it doesn’t wish to do.

The jobs training partnership act succeeds in doing much the same thing as tuition tax credits. In this case, however, it circumvents the traditional approach to offering training and education, by tying it to the practical needs of the individual and community. It utilizes existing community educational and business resource in the development of learning opportunities and services. It opens the door to experimentation in terms of our having to provide whatever is appropriate toward meeting program goals. Whether it be job search assistance, counseling, genera information, remedial education, basic and advanced skills training, or company sponsored training, and the like, we are free to choose whatever is necessary to get the job done. That job, of course, is to get people to work!

But beyond this, programs like JPTA when coupled to direct service institutions like BOCES, offer us tremendous opportunities for experimentation. While the traditional high school approach to learning continues to stem from unfulfilled notions regarding liberal education and societal goals, BOCES, for example, finds its roots in the present. That is, it begins with the practical realities of current economic needs, and thus positions itself to work from this reality toward the theoretical. It’s the age old relationship between theory and practice. Choosing one approach over the other will never be appropriate, I feel, and the benefits of working with the elements of both (in spite of which end of the continuum you begin) holds some very exciting possibilities for all of us.

But if we approach this most recent challenge in the same manner as we approached the so called `reforms’ of the sixties, then we will have left education, once again in the throes of circumstance. It will remain a passive entity open to all of the forces that can be brought to bear on it. Not having a will or direction of it own, there will be no shortage of opinions and abuses.

There is a real shakeup going on in education today. Much of the effects of current practices will not be fully felt, nor appreciated, for years to come. If educators don’t busy themselves with mending their own fences, they are going to be shocked a the results of these new initiatives, and may find themselves out of the business entirely. Public education may prove, in the end, to have been but a stepping stone to private and corporate education in a technocratic society. If educators can’t come up with their own answers to their own problems, then maybe private initiative and industry will. In any event, president Reagan does not appear to be thwarted by such misgivings. He continues to lay the groundwork in the absence of responsible action on our part. He continues to thwart or circumvent those `unmovable’s’ that stand in THE WAY.#

#

@MARCH 1985

Do we really understand what we believe ourselves to understand? Or is our understanding based in large part upon mechanical applications?

Could it be that we are presently like children who have discovered strange articles (in our case, articles from the distant past), and using them in awkward and unknowing ways for which they were never intended? Do we really understand what we are doing with knowledge? Do our teachers really understand what they are teaching? Are we passing on rudimentary or “fake” understanding; that is, demonstrating how to turn on a television, perform an algebraic equation, etc. without understanding how a television works or what forms the basis for algebra? Yes!

Algebra can be summed up in the following way:
x = the sum of the parts of x

So what? This is not new information. Why then is this study significant? It must be because of its problem solving capabilities. What are these?

Driving an auto is a small part of understanding it. It is its “use”. Performing an algebraic calculation is not a part of its use, although it can be involved in its use. Like driving involved in transportation–auto’s use.

Performing an algebraic equation for no reason other than learning its mechanics is to perform an operation without application. It would be tantamount to learning how to count without being able to apply such understanding. What do such notions have to do with our “constructs” and “structures” employed in learning? What is the difference between understanding and use?

We don’t need to understand the workings of auto’s and televisions in order to use them–only how to use them. On the other hand, we can learn to count without actually understanding how to count. But this is not understanding–only imitation. In this case, understanding the use of counting (the application of sequencing) is necessary to being able to perform it. [One to one correspondence for addition.]

What have we done to our machines to make it possible for us to use them without understanding them? We have explained their use and have extended or synthesized their functions into simple operating modes for easy use.

One would not know the use of an auto unless one first understood the machine or, at minimum, some of the various uses to which its observable parts are put to. We explain uses of mechanisms and provide the wherewithal to use them.

We attempt to do the same thing in mathematics–only it seldom works. Understanding mechanical operations will not provide an understanding of its applications.

But those who do understand the machinery and its application take such applications and develop ready made easily accessible routine operations in the form of instructions, tables, rules and procedures for easy usage.

We might all be suffering from myopia. That is, we may be in need of knowing our relative position within the realm of knowledge and thought just as we presently believe ourselves to understand our relative positions within the world. Without this view, knowledge and thought is chaotic at best. Without structure is total chaos. Mankind has also structured his experiences within his existence–until recently, that is. We are presently lost in our own maze; entangled in our own “understanding”. To see that this is so, simply take a group of people and ask a question or state a fact without offering any structure, context, or parameters of any kind. Observe what happens!

Knowledge gained through simple observation or contained in simple statements or assertions undergoes a certain amount of vagueness as it grows. More and more, complex concepts or theoretical models of thought processes are invoked to better integrate the same, thereby causing our own certainty and understanding of it to lessen rather than sharpen.

Integration involves definition, interpretation, and classification. Just as a dictionary term and its own definition are never (and can never be) an actual match–so is it the same with knowledge as it proceeds through its organizational processes.

These very words are packed with concepts invoked to explain a still higher level of conception–that is, the notion that complexity and vagueness grow hand in hand as knowledge extends. The words come easily. They seem to fit in an appropriate way the model I am trying to present. They can be used with only a minimal understanding of their meanings and implications–and still seem appropriate. This is the danger!

MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS/QUESTIONS:

Is “reason” inherent in language?

Is there a “logic” to language?

Do we make “constructions” through language?

What is the role of “nonsense” in the use of language? In the “misuse” of language?

Why do we seek certainty?

Why do we search for substratums, immutable, incorrigible bases for thought?

Are hypothetical constructs exaggerations of ordinary meanings? Extensions?

Is the dichotomy of sensor and thing sensed an analytical construct?

Is group behavior correlated with individual behavior? Group knowledge a consensus of its individual members, grouped to form particular statements, sets of beliefs or actions, etc. thus coming full circle back to the individual?

Is such a synthesis of group efforts and intelligence what makes progress so rampant? Is it knowledge that is multiplying exponentially, or people with knowledge, or structures/methodologies of knowledge?

Is it progress or knowledge that is multiplying or simply applications of old knowledge, used over and over again? What are the true relationships between theory and application, science and technology? How do they affect one another really? Does technology or knowledge derived through application ever add to the science from whence it came? Did it actually come from the science in the first place? Or did the science come from the technology or an “idea of application” that gave rise to the theoretical constructs?–an “idea” which merely “presented itself”!

Sound communications rests upon two individual’s having had the same or similar experiences. When this is not the case, difficulty ensues. Examples are when two individuals are years apart in age or levels apart in learning. Parent child, teacher student relationships, etc.

We resort to trying to explain the results of our experiences without explaining or relating the experiences themselves. Like teaching history to persons having little conception of “time”.

History is studied and understood from “present to past” even if we believe otherwise. This is necessary because we are now in the present and cannot escape the baggage we carry. When we write a history book, we start at a point where we left off in our thinking, i.e., in the past, and we then write forward toward the present. We believe that such a sequence is in keeping the horse in front of the cart–from earliest to the latest, from beginning to the end–but we are duping ourselves!

SCHOOL CURRICULUM AND SCOPE

What is a student? What does one do? What does one not do? (Responsible for and not responsible for?) What should one know in order to perform his job successfully? (Knowledge to learn?) What should one learn? (Knowledge to grow? Knowledge to work?) Altogether a different question from the former!

What is a parent? What does one do? What does one not do? (Responsible for and not responsible for?) What should one know in order to perform his or her job successfully? (Knowledge to teach? Knowledge to rear?)

What is a community? What functions do communities serve? Which do they not serve? (Responsible for and not responsible for?) What should one know in order to perform its functions? (Knowledge to serve?)

What is an educational institution? Which functions does it serve? Which does it not serve? (Responsible for and not responsible for?) What knowledge is necessary to performing such functions successfully? (Knowledge to rear? To teach? To serve? To govern?)

What is a teacher? What does one do? What does one not do? (Responsible for and not responsible for?) What should one know in order to perform his job successfully? (Knowledge to teach? To rear? To serve?)

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

World – Lowest base human acts to highest ideals

Freedom vs. Totalitarianism ontrol of human action vs. freedom of access to all such actions

A free open society leaves access to, or participation in, sex, crime, pornography, alcohol, smoking, drugs, violence, etc. Open to everyone.

Current trend or motivation is toward accentuating the negative aspects of human nature and dealing with the vulgar, violent, sexual, etc. Media exploits freedom of open societies, thus “creating” through heightened awareness or feeling of sanction, a further enhancement of the same.

Youth must be educated to the existence of all such motivations in order to develop a healthy understanding of what it is that is happening to themselves.

Youth must be shown that improvement, excellence, values, are desirable traits and should be sought while base ones should not.

There is a responsibility that comes with freedom: law, human rights, individual beliefs and pursuits, societal goals (whether absent or simply not spelled out), community goals that can be developed, discussed, and communicated to our children.

Above values and beliefs are not only personal, dependent upon family, religion, etc. Media and peers constantly putting reverse pressure (away from ideals)

GRADING

1. Grading based upon personal achievement of standardized subject matter according to ones own capabilities.
   2. Grading based upon personal achievements of standardized subject matter.
   3. Grading based upon personal achievement of only subjects of interest to learner.
   4. Grading based upon personal achievement of standardized subject matter at learners own pace and without a peer group.

We can grade “accomplishment” of subject matter or levels of learning achieved, or we can grade the percentage of material achieved while holding time a constant. “He got an `A’ in math” or “he’s at level #27 in math”

Achievement implies that a goal has been met–that something was learned, overcome, won. Not a percentage of it–but the whole of it!

A grade is supposed to reflect how well this goal has been met: an `A’ may mean that a student demonstrated his having reached higher aspects of the goal–mastered greater amounts of material, for example. A `C’ might imply that only an average amount of learning took place.

The problem with the above is that the person receiving the `C’ could have worked toward, or been made to learn, an `A’s amount of material. The problem is that he is part of a group.

Our system is based upon group learning and individual testing within this setting. The group moves together in the learning process and is tested individually at the end of it [change of rules?]. They start at a certain location and finish at a certain location within a certain time frame. “Percentage’s of success” are then applied to a students being able to demonstrate his having learned the given material within the time frame allotted.

Note! We think that quick is better. That a person’s quickly understanding a learning aspect is a sign of his superior intelligence. Maybe, but it may also be a sign of an inability to abstract different possibilities, thus more a sign of certain corresponding “inabilitys”.

If our society were not so competitive and comparative, we would not suffer hurt feelings from being with younger peers than ourselves in learning situations.

Public education imposes a definite subject matter to be learned– presumably for the betterment of individuals and our society as a whole.

GRADING

1. Based upon personal achievement–an individual’s own capability regardless of level of task learned.
   2. Based upon achievement of particular level of subject matter regardless of time taken.
   3. Based upon achievement of subject matter of interest to participant–regardless of imposed curriculum requirements
   4. Based upon achieving standardized subject matter within a time and age framework.
   5. Based upon levels of standardized subject material regardless of time or age without any confines!

PROBLEMS

Grading constitutes praise for performing to one’s own capability. Discrepancies in applying an “A” grade to one level of material and an “A” grade to another. The inference is that “A” applies to a standard “level” of task accomplished rather than standard level of learning.

Forces alterations of subject matter to fit varying aptitudes of students because of constant time frame employed. Students progress from grade to grade in accordance to age. Also forces us to form “levels” of achievement or “percentages” of achievement such as 70% of subject matter learned.

Students would not progress from grade to grade because of age. Some would perform more slowly and have to remain behind. An individualized approach would be necessary to offset this.

Students would be “doing their own thing”–whatever interested them and at whatever pace they chose to pursue such interests. Totally unstructured in terms of imposed content of curriculum to be learned.

STRUCTURE

To create sense out of chaos requires structure or focus. We ask individuals to focus upon learning when in school. We ask them to forget their problems, their pains, their disinterest, etc. and to concentrate on the material at hand. This in itself would be a major undertaking for anyone. Unlike adults, however, they cannot walk away from a boring or unwanted situation.

The notion that “trying” should be rewarded and taken into consideration when assessing a given grade, has led to punitive measures when there is a lack of sufficient interest demonstrated, a lack of appropriate behavior, etc.

Take all of mathematics and divide it into levels. When one masters a given level, he goes on to the next. Standardized testing can be used to demonstrate mastery.

Take American History and do the same. Students must demonstrate general knowledge of dates and events considered to be important to our understanding. Need not be specific dates but more or less be able to demonstrate a time frame and general knowledge of important events, ideas, and status of life at the time.

Students can work according to their motivations as well as aptitude and can quit if a level of competence is reached. Levels will take the place of grading.

There may be required levels of competence for different tasks, jobs, schools, etc., but individuals will know this beforehand. They will know where they are at, what jobs they are already qualified for. Government job classifications will indicate competence levels necessary for jobs.

LEARNING CHARACTERISTICS

What are the most fundamental skills necessary to learning endeavors of any kind?
Reading, writing, arithmetic

What are the most fundamental concepts necessary to understanding whatever it is we are reading, writing, or computing?

Elements of reading, elements of writing, elements of computation
Note! Too many constants held in learning enterprise.
Age, time, knowledge content, community, learning location, grading, goals,
We pretend as though the group is nothing more than an `extended individual’! Groups can be made to be such, and are in many cases, but this is another thing entirely. This type activity is undergone to arrive at a group consensus or synthesis of varying opinions in order to decide on a particular set of individual actions, beliefs, and the like. The corporate head, for example, is then able to act as an individual for the group he is responsible to.

In the learning environment, however, we do not elicit any form of consensus from the group. The consensus of opinion is formed by some relatively small group of individuals representing a particular social, political, and economic bias. Furthermore, once the parameters are set, they tend to solidify into institutionalized practices that become very difficult to change.

Some considerations that are made for us

In developing our learning group, age and community are the primary considerations. For example, we are told to choose all five year olds from our immediate community to come together for the first year of school.

Next we are told to set their environment by placing them within a particular classroom within a particular building within a particular community. That is, we put them into a school built and maintained by the residents of each respective community.

We then decide our time parameters for the school week, the school day, and the class period.

Next we set what are to be the desired goals of all those to be educated, (what is right for the individual, the community, the nation), and further decide on which of our knowledge skills and learning will best meet the chosen criteria.

We then take the subject matter and break it down into twelve levels, or one level of knowledge for each of the years to spent in school. Some subjects will extend for the full twelve years while others will last for only a part of the time. We decide which skills are appropriate to which learning and go from there. We decide which learnings are appropriate to a respective age level and which are not. And in this manner, our chosen knowledge is broken down into `general skills learning and `courses’ whose goals are to be reached within the yearly time span allotted.

We then assign a teacher to the respective course, or, in the case of the elementary grades, a single teacher for the total curriculum content with a few exceptions involving reading specialists and art teachers.

All that remains is to decide how the subject material is to be taught to twenty or so individuals and how each of these learners will be graded. This act of `magic’ we leave to our teachers primarily.

Well, it goes without saying that the degree to which any individual learner, teacher, or institution meets with success is going to be extremely variable. As human beings we do in fact share many commonalties that can be made use of in learning (as well as other) situations. But there are differences as well that will surely get in our way. To ignore such differences in favor of looking and dealing only with our successful group outcomes, is to commit a grievous sin toward our fellow members of the community.

Genetic and environmental differences make all of us fairly unique in spite of our obvious social similarities in terms of attitudes, values, and beliefs. Although we may share certain psychological and sociological needs in common with our neighbors, the degree to which such needs have to be met will differ for each of us. For the effects of our individual genetic codes and characteristics upon ourselves is simply not known. The effects which our environmental characteristics will (or do) have upon us certainly needs to be known.

#

@PERSONAL CONCEPTIONS

Freedom to follow one’s own inclinations is to follow the dictates, values & beliefs of the society at large. We need to renew our confidence in and energies through a wholesale effort at interpreting and synthesizing the facts of the world with facts about individuals, their families and local environment.

Notion that people will do their own things if given the freedom is probably false. Trying to force `vicarious’ experiences upon an individual who cannot appreciate it is self defeating. The individual and society both lose.

All learning seems to involve vicarious experience based upon another’s experience’s; descriptions & explanation’s of the same.

There is too much stress on curriculum content and too little on learning processes and individual differences. Curriculum offerings should reflect factual or conceptual approach depending upon subject matter and learning goals

Too much emphasis on learning `facts’ rather than conceptual understandings coupled with information gathering skills. More emphasis needed on personal aptitudes, family and community environments. Need to demonstrate that it is okay to be on different levels from others in one’s own age group. Having parents in learning situations next to youngsters would go a long way toward righting this problem.

Individual explorations and research have gotten ahead of evaluation and synthesis. Most of such research deals with peripherals of knowledge branches whose gaps are never bridged. Analysis can and often is taken beyond the point that would have satisfied the original query. One must connect all such explorations up with the original query in order to see that this is so.

Analysis is carried forward by structure inherent in language, mathematics, logic, etc. Which all provide a forward momentum. The hidden impetus is the question or activity itself: “what are all the possible descriptions, delineations, circumstances, etc. About the thing in question?”

We engage the activity from this point, and, if we are fortunate, we add facts beyond those previously had or experienced. That is, we add potential or possible alterations to such experiences and call this new knowledge. The results of analysis must necessarily involve a good deal of `imaging’.#

#

@A DIALOGUE

There is a notion that holds that for any person to become truly educated, (free from shallowness and superficiality), he must fashion his own existence out of his own experience. Einstein put it in the following way:

Man tries to make for himself in the fashion that suits him best a simplified and intelligible picture of the world; he then tries to some extent to substitute this cosmos of his for the world of experience, and thus overcome it…Each makes this cosmos and its construction the pivot of his emotional life in order to find in this way the peace and security which he cannot find in the narrow whirlpool of personal experience.

Put simply, each of us relates to the world in a manner prescribed by our own individual makeups, and that our make ups themselves, are fashioned out of a number of things including genetic, environmental, and societal characteristics. No matter how these stack up in any one individual, this view holds that the individual will not achieve a completeness of self unless he has himself formed his own fundamental ideas out of his own experience. Following this endeavor, he may then be said to have a solid criteria (at least for himself) upon which to judge the validity of those facts and notions that will come his way throughout life. Even if his knowledge does differ from that of others, it will nonetheless be true to himself, and this is what counts.

One difficulty with this view is that it seems to be oversimplified; inasmuch as the preponderance of our knowledge does not come to us directly through our own personal experience. Rather, we are most always subject to `other person descriptions’ about the world, and rarely do formulate opinions based solely upon our own experiences. The fact is, what we claim to `believe’ or `know’ is pretty much an entangled mess which has left most of us in a pretty confused state.

We take the word of the historian pretty much, as we do the scientist, the plumber, mechanic TV. Repairman, etc. Rarely do we ever attempt to test their knowledge against our own. We simply admit that we do not know such things and accept the legitimacy of their knowledge on the faith that fallacies would be detected by others were they to be there. Our strong social sense; that is, the feeling that we are all but a small part of an immense network of fellow human beings moving forward pretty much together, puts our minds at ease. In this we find great comfort. Because of this, we are able to leave more and more questions for others to decide.

As for the society at large, the feeling seems to be (even if most of us are unconscious of the fact), that the closer our knowledge gets to the syllogism or to deductive reasoning, the more certain we can be of it. That is, the more closely a subject utilizes and is dependent upon scientific methodology, the more assured we feel about it. But when we get to political, social, and moral issues, whose tenets rest largely upon definitions, interpretations of doctrine, tests, assumptions, or from whatever is borrowed or can be borrowed from the rest of life, this feeling of certainty crashes to the ground. Anyone’s interpretation, and definition derived from the same, seems to be as good as anyone else’s.

Nowhere does there seem to be anything approaching a systematic attempt toward teaching or aiding individuals in the formulation of their respective beliefs. We simply assume that such attempts are being undergone within one’s home during early childhood. And this is partly correct. But few of us would dare to carry this notion too far; that is, to make claim that this is done to any degree of consistency and coherence. When all is said and done, our children are left pretty much on their own to formulate their own views of the world, based upon their own experiences. And in spite of our wishing it were otherwise, their conceptions and formulations will, perhaps, never be known to us.

To be sure, this subject has not been ignored by academicians and scientists. Genetic psychologists (like Piaget perhaps, the leader of the pack) have formulated a number of descriptions and theories in attempting to explain how individuals (especially children) formulate their conceptions of the world. But such classifications, definitions, and the models derived from them, must of necessity represent a choosing of certain facts of the situation, and a tossing out of certain others. Isn’t this what any construction (based upon classification) must contend with?

At what point, then, does an individual begin to fashion his fundamental beliefs for himself? I mean in a conscious manner, knowing what he is doing? If this process really is undergone in fact, then we should be able to answer this question. And if we can’t recall some of our earlier `conceptions’ or `formulations’, then maybe we could do this with the latter ones? Surely we ought to be able to describe a process that we supposedly engage in throughout the course of our lives! Or do we undertake such things in an unconscious manner, unbeknownst to ourselves, but describable by those who are capable of presenting us with such a picture?

I believe that all of us must admit that we simply do not go through life consciously formulating conceptions, and integrating these with prior ones, which supposedly represent our most `fundamental’ beliefs, and from which, we are able to test and formulate our respective views of the world! This is not to say that we couldn’t embark on such an endeavor if we so desired only that we don’t and this is the crucial point of the discussion that follows. For if we rarely do attempt to organize our thoughts and beliefs by seeking out a foundation for them to rest upon, and be consistent with, then upon what do our beliefs and general knowledge rest?

This is not to say that we never do this in thought or in attempting to answer questions; but, we don’t make an all out effort at creating and fostering such bases as a matter of course. And, unless we find or establish such a foundation, all of the beliefs we hold knowledge that we believe to be knowledge will only amount to knowledge accepted by us on faith or rudimentary agreement with things we value. For example, I may feel comfortable with the belief that there exists tiny microscopic organisms in the world, even if I have not had the occasion to view one of them. I believe this because it is common knowledge; that is, others have claimed to have seen them, I have seen pictures in magazines, there is a wealth of other knowledge about other microscopic findings other than organisms, etc. At the opposite extreme is the person who tells me that the world is going to end tomorrow because of a vision he has had and truly believes. I, on the other hand, have little reason to believe his vision will come about and a lot of reasons for doubting it. It’s too abrupt, disconnected with other facts in the world. I have heard other similar claims which did not come true. Some persons are put away for having such notions.

The point of all this is that we do in fact base our beliefs and actions upon more fundamental beliefs which we hold in some fashion or another. Even if such beliefs are not spelled out, even to ourselves, we do act out of them when we have a need to. And even when we are unsure of ourselves, if pressed, we can always make a decision based upon some feeling or shallow belief, even if we know it to be shallow. That is, we oftentimes understand the shallowness of our beliefs and knowledge but cannot always do anything about it. Which raises the question: is it possible, in fact, to build up a base of fundamental knowledge to such a level that any fact of the world could be judged in a consistent way? How many `levels’ of belief might some present day notion, fact or concept rest upon? Is there a simple, skeletal framework which we can easily fill, and which will serve us in this regard?

More importantly still is the question of whether or not the `inductive’ and `deductive’ models of consistency are true measures of the way we come to learn and know of things in this world. Do these models say it all? Does all reasoning rest upon these? Does language contain this same logic? Are such systems a reflection or a description of the way we have always formulated our knowledge, or were things different prior to their formulation? If language is any indicator of the way we think (and I surely believe that it is) then such logic was with us a long time before these models of it were constructed. Indeed, from what were such models constructed if not language and thought? But again, is this all that there is to it? Is it sufficient for us to get the job done? Will it be possible for each of us to effect a personal system of beliefs from which we can test and reestablish our knowledge on firm ground, all out of the utilization of these models? And, again, will it work after we have done so? That is, will we be able to put new facts into the machine and have solid understandings of their respective status come out for us?

While the primitive man would have had to have had a solid foundation of belief upon which to come to grips about the world, modern man does not. He has society for his foundation and herein places his trust. We have cut the umbilical cord between ourselves and our own experiences and have re connected it to society. How then, do we normally behave in such a regard. How do we normally respond to questions and facts that do not appear to fit well with the fundamental beliefs we hold? How do we handle uncertainties?

Let’s try to put these questions to the test by utilizing a dialogue format in the same manner as did Plato in his dialogues. The dialectic method is an extremely powerful means for exposition and criticism of ideas as it is unbiased. That is, criticisms may be directed at the arguments of either party with the same degree of force the author is capable of. And since it is the author speaking for each person in the dialogue, then he is, of course, able to argue against himself, not having to worry about which one of his characters will wind up on top!

Lets imagine a conversation starting between a high school teacher and a professor following a class on education.

Lets be honest now. Do you feel that our schools, on the whole, are failing us today?

Professor: Well, I kind of think so. It’s not an easy question to answer, there being so many things to consider and all, but I believe that they are. [The professor has assumed that offering his general feelings on the subject would satisfy the question]

Teacher: Well, what is it that makes you think so? You must have some reason for thinking this way, don’t you?

Professor: Well, look at what is going on today. Kids can’t even perform the simple skills of reading, writing, and arithmetic anymore. These same kids are being pushed through school until their old enough to quit or graduate. Worse yet, some of them come here to college. Wouldn’t you say that there’s something wrong with this? [The professor attempts to cite evidence for holding his general belief]

Teacher: Yes, but are we so sure that our schools are to blame? Are we so sure that they are deserving of even most of the blame? Your citing evidence of failure does not itself point to our schools as being the cause of it.

Professor: Where else does one learn to read, write, and calculate if not in school? Isn’t this where such skills have been taught over the last one hundred years, or more? We can make comparisons with past performance, you know, and it seems that we are definitely doing poorer work in this regard. [The argument now is that since current day failures are taking place in the same settings as past successes, something must be wrong within the setting, and it is this that is blameworthy.]

Teacher: Yes, but are we so sure that our schools deserve all of the blame? What about the quality of individuals coming into our schools? What about current attitudes, pressures and problems of youngsters that are very different from those of yesteryear. Couldn’t these have an affect on learning? The fact that there are so many broken homes, a much more open society, a strong influence from television, etc. All playing upon our youngsters?

Professor: Well, look here. I’m not trying to imply that there are not outside influences affecting what goes on inside our schools. My point is that we still need to deal with these in the school setting! Our schools still have the responsibility for teaching basic skills, for example, and in this they are failing no matter what the reasons!

Teacher: In other words, you believe our schools are failing us because they are not fulfilling their responsibilities to the degree that we would like? That, no matter what the prevailing circumstances, our schools must themselves prevail in the tasks allotted them? It’s hard to disagree with this, but it doesn’t seem as though we’ve made any progress. Things aren’t so black and white as you seem now to put them.

Professor: Well, you asked me if I thought that our schools were failing us. I am prepared to answer in the affirmative, citing the fact that there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the degree to which certain learning have met with success, (namely basic skills), has fallen far short of previous attainments. And since our schools are in fact responsible for meeting with certain levels of attainment, they may be said to have failed.

Teacher: Your logic may be right, but I’m still uncomfortable with it. It’s as though you were arbitrarily trying to `contain’ the question by imposing parameters which may or may not be valid. When we talk about failure and blame, we sometimes expect that we will have to look outside of the situation at hand. I agree that we need to look first and foremost at our schools themselves, but I can’t agree that we need to limit ourselves to these.

Professor: Well, why not? Have we in fact taken a good look at the workings of our schools? Have we taken into account for comparison, those practices which have remained the same over the years and those that have changed? Have we really undergone a thorough examination of ourselves prior to citing outside influences as potential sources of failure? Are you saying that this has been done in each of our schools and that the results of our study have compelled us to look without for a clearer understanding? Have we found no problems, no answers whatever in our examinations? If we have found problems and some answers, then what are they? Can they be righted or corrected within our institutions? Are we really on firm ground when we claim that they can’t? Or is this a cop out, stemming from our not being able, or unwilling to make an accurate assessment of the situation? A cop out from our not being able to admit to the overwhelming complexity of the situation for us and our inability to come to grips with it? Is this what it’s all about? Are we in fact not capable of assessing the situation for ourselves? Is there no one capable of doing it for us? Are we all too ashamed or embarrassed to admit of this?

Teacher: Wow! Slow down a bit. You’re throwing all sorts of things at me all at once. I agree with you that things do seem to be highly complicated these days, and complexity does seem to be growing along side the acceleration of change. Maybe we are incapable of finding needed answers. Maybe our problem has to do with our “learning more and more about less and less” as the saying goes. This is the result of our always having to further specialize as our knowledge increases, thus limiting the scope of our personal knowledge as we head toward higher and higher levels of complexity. I mean, how is it even remotely possible for someone to have the `big picture’ these days? At any rate, I agree that we need to look first at the subject of our original question before looking elsewhere, but I still believe that, in the end, we’ll have to go outside our schools for an answer to our question.

Professor: No! We’ll have to go outside of our schools in order to answer some further questions, perhaps; but as far as I’m concerned, our original question has already been answered in a justifiable manner. It doesn’t follow that because our schools may have failed us, that they are therefore blameworthy. They may in fact be so, but like you say, some of it may have to be shared with other counterparts. This point doesn’t concern me. We shouldn’t be concerned with blaming anyone at all. Blame shouldn’t even enter the picture. If a machine breaks down in a factory, we may say that it `failed’. We don’t then proceed to blame the machine! What good would it do? And this is the point. It would serve no purpose. We could no more pass blame onto the machine than we could attempt to fix it by going to something other than it. We may in due time go to some person who may have been negligent in caring for the machine (once we discover this to be a probable cause) but we begin by checking over and making necessary repairs to the machine itself, and go from there.

Teacher: Yes, but schools are made up of people not machine parts. At any rate, you feel that we should set blame aside and examine our schools first. Once this has been effectively done, we may wish to pass some of the blame onto some other aspect within our society; but we will do so, not so much to rid ourselves of blame falsely attributed to ourselves, but in order to identify further sources of problems in order to apply some form of therapeutic treatment?

Professor: Something like that. I just don’t think that we’ve done enough groundwork yet. We haven’t taken a close look at what’s taking place in our schools in fact, but we have already pointed to low teacher salaries, non relevant courses, too few hours spent in school, etc. As likely causes of certain failures. Come on now. Who are we kidding?

Teacher: Well, I happen to agree with everyone of those claims. Are you saying that you believe teachers salaries to be adequate for the tasks given them? Are you saying that the present day knowledge mass is not sufficiently large to warrant an increase in time for learning it? And how can you not see that certain of the courses our children are being subjected to are truly irrelevant to future goals and life as it really goes on? Who’s kidding who?

Professor: Listen carefully to what I’m about to say. Anyone can make a defense for anything at all. I can make a case for or against any of these considerations, and be just as convincing regardless of which direction I choose to travel. This is the major part of our problem. We are all pretty much capable of doing what I am claiming, and we all in fact do it. That is, we very often take one or another sides of an argument at one time, switch sides at some other time, each time defending our positions by resorting to rational processes, and usually (if we are good at it) we maintain consistency within these. Outside of the particular argument or situation, we show little consistency as we flit from one position to the next on different occasions.

Teacher: So what does this have to do with anything? You still need to argue a particular position when it’s called for.

Professor: Yes, but this is not the point I’m trying to make. What I’m trying suggest is that the only thing that may ultimately satisfy a question is an appropriate definition. Rather than argue the merits of increasing or decreasing teacher salaries based upon just anything and everything that can be brought into the argument, we would do better to get such preliminaries over with in order to get down to simple definition. Once we understand what it is a given teacher is supposed to do, and are able to evaluate the effectiveness of his or her doing it, we can then answer the question: how much should a teacher be paid? By simply stating that “this type teacher, at this level of knowledge, with this degree of experience, etc. Earns in this school district, such and such.” Whether or not one is satisfied with this answer is not important here, only that the question has in fact been answered.

Teacher: But you’re going in circles now! Life doesn’t work by some form of static definition; it’s dynamic! Formulating the definitions is where the action is! We don’t like saying that a teacher should earn whatever he or she is paid!

Professor: No! And what’s wrong with saying this?

Teacher: It begs the question that’s what! We’re trying to settle what salary `ought’ to be paid teachers, not what they are in fact paid. Definitions are after the fact. They are agreed upon descriptions which come after the fighting is over!

Professor: But do you have a rationale means for settling an `ought’ statement? How will you decide?

Teacher: I will do what any rational person would do. I will argue for increases on the basis of the supreme importance of the types of services teachers provide to our society as well as to individuals. I will compare their meager wages with their counterparts in other areas of the public and private sectors. I will argue for fairness and equality where I believe these to apply, and even for special considerations where I think these may be warranted.

Professor: In other words, you will do just what we have been doing since we began our conversation. And do you think that you will somehow reach some final or appropriate conclusion? Some point that will be impossible to argue further? That will be indubitable to both of us? That we will finally admit to being right? You’re dreaming again! I told you already that anyone can make, or argue for anything whatever, and do so effectively. We have the entire world to resort to for needed evidence. If we are able to make any headway at all, one over the other, it will be because of better logic, not because of so called evidence!

Teacher: You mean that arguments are going to be won on the basis of structural consistency or logic, rather than because of the contents of such structure?

Professor: That’s what I’m saying. Normative statements (ought statements) are especially prone to this. The possibilities for appropriate answers are virtually unlimited. The simple questions are those that can be answered by simple definition. But even here, one can go on arguing if one chooses:

“Is that a fish?”

“Well, not exactly. It’s a mammal and is called a whale”.

“But it looks like a fish!”

“Yes, but unlike a fish it has lungs and takes its oxygen from the air.”

“Well, it looks more like a fish than other mammals I know. I think that it ought to be called a fish!”

“But if we did this, it wouldn’t be classified properly.”

“Do you really believe that it is?”

Teacher: Alright, I get the point. But it seems more like a case for my side of the argument rather than your own. If the whale looks more like a fish than a mammal, then maybe we ought to correct our classification.

Professor: This would be most inappropriate were we to do so. You see, it will always be impossible to ever get rid of borderline cases. Classification is made possible by combining common elements of things and disregarding their differences. The number of common elements chosen is arbitrary but necessary. The more common elements chosen, the broader and all encompassing the classification. The fewer the common elements chosen, the tighter the classification becomes, leaving a greater number of differences to overlap with differences in some of our other classifications to which it is not a part. The point is, that so long as we leave something out, it will always be subject to some sort of difficulty, even if, the `leaving out’ is the system itself!

It is only when we take something as a whole that we can have anything approaching certainty. If I say that “the whole of anything is equal to the sum of its parts”, you will say “of course! How can it be otherwise?” You may also believe that such knowledge doesn’t deserve to be called knowledge since it is saying nothing at all. But how does this differ from the subject of algebra, for example? Couldn’t we sum up the subject of algebra by saying that “x = the sum of the parts of x”? Isn’t this the sum total of any algebraic equation no matter how many variables? Sure, the equations are oftentimes more complicated, requiring factoring and other simplifying operations; but at no time is the value of one side of the equation any different from the value on the other side (unless a mistake has been made), and therefore nothing new is being said.

Teacher: Yes there is something new. You are discovering the values of your variables, and this is the point of the whole study.

Professor: I don’t deny that algebra has this value or use for solving certain types of problems. But it does so by starting with the whole of something. Once one knows the value of x, he will then understand that the equation x+2=6 is no different from saying that 4+2=6 or 6=6. This is not anything new. The algebraic equation gets its strength from our being able to operate within a definition, identity, equality, or whole, if you will. At no time do we go outside of this identity while constructing or operating within our equation. All such operations must be internally consistent with this notion of identity or equality or the model breaks down.!

Teacher: So your point, then, is that these sorts of undertakings, when derived from logical wholes, retain their consistency throughout, and are therefore desirable modes to knowledge, providing we can find an application for them like we did for algebra. Well, who doesn’t know this? Everyone knows that mathematics has a higher degree of certainty than physics, and physics higher than biology, and on through the remaining social sciences until we finally get to the terrible uncertainties of the humanities. Our problem is that everything in this world can’t be reduced to a syllogism!

Professor: Maybe not. But this is precisely where all thought leads! Perhaps you weren’t aware of it, but when you asked me if I thought that our schools had failed us, in so doing, you began this very same journey toward the syllogism. Call it the nature of thought or of justification, or whatever you wish; this is how it works. I’m not saying that every question requires that we go this far in answering it only that we need to head in this direction when making the attempt. You see, logic didn’t appear from out of nowhere. It’s simply a refinement (classification, definition) of the way things are. When we attempt an answer to a question, we begin a process of de classification. We begin to unravel the various levels of distinctions which were made in order to arrive at its furthest point which is our present location. And I’m saying further, that if we are unable to connect up with this logical structure, we will forever remain on the same plane as we began, and nothing will be resolved.

Teacher: Is this what you meant when you claimed `I was dreaming’ so long as I thought that I could ever settle the question of teacher salaries without steering toward definition? It still doesn’t seem right. I mean all this stuff about algebra not saying anything new, or whales that may not be mammals…I just don’t know. It just seems to me that we’ve never had to go this far in answering our questions to date. And, further, how can we really be sure that all knowledge is built up in the fashion you just described? This business of varying levels of complexities, going from simple terms and operations to more complex ones, having illogical or false knowledge mixed in with the more `solid’ stuff; not knowing which level we’re at any given time; not knowing where to turn for truth or certainly regarding our notions…It’s all too confusing. It just seems to me that we never have to go so far in answering our questions!

Professor: And what questions have we answered to date? Are you so sure that social, political, and educational progress has rested upon our having answered questions within these spheres? Take another look `progressions’ within these spheres. It seems to me that `answers’ are the last impetus affecting change. Rather, we find circumstance, power, influence, or arbitrary judgments stemming from institutions sanctioned to make such judgments, etc. That directs most change in fact. Think about it. How many questions have you seen resolved in your lifetime? I mean, of course, satisfied in the sense that everyone concerned would attest to the accuracy of the rationale employed, and would, for that reason, be forced to concur?

Teacher: Then what are we to make of our body of knowledge? My god! Are you saying that most of us typically operate without knowledge or anything deserving of the name? Not everyone is rational, you know! Neither is everyone able to understand the rational process of which you’re speaking. This being so, there will always be differences of opinion which will have to be decided by those other means you mentioned. And this places us right back to ground zero, doesn’t it?

Professor: Maybe yes, maybe no. It all depends on whether we want to come to grips with the situation, really. You were disturbed when I indicated that our knowledge seems most certain when it comprises definitions, or when it constitutes a whole of something and our assertions remain consistent within it. You rightly indicated that all knowledge does not appear to be reducible to a syllogism, and that when it is so, it is only because we have already settled the issue. That is, we are able to formulate an appropriate definition or an appropriate classification after “the fighting is over”. As such, it is a sort of `sleight of hand’ for us to put it all into a nice neat, appropriately fitting package, and to call this knowledge.

Teacher: We’ll I thought so. But I don’t think that I understood some of the ramifications of what I was saying.

Professor: I don’t believe that either of us can be certain of such ramifications. You’re presently disturbed by the fact that our knowledge may not be what you understood it to be. That is, may not be of the quality you assumed it was. Am I right?

Teacher: Well, yes. I guess that I have assumed all along that knowledge was shaping our destinies more than anything else. And along with this, that it was good knowledge knowledge put to some form of test or another to gain consensus.

Professor: It may not make one bit of difference as to how we view this situation. If these ideas turn out to be an actual description or indication of the way our knowledge progresses, so what? Does this mean that anything can or ought to be done about it? I’m suggesting the possibility, now, that the establishment of a correct basis for deciding questions may prove to be irrelevant since this is simply not the way that things get done. Why suppose that the overall society will sanction it (like the scientific community sanctions its methods) when things can and do get done in other ways? Thus, if there is any merit at all to these remarks, practices formulated in light of them will most probably have to be imposed upon our institutions.

Teacher: Well, if it can help to answer questions as well as help each of us to clarify our own beliefs, it would certainly be important to all of us, wouldn’t it? From the standpoint of a democracy alone, isn’t an informed, knowing society, necessary to its continuance? Isn’t there today a danger in the fact that we seem to be progressively further removed from knowing things from our own perspectives?

Professor: Probably. But I’m not so sure that we’re ever sure of anything at all, let alone knowledge of a complicated nature. You see, formulating a theory of knowledge is by no means a simple task. In fact, it is involved with the formulation of an `ought’ rather than a description of what `is’. Each time that we succeed in formulating a comprehensive theory, something in our experience and thought shows it to be untenable, inconsistent, or nonsensical. I’ll show you what I mean. Tell me something simple and sure if you can?

Teacher: Okay. I like the taste of apples. Of this I am sure.

Professor: Alright, I can’t argue with that one unless I choose to philosophically. And I believe that to do this would be pushing the case for making your assertion too far. Give me another?

Teacher: Okay. My wife likes the taste of apples too. Of this I am sure.

Professor: On what is your certainty based?

Teacher: On the basis of her having told me that she likes apples. Also for the fact that she eats them all the time. And beyond this, I am certain that she is not trying to mislead me.

Professor: But you’ll agree that she could be misleading you?

Teacher: I suppose… But I am nevertheless certain that she isn’t.

Professor: But how can you be certain of this?

Teacher: I just am. There is no room for doubt. I can conceive of a possibility that I could be wrong, but I am certain that I am not.

Professor: Okay. I’ll grant you this. Philosophers call this type of certainty `psychological certainty’ and it is allowed so long as you agree to the logical (or theoretical) possibility of your being wrong.

Teacher: But I can’t be wrong about my “psychological certainty’, can I? When you asked me if I was certain, weren’t you asking me what I was feeling, and not what I might consider based upon some system of logic or understanding?

Professor: Yes, I was asking you, and you responded appropriately. However, if knowledge is to be considered as being something other than subjective, we’re going to have to rely on something outside ourselves to pose as a criterion for belief. This is what “objective certainty” is about. This, in fact, is what our whole discussion has dealt with thus far. Aren’t we now trying to present a case for basing our personal knowledge on a firm foundation of fundamental beliefs. How will we establish these beliefs if we don’t have the means for doing so? We’re looking for an objective base.

Teacher: Well alright. Can’t we use the evidence at hand for posing the belief in question?

Professor: Yes, I think it appropriate, although, I think that we need to go on to something more representative of core beliefs. I suppose that if someone were to ask you why you were buying a bushel of apples, you could answer that they were for your wife who loves apples. And it would not even have to be said that you, of course, wished to do something nice for your wife, and that this was the real reason for buying the apples.

Teacher: But it didn’t have to be the reason. I could have bought the apples simply because she likes them and not because I wanted to do something for her which I knew she would like. Why does this have to be the `real’ reason?

Professor: I believe that your wrong in this. There is no causal relationship between your buying apples and your wife’s liking them. There is no necessary connection here. But if you had said something like: “I love my wife…Part of my loving my wife is my desire to want to make her happy…I feel that giving her apples will make her happy…Therefore, I gave her apples.” Now this seems to carry more substance than merely buying her apples because she likes them. Now we know why. And what is there in this that can be doubted? Surely this would have constituted a rational action on your part.

Teacher: Yes, I believe it would have. But, like you said, current day problems and the variety of beliefs surrounding them is quite a different thing from the assertion that “I love my wife…I think I’ll buy her some apples!” Our actions may not be capable of causal explanations. This does not mean that there is something wrong with them only that we are wrong to try to `force fit’ all of these into some model. Why suppose all these intermediate steps? Where is the appropriate end to them?

Professor: Well, that’s the point, isn’t it. Which of these intermediate steps shall be appropriate to a proper explanation? Which will constitute the `real’ explanation? Let’s continue our examination. Shall we. Shall we begin with a basic belief and work upwards toward a more complicated structure or work from a complicated setting toward a more fundamental? What’s it going to be; the basic commandment “thou shalt not kill” or the question “should capital punishment be allowed?”

Teacher: Aren’t they one and the same thing, really?

Professor: No. One is a commandment that doesn’t admit of exceptions. The other is a question which raises a whole host of current day concerns related to it.

Teacher: I think that we should start with the simpler of the two.

Professor: And which one might that me?

Teacher: Why the commandment of course! How could it be otherwise?

Professor: Well, let’s wait and see about that, okay? Now if someone holds this basic command as being immutable, admitting of no exceptions, then it could easily serve as a basic or fundamental belief and decide a number of issues. For example, in answer to our latter question regarding capital punishment, we would say “no, capital punishment should not be allowed because such punishment constitutes murder and murder is always wrong.” In other cases, however, even this strongly stated belief can run into trouble. In answer to the question “should abortions be allowed?”, For example, we might quickly offer an emphatic “no!” For the same reason as before. “Thou shalt not kill!” But then someone asks “what is it exactly that shouldn’t be killed?” To which we respond “any human being whatever under any circumstance whatever!” To which our person next responds “and what, exactly, constitutes a human being?” To which we must pause for a moment.

Teacher: I can see what’s happening here. Things are going to get complicated from here on out, aren’t they. You’ve got to be very careful about the way you answer this question.

Professor: That’s correct. And you may also note that this person is asking for a definition. He wants the most fundamental basis for my argument in order that he may attack it. He wants to challenge my definition of `life’. Now keep in mind that this would not be possible if it were not for other prevailing circumstances. One hundred years ago, for example, no one would ask for such a definition because there was little need to. With the exception of a handful of biologists who may have been involved in re formulating such definitions in the interest of precision, no one cared. Abortions were wrong because they killed the child, clear and simple. When they were undergone, it was in response to a crisis not from inconvenience. What has changed?

Teacher: You mean that the fact that so many persons no longer believe that abortions are wrong points to some alteration or discontinuance of some other belief or set of beliefs?

Professor: Well, doesn’t it? Surely, we are forced to assume that not everyone holds to this commandment under any circumstances. Rather, many individuals want to admit of exceptions. Not because they are interested in making our definitions more precise but because they want to have abortions! But rather than put it so bluntly, most would find it easier to circumvent the real issue (the fact that one wants the right to abort a child) by denying that the abortion of a child is taking place at all. They want to remove the child from the picture entirely.

If I offer a definition of what I believe is appropriate for a human being, another may challenge it. We already said that our classifications were arbitrary; that they could be changed if we so desired, enough so that the whale may belong to the family of fish perhaps. This is possible to do but would unsettle a lot of prior knowledge and works if we were to do so. Besides, our classifications seem to be quite adequate for our purposes so far. If further refinements are needed, I’m sure that we’ll undertake them.

So we may ask: “can an embryo fit our description of a human being?” If we want it to, it can. But if some do not wish it to be so, they will try not to allow this. Who then, will be the final arbitrators. How will this question be decided? For my own part, I can be certain that any form of abortion is wrong since I will insist on holding to my own definition, and in so doing, I will be sure to advocate a definition of life consistent with it.

Teacher: Yes, I see the workings of the matter a little more clearly now. If we want to make the `embryo’ a part of our definition of a `human being’, we may do so just as we may make the whale a part of the `fish’ family if we choose to. Only in the case of the embryo, it becomes much easier since there is nothing to be altered or overturned. We would simply be making our definition more precise. But, again, who is going to decide the case? And, what if your own definition is opposed to that which is decided by law for the society at large? How will this affect your formulation or acceptance of your fundamental beliefs?

Professor: It will have nothing whatever to do with them. My personal beliefs are my own, and a democratic society promises to protect them. I can’t help what others may do out of their own beliefs, but I can help what I do. More importantly still is the fact that what constitutes knowledge or law does not necessarily constitute the basis upon which personal beliefs will rest. Respect for the law and other principles of a democratic society rests upon the rights of individuals ultimately, and because of this, should not come into conflict.

Teacher: Well just try refusing to fight for your country during war time and see what happens.

Professor: Because I may believe my country to be committing a wrong out of what it considers to be a necessity, does not mean that I should, therefore, ignore my country’s dictums or my own convictions, for that matter. What it does mean is that there will be further consequences to weigh in making my decision.

Teacher: But you can’t be sure that your country is committing a wrong only that you believe it is. It is your subjective judgment in the final analysis. At any rate, I think that we’re beginning to talk in circles again. We are supposed to be establishing objective knowledge upon which to base our beliefs. If society is going to have a rational basis for solving its problems, it needs to rest on something other than the subjective opinions of each and every individual, doesn’t it? Otherwise, it’s going to continue in the same way as you said before. That change will come about through circumstance, power, influence, and arbitrary (or personal) judgments emanating from our sanctioned institutions.

Professor: Yes, this is true. But remember. Not all knowledge is going to be objective unless we make it so. Law is objective in this stipulated sense. That is, it is a sort of `legislated objectivity’ that we all must conform to, even if we may not agree with. It is a means whereby we are able to overcome our emotions with legislated `reason’. In such a way, civilizations have progressed. In certain societies, it wouldn’t matter whether or not certain laws had a large base of support (in agreement with the beliefs of a large segment of the population) so long as they were enforceable! In a democracy, however, it does matter that at least a majority concurs. At least this is the principle advocated, even if it is our elected representatives that actually constitute such majorities when needed. The point being, that there will be certain general principles agreed to by the majority and many lesser ones held individually. When we say that our democracy requires a responsible citizenry, what we are saying is that all of us need to undergo this clarification of personal and general beliefs. That is, all of us ought to know what it is we do in fact believe. If we allow ourselves to rely increasingly on `hand me down’ beliefs, our democracy is going to draw to a conclusion. We may wake up one day only to find that what we considered was the case, was in fact mere illusion, only by then, it will have been to late.

Teacher: Are you suggesting that we may grow so dependent upon the beliefs of others as well as the charades of others, that we may not know the reality of our situation at all? That our system of government, for example, might have turned into an oligarchic form without our being aware that the change had in fact taken place?

Professor: I’m saying this and a lot more besides. Not only is it of extreme importance (in a democracy) for one to understand his own surroundings for what they are in order to be able to act in accordance with his own personal set of beliefs, but it is even more crucial yet that we all develop an understanding of the relationship we desire between the individual and the democratic majority.

Teacher: Well, this all sounds very nice, but what does it really mean? There are a lot of beliefs and practices we think we hold in our society that actually may not be the case. Is this what you are alluding to? The notion that, perhaps, the sanctity of individual freedom is not playing the part it ought to be playing in the formulation of our knowledge and laws?

Professor: I would suspect as much. We generally operate on the faith that things are moving along as planned, or as we were told that they would operate. Many things that we suppose operate on the principles of democracy, for example, do no such thing in fact. We don’t think of our educational institutions as business enterprises although they are in every sense of the word. We look upon them with the same endearing respect that we once held for our family doctor. We would find it difficult to believe that some of them could be more motivated by income than dedicated to the advance of education. We would find it difficult to think of such institutions as monopolistic enterprises, though they surely are. The individual states run the monopoly, decide the rules, and referee the game. When we talk about effecting reforms within our schools, oftentimes the context in which we may move is so minimal as not to matter much at all.

In like manner, we all feel as though our nation was developed through a consensus of the beliefs of the general citizenry. In fact, however, our nation was developed and directed, and continues to be developed and directed, by a variety of special interest groups, lobbies representing powerful industries, or wealthy and powerful individuals in general. Sometimes our representatives act out of what a particular constituency wants, but this grows less frequent as we individuals increasingly give up more and more of our own independence. Like abortions, it’s become a matter of convenience.

Teacher: I think you’re right in this assessment of certain shallow beliefs we hold as individuals in our society. But I don’t know whether to rest the blame with ourselves or with a society that is growing increasingly complicated each day. Who can be educated enough for all this? You said it yourself. There are few or no individuals holding the `big picture’ today. The world is simply too complicated.

Professor: Yes it is complicated and all too confusing. But I question as to whether it really needs to be. We grow up believing what we are told to believe pretty much. It’s almost like an open free for all in our society, such that everyone is pretty much free to do or say what he wants. This is not only true of individuals, but also goes for groups, institutions, governments, and media alike. In such a way, all sorts of influences come tumbling down on our heads. And little or nothing is said about these influences themselves; their relative authenticity, motivations, workings in general. Our schools, in other words, shy away from the dynamics of life in favor of offering descriptions of what has already been decided or agreed upon. “After the fight is over” as you put it, and regardless of whether such knowledge remains current with the facts of life as it is today or not.

Teacher: Well, we do get involved with some of these dynamics, in fact, but not in any comprehensive or organized way, if that’s what you’re opting for.

Professor: Yes. One blatant absurdity stemming from this lack is over the question of religion and public school education. Because we do not want school teachers teaching religion to our children, all knowledge of religion has pretty much been removed from (or greatly down played) in our text books. The absurdity of this action is commensurate with the degree to which Christianity, for example, has shaped western civilization. Our children do not begin to understand the extraordinary dimensions of this fact. They cannot begin to understand the manner in which it continues to affect our directions, as do particular denominations or evangelists buying up all that TV. Time to perform their `good works’.

Teacher: I’m detecting a note of sarcasm in your voice.

Professor: More than a `note’! Here is a primary example of the `free for all’ I just spoke of. Individuals have just as much right as governments to spread their doctrines and to manipulate people, if this is desired, into doing whatever is asked of them. If pandering to individual fears or conscience will win converts, money, or whatever else is desired, then such actions (freedoms) are allowed. After all, the populace is free to ignore the same if they so choose.

Teacher: And so a particular evangelist might extol the virtues of feeding the hungry of the world by word and with the use of pictures (those gruesome pictures of starving children) and fill their personal coffers along the way.

Professor: That’s right. People may believe that their money is going to save these children when only a small part, perhaps, is going this way. This is not to say that all such evangelist are crooks in disguise, but only that it is relatively easy for them to be so if they desire. And surely there is reason to suspect the motives of a good number of them.

Teacher: And you believe that a lot of the confusion surrounding such actions could be avoided with better education?

Professor: I believe this. I truly believe that we are growing less educated as our society grows more complicated. We like to say how much smarter our children are than we, but I don’t see it this way at all. It’s artificial intelligence if it’s anything at all a technological house of cards to be sure but a `house of cards’ all the same. Children today are learning more and more about less and less since their learning continue to distance themselves further and further from the real workings of life.

In real life, emotions rule more than reason. Reason remains an unobtainable ideal; a model which simply cannot be made to serve all of our purposes. Reason creates order in the same manner as does classification. But it remains a bogus ideal. To ignore this truth is to foster the greatest lie imaginable, while we wreak the greatest destruction possible to ourselves. To ignore this truth is to consider it appropriate to sit back while our leaders unravel difficulties that we as a society should be unraveling ourselves. To ignore this truth is to mistakenly believe that those difficulties which are encountered are difficulties having to do with knowledge and the appropriate ordering of facts. That all that we can (or should) do as a citizenry is to keep the faith that our leadership will prevail for the common good.

Teacher: And you no doubt would consider such a belief as being terribly naive?

Professor: And dangerous! The people who understand the truth of what I am saying are already playing leadership or influential roles within our society. They may carry the rest of us along because it serves their purposes, or because of past laws and practices which are still in effect but there are no guarantees that they will continue (or will need) to do so in the future. How thick is the line, really, between allowing abortions and legislating, encouraging them, and finally demanding them? How thick is the line between mercifully allowing the death of the very old and sick and legislating or demanding this? How thick is the line between safeguarding individual freedom and demanding that one conforms to societal dictums and laws? I believe that these `lines’ are growing ever thinner. The possibilities for such events to take place are real. The only thing lacking is the need!

Teacher: Whew! It looks like we’ve left the ivory tower to walk among the rocks. If what you say is true, we have a lot of waking up to do. At any rate, we’ve come a long way from my original question. It seems that all of our knowledge really is connected, and just flows from one stage to the next all too easily. I guess this is what you meant when you said that we have the “whole world of evidence and facts upon which to base or defend our assertions.” I’m beginning to get a better feel for these notions.

Professor: We’re both beginning to get a better feel for them. Things are just as confusing for me as they are for you; my upbringing and education being pretty much the same as your own. But we must continue to try to unravel these mysteries not by what we were told to be the case but what we can observe to be the case.

Teacher: Well, do you believe our schools are failing us? That was my original question, wasn’t it?

Professor: Yes. Are you going to ask me why I believe this?

Teacher: I don’t want to. But I almost feel compelled to repeat this whole scenario over again. Why do you suppose this to be necessary? It’s not as if you hadn’t responded to my question!

Professor: No. It’s not because of that. But what it does point to is the fact that we will continue to insist in obtaining definite answers to our questions. You still want your answer, that’s all. And you’re not going to be satisfied with anything short of this.

Teacher: I guess you’re right. I know that we’ve covered a lot of ground, but I’m still not clear on what it was we covered. I mean, I wish that we could in some way summarize our remarks.

Professor: We can.

TEXT CUT OFF…

Of individuals by threatening `damnation’ if rights going unchallenged

Professor: It appears to be. But I’m not so sure. I’m not so sure that `more’ of something means `more complicated’ necessarily. Maybe more confusing would be a better representation of the case. More history, law, literature, mathematics, science and technology means more has been learned, or more appropriately, has developed. But this does not mean that there is now more to be learned. Many products, for example, have grown more complicated in their makeup, but less complicated in their use. And isn’t this what most of us need to learn?

Teacher: Maybe so, but someone is going to have to learn about all the rest; namely, those involved with the creation of such products.

Professor: That seems to be the common sense notion, I admit. And it does appear to be correct. But is it really? Does the engineer work out trigonometric functions himself or utilize a booklet of tables with such formula’s already worked out for him? Does he perform mathematical calculations by hand or with the use of a calculator or computer?

Teacher: But isn’t this made possible only because he already understands how to calculate such formula’s for himself?

Professor: Why suppose this? Couldn’t an individual be taught to use arithmetic by use of a calculator alone?

Teacher: I doubt that. He would have to have some degree of understanding of the concepts of number, addition, subtraction, and all the rest. Without this knowledge he would not understand what the calculator was actually doing for him.

Professor: If what you are saying is that in order for one to understand how a calculator works one needs to understand those principles upon which it is based, I would agree. But must we also suppose that we need such an understanding in order to make use of it? Before answering, consider the following remarks written some forty years ago by the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein:

Now think of the following use of language: I send someone shopping. I give him a slip marked “five red apples”. He takes the slip to the shopkeeper, who opens the drawer marked “apples”; then he looks up the word “red” in a table and finds a color sample opposite it; then he says the series of cardinal numbers. I assume that he knows them by heart up to the word “five” and for each number he takes an apple of the same color as the sample out of the drawer. It is in this and similar ways that one operates with words. “But how does he know where and how he is to look up the word `red’ and what he is to do with the word `five’?” Well, I assume that he acts as I have described. Explanations have to come to an end somewhere. But what is the meaning of the word “five”? No such thing was in question here, only how the word “five” is used.

Teacher: What he’s describing is something akin to a trained animal. This isn’t how humans act!

Professor: Oh no? I suppose that it’s all too mechanical for you, not enough `mental imagery’ going on. Is that the problem?

Teacher: Of course! We simply can’t assume that such actions could ever occur without an accompanying understanding. It is our understandings that motivate us to act.

Professor: Are you able to drive an automobile, enjoy the use of a television, make use of a computer, and other things of this sort? And if you answer `yes’ to this, is your being able to make use of these items based upon any understanding whatever regarding their makeup?

Teacher: I suppose not. But I do have to know how to make use of these. Is this the same thing?

Professor: Well, isn’t it? Can’t you in fact be trained to use such items as these, and trained to make further use of them still, as in the case of the computer, for example. Couldn’t someone give you a program that would accomplish a certain task and have you accomplish the task without understanding the program? Well, if this is true, then why can’t you imagine that an individual could be trained in the use of a calculator without understanding it?

Teacher: Because the use of a calculator is to calculate! How will he recognize its appropriate use unless he understands something about this?

Professor: That’s a fair point. You seem to be able to see how you might be trained to make use of a computer program without having any understanding regarding whatever it is that makes the computer or the program itself work. But when it comes to the calculator, things get stickier. Is that right?

Teacher: That’s right. In the computer example, the computer itself is programmed to take the place of a person. That is, it contains the `understanding’ that makes using it possible. And don’t tell me that I’m conceding your point in saying this, because without human understanding, the computer would not be possible at all.

Professor: Fair enough. I’ll give you that much since my doing so in no way undermines the strength of what I’m about to say. No matter what it was that made possible computers, the fact is that they do exist. No matter what it takes to formulate or write a program for the same, the fact is that they too exist. Given these facts, and the further fact that we can be trained to make use of these (without an understanding of how they make such a use possible), we must conclude that no primary base of knowledge or `understanding’ is necessary to such use. Now if this is true, then it would also follow that more knowledge does not necessarily entail further complications. Indeed, for the majority of us, it may prove to be just the opposite.

Teacher: Yes, but I will repeat my earlier point. Someone will have to have this understanding? Or several persons will have to have complete understandings of their several parts.

Professor: Not at all! Do we need to understand how to make a spear? Forge a tool? Weave a garment by hand? Build a wagon? A sundial? Some tasks have simply been replaced by others and no longer are dependent upon them in any way. That is, while certain skills, implements, and understandings may lead to the development of still further skills, implements and understandings, the existence, use, and understanding of the latter ones may presently have no connection whatever with the former.

Teacher: I still feel that there needs to be some sort of connection here. I can’t keep myself from feeling this?

Professor: Alright. How is it that it is possible that we are talking together presently?

Teacher: I don’t understand your point.

Professor: You exist don’t you? That is, you are an off spring of your parents. That is, that unless they existed first, you would not now exist. Isn’t this so?

Teacher: Yes, of course.

Professor: Then tell me. Isn’t it possible for you to live your life without having to know any of this? Without having to know who your parents were; what parents are in general; or even any understanding whatever about birth? Isn’t it possible that you could not know any of these things and yet go on living?

Teacher: Of course. But what’s your point?

Professor: My point is that you yourself are a primary case in support of the position I’m presenting. You have a life of your own; a life no longer dependent upon the fact that your parents made it possible. And the same will hold true of your off spring. Why suppose that the progression and use of knowledge works differently?

Teacher: Frankly, I think we’re making too much of a moot point.#

#

@IT’S NOT THE FACTS THAT MATTER
[Excerpts of this article printed in Rochester Times Union]

I was delighted, as usual, to read Governor Cuomo’s remarks in last Sunday’s `speaking out’ section. The man has a flair that cannot be denied; a magnetism whose force derives from an obvious sense of fairness based upon a capacity to reason intelligently. He cuts through rhetoric and special interest qualms with a razor sharp mind,disarming proponents of measures which had, until now, seemed obvious and appropriate to most of us.

And so we learned from our Governor that the city of Buffalo really ought to pay for its own stadium, in the same way as Rochestarians really ought to pay for their own Bay Bridge, or for housing the Eastman Archives, etc. They ought, in other words, to rely less on state aid or assistance in matters which can, in fact, be handled locally. Well, what of this?

We also learned that Walter Mondale was right on the issues and that “he’s being proven right on most of them.” Mondale said: `let’s sit down with the Russians’; `the deficit is killing us’; `there’s nine million poor going unnoticed’; and `we will need to raise taxes’. The Republican response, according to the Governor, was: `no negotiations’; `don’t worry about the deficit’; `what poor?’; and definitely `no tax hikes’. And after the election, we now find an administration negotiating with the Russians; concerned about the deficit; acknowledging the poor; and soon to be acknowledging the need for having to raise taxes, says the Governor. Well, what of this? Who could deny the truth of such statements?

And finally we are told that “you don’t win campaigns with issues. You win campaigns with Olympic flags. You win campaigns by creating auras.” And that we Americans, in effect, have merely been `duped’ by a president, who in the Governor’s words: “looked good, [is] totally non menacing, who was just the soul of geniality and affability.” Governor Cuomo did not use the term `dupe’ in his remarks although this was the implication. The point is, president Reagan has a way of making us feel good, even at the expense of denying us a look at reality. And who could deny this?

And yet, for all this seemingly impeccable logic, there still seems to be something which is lacking. There remains something inappropriate in all this, although difficult to pinpoint. How could Governor Cuomo be so right and yet wrong?

The answer, in my opinion, lies in the Governor’s reluctance to attach (and see the need for attaching as much or more) importance to our need for `positive thinking’, `hope’, `faith’, etc. As to our obvious need for truth. This is not, however, an easy concept for us to grasp. We have all been taught that knowledge is supreme; that facts tie us to reality in a way that our emotions never could. That it is our knowledge that `orders’ our universe for us, and without which, we could never accomplish anything. But, oh, if we only dared look!

We are so accustomed to this view that we fail to reason why it is that we cannot answer the so called issues with our knowledge! We conclude that such issues are sticky, very complicated, and deserve further study or consideration, etc. What we should conclude, however, is that such issues are never settled by an agreement of facts, or knowledge, if you will. Whether or not abortions, for example, ought to be allowed has nothing whatever to do with our definition of a human being. This was made an issue by those who wanted to deny such status to the embryo. By making the definition more `precise’, we can eliminate the human from the commandment “thou shalt not kill”.

We can make our classifications in any way we choose, such that, if we want, a whale can belong to the family of fish instead of mammals, or the chimpanzee be joined to the family of man! However, since such classifications are already incorporated into our knowledge mass, unlike a more precise definition of what constitutes a human being, the latter remains much simpler to effect. Regardless, what will ultimately decide our more `precise’ definition of a human being will be a panel of judges acting out of their own perceptions of the facts which will include individual and societal interests and ramifications. That is, their decision will incorporate all sorts of `facts’, but, in the end, will rest on pure emotion, the final arbitrator of transformation and change.

While Governor Cuomo believes that his facts really matter, President Reagan has shown them in their true light. How can the fact of knowing that there are nine million unaccounted for poor answer the question as to what ought to be done about them? How do you measure the power of faith not only to transform individuals but to enable them to achieve what no facts about them could have ever indicated? It is this intuitive feeling that defeated Walter Mondale and not President Reagan’s actions themselves. Yes, he helped to bring them to light for us, but we ourselves had to `see’. We were not duped. We acted out of an intuitive awareness that he was right and Walter Mondale was wrong. We American’s sensed, and knew from our own individual cases, that we are operating far short of our capacities. Knowing this of ourselves, we know that it is true of most of the rest of us as well. Making money “the old fashion way”, as John Houseman so aptly puts it; that is, by “earning it”, will help us out of our current dilemma’s. And no one is going to convince us that we are wrong about this.

I am an ardent admirer of Governor Cuomo and I was not saying this initially to set him up as a `straw man’. He is not wrong in his facts. Neither was Walter Mondale in his. Neither is the democratic party for that matter. The irony of this whole affair, as the other side of the coin would show, is that our President “is wrong and yet so right”! That is, he may oftentimes be wrong about his facts; demonstrating an obvious difficulty in disavowing, disguising, or even avoiding them when necessary, but that’s only because of the status we have given to `facts’ in our everyday political and social affairs. The hardest thing president Reagan has had to contend with is trying to establish the relative unimportance of such facts in righting the ills of our society, while at the same time, being unable to spell it out specifically. Perhaps he doesn’t understand the specifics himself, only knowing intuitively, like the rest of us, that he is correct in his thinking.

It was President Reagan who turned us away from government as a panacea to societal ills and made us look at ourselves for such solutions. It is president Reagan that has had to (almost single handedly) overcome or circumvent powerful forces standing in his way, many of which, are found within his own party. And, he has been made to look like a `buffoon’ in so many ways because he cannot, or dares not, express the facts of what he is doing. Let’s look at an example of this.

In espousing his new federalism, (along with a variety of personal values and social and political goals), the president has shaken up people on both sides of the political fence leaving both democrats and many republicans at a loss in making sense of apparent inconsistencies in policy. While extolling our need to safeguard our national defense, our social security system, and to protect the citizenry from unnecessary tax increases, the president has, at the same time, asked the congress to attack the deficit! Such restrictive parameters are mind boggling to most in congress, and defy understanding, much less, compliance.

The democratic party wants to attack the problem `logically’, just as would Governor Cuomo would, I am sure. They want to freeze government spending across the board, thereby enabling us to maintain existing programs until such a time that we will be able to afford them. They want to increase defense spending over a longer period (ease into it), raise taxes somewhat, and eradicate deficit spending altogether while beginning to whittle down our massive debt. Now what could be wrong with this? Why can’t our president see the logic to this, they ask? Is the man a fool? Is he really that naive? Indeed, more and more republicans are asking the same questions. Meanwhile, our national debt continues its upward momentum while our president complacently `fiddles’.

Those of us who also find inconsistencies within such policies, perhaps, ought to take a closer look at the man. It may well be that this president is after much bigger game than what seems apparent from current moves made by him! He has all along espoused conservative ideals, but we suspected otherwise whenever his actions seemed to belie this. He really has indicated time and time again that he dislikes big government and its bureaucratic mushrooming into areas which were never intended for it. He really does believe in federalism, or putting power and responsibility back into the hands of the individual, the local community, and only then, into the hands of state and federal governments. By allowing our national deficit and overall debt to soar, while at the same time setting certain (impossible) parameters in which congress must operate, he has in effect forced the congress to deal directly with the problem as he sees it. Wielding his `veto power’ over head, congress is left to cut government spending and programs at an ever quickening pace. Racing against impossible odds, they must eliminate the deficit through cuts alone, since cuts alone are all they have to work with! Being the responsible leaders they are, and not wanting to risk losing their constituencies, they are willing to do exactly what the president has intended for them all along. The “torch” has been passed!

Not wishing to raise the question as to which side represents the real “buffoons”, suffice it to say that we are all buffoons at one time or another. These matters are really not simple. There is a great deal of confusion regarding them. But we need, more than ever before, to question how it is that each of us can be so right and yet so wrong? Or, perhaps, better put: how is it that both sides of an issue can appear to be so right? Maybe now we can understand that it is because they an in fact be both right. That is, what we believe to be dichotomous or opposing facts are really running on parallel tracks. We only need to look!#

#

@GOD SAVE THE CHILDREN

I have felt, for some time now, that our greatest failure in education today, has been our blind pursuit of education itself. That we have become so accustomed to accepting the worthwhileness of the goal (the stated curriculum), that we have all but forgotten the terrible price that we and our children are forced to pay for it. And, as if this price in human suffering were not enough, the prize, as it turns out, is no real bargain at all!

Those who prove adaptable to the prescribed model demonstrate an ability to “assimilate” knowledge. Assimilation (although a worthwhile enterprise) is a far cry from creation, discovery, and understanding which are at the real foundations of learning and knowledge. By restricting ourselves to having to remain within the parameters of the educational model set up for us, we have sacrificed learning for the rewards accompanying conformity.

And what of those who prove themselves less adaptable to this system, for whatever reasons? Well they, of course, must suffer the humiliation of knowing that they are not “worthy” of the prize. And what do these children know of the worthwhileness of, or the purported purpose of pursuing such a prize? Little or nothing. They remain victims of our ignorance!

And because we continue to persist in following this chimera, (repeating and conforming to current educational and societal goals), we have all but forgotten the very crucial role that the individual must play in the real process of learning. We have severed ourselves from our emotions and sensations–the very foundations for all that we aspire to.

Of course, in a democratic society, in a sense of “fairness”, we give all of our children “equal opportunity” to pursue the goal which has been laid out for them. What we don’t give them (can’t give them), however, is equal interest, ability, access to, and anything else that makes a difference. But, again, in our humanness, we do allow acceptable “degrees” of success. This makes it possible for greater numbers to fit our restricted model. If we didn’t, we would somehow have to justify our claims that, perhaps, ninety percent of our children were educationally deficient or unworthy of some of the rewards that often accompany an education.

As it is, we only have to say this for about twenty percent, perhaps, for we have discovered a new way of “fudging” the numbers and “forcing” the fit. We simply lower our standard of conformity! But this isn’t all of it. No, we go one step further; we “sift out” those least likely to succeed from those who stand a better chance for success–and we say that doing this will be “more conducive to learning for all concerned”! This sifting process (they call it “tracking”) usually continues until there remains one group which is usually termed, or thought of as “emotional misfits”. Needless to say, we already understand what their chances are for success.

And now the battlefield of education is strewn with the bodies of our dead and wounded children. It is a ragged and tattered army we are left to contend with. And we wonder how it all came to be.

But instead of looking to the army, its officers, the battlefield, or to the task of education for answers, we choose, instead, to offer further impetus and support for what has gone before. Yes, we will provide extraordinary means, if necessary, to force our children into the present mold. More hours! More days! More money! More math and science! Better teacher education! More this, more that, extend this, extend that!–For the “model” remains dearer and more certain to us than our understanding of the pain our children are left to suffer. For society must know better, and surely is better equipped than we to “define” our children for us. And a definition formed from “reason” wins over one formed from love.#

#

@JULY 31, 1985

Our struggle for economic independence is the same struggle as the one we wage for our own survival. We are yet competing for food, shelter, and clothing when we are competing for dollars or for financial independence. Such a goal is at bottom a reach for security–for that level of independence which we hope will free us from having to worry about the continual procurement of our basic needs. Of course, beyond these, there are a whole host of other materials which have come to be viewed by us as basic necessities.

Thus, having a home without an energy supply to run the numerous human energy saving devices that we have grown so accustomed to, is not to have satisfied our “basic” needs. Yesterday’s luxuries quickly become today’s basic needs. The automobile has rightfully become so given our strong dependence upon transportation for the procurement of so many other things. The expression “basic transportation” is significant in this regard.

The “struggle” seems perpetual! Not only are there a whole host of materials and devices which have now become for us basic procurement, but we find that there is a need to now maintain or replace these at various times. From such a need has grown a gigantic “service industry”. And it is growing ever larger as we grow ever more accustomed to monthly “security payments”. These, of course, are intended to relieve us from having to face anxieties in the future. We could call it “anxiety consolidation” like we do with “debt consolation”. That’s right, we presently have the luxury of being able to consolidate our little anxieties into one large monthly anxiety! Like its counterpart, we simply pay in advance for present peace of mind, or for the freedom of not having to worry about burdensome and sometimes disastrous events. We mortgage a little more of our futures (our future earning potentials and, ultimately, our earnings) in the same way as we may have been forced to pay off our father’s debts in days of old.

But do we “willingly” do this? How many of us really understand the path(s) we are following?–Those influences compelling us?–Or the ultimate consequences they will have upon us? Perhaps none of us–but this does not stop us from feeling something uncomfortable. Something gnaws within us when we find there is very little left over at the end of each month. We wonder how it is that we can be so fortunate while somehow feeling that we are on the brink of disaster? Illusion or delusion?

In the more fortunate societies of the world, force has been replaced by “influence and persuasion” while influence and persuasion continue to get their force from the flow of the way things are. And what makes things the way that they are? The maintenance of accumulated wealth, of course! The struggle goes on. To a lesser or greater degree, we continue to compete for the commodities of life; that is, those of us who have not yet reached a level of procurement satisfaction, or who are presently finding ourselves in need of maintaining what we have, rather than compete for what we don’t. This is the so called “status quo” that the more radical elements of our society are so fond of criticizing. It represents those members of society who have “made it”, or who have “established” themselves and now wish to maintain their wealth and the structures which support it. And, perhaps, we should be somewhat proud that this is the way things are. Who among us would want the status quo to comprise those who are “not making it”? Not only does this seem to be a contradiction in terms, but a contradiction to good sense as well.

Think about it, how could their be a status quo of lesser achievers? Surely this could only come about through some form of legislation or control by those who have the power to effect such ends. Woe be to us if our legislature takes this path. Without plateaus of assurances and security, civilization would not progress beyond raw competition. Could creativity, which was instrumental in defining and fostering the humanitarian aims of our present society, ever have germinated in unstable soil? No, the prizes must remain. And, furthermore, we must continue to strive toward making this an attainable goal within our own lifetimes.

In our country, we have made such security attainable within ones life span–oftentimes, well within ones life span! This represents a remarkable milestone for humankind in its longtime competitive struggle for life and security, but we would be deluding ourselves if we didn’t also recognize the costs to others. Nonetheless, if the status quo is maintained (as it should be), such plateau’s will (and ought to) make it easier for others to follow. Without such assurances, those who have made it will not relax their grip for fear of losing what they have gained. They will not be good candidates to put into service for the rest of us. And this is the crux of the matter–the well spring of civilization, if you will. The hungry lion is not so apt to share the carcass as would the satisfied lion!

Besides, each of us carries all of humankind with us, whether we wish it or not. Just as the makeup of one society affects the makeup of other societies, they in turn affect each of their members in the same way. The question of trying to decide how much of society’s extra baggage we are going to put on the shoulders of our achievers in order to ensure that they take the rest of us with them, is a mute one at best. No matter how much we legislate to make such assurances possible, such legislation will only encumber pioneering efforts and make all of our futures even more uncertain. We can advance ever so slowly together (making all of our members shortsighted), or we can pave the way for pioneers to explore–to create advanced settlements in the unknown regions of our futures. The need for this “look ahead” is imperative today.#

#

@NUCLEAR DELUSION
(11-14-85)

Well, here we go again, it’s summit time! At this very moment our president and the leader of the Soviet Union are sitting opposite one another in Geneva, Switzerland. Why? Presumably because we are in fear for our live, to put it bluntly!

We should think carefully about this all too familiar scenario; firstly, because it focuses upon the essence of our current state of existence, and secondly, because it reflects the reality of the awesome power which rests in the hands of so few individuals. Just think for a moment about the four billion other human beings who are not now present at this meeting, but whose very fate (or lives) may depend upon its short or long range outcome. When we think of it in these terms, all other major issues, like international terrorism, poverty, hunger, or crime, seem paltry against the backdrop of potential annihilation.

At this juncture, then, it seems of little consequence for us to argue the complicated nature of the world; or that the various intertwining cultures and ideologies, systems and beliefs, will, somehow, have to be dealt with, or at least considered, if we are to settle anything at all.

But, in fact, no matter how hard we try, no matter what number of attempts we make at sorting out the prevalent confusion, after all is said and done, we are still confused and left facing the same reality: that our very existence is in peril, and that only a few of our members are dealing our fate.

So long as this reality persists, each of us will have to find his or her own way of dealing with it. Some of us will find comfort in the faith and hope that our leadership will in some way resolve these issues for us. Others will find solace in the very confusion surrounding the issues themselves; or rather, in the knowledge that we are not alone in believing these matters too complicated for our understanding, and that “we needn’t concern ourselves” because of it. And there will still be others who will be able to somehow decide issues for themselves, voice their opinions, or even perform certain actions in light of them.

But this is not to say that such individuals are in any way closer to truth and reality because of it. There are a number of philosophical viewpoints regarding the relative nature of such concepts as truth and reality; but suffice it to say, that what they point to is very much the same thing as what we wind up with after making our decisions something always short of “objective reality” something that no two persons can agree to with certainty.

In any case, delusion is always present in the absence of certainty, if we care to look, that is; growing out of the same fertile soil from which we derive our “knowledge” perhaps with a stronger presence than knowledge itself certainly no weaker. And out of such soil is constructed our systems of knowledge and entire systems of “delusion” as well!

Now the grandest delusion of them all has been our failure to recognize this very fact. We find it easier to disavow the existence of delusion rather than deal with it. It is easier to believe “on faith” that there are persons who are not confused; but who, instead, have a firm grasp on reality, and know how to deal with it. It’s like our trusting that there is a “standard meter” or “standard clock” by which all meters and clocks may be measured. Unfortunately, while this may be true for measuring devices, it is not true for knowledge and certainty.

While the subject of delusion has been variously treated by poets, philosophers, and social scientists alike, it is, more often than not, simply an aside to some other “accepted” subject matter. The depth of treatment to which it deserves is rarely undertaken, because it represents a sort of “carnage” leftover from our battle with knowledge remains which we do not choose to recognize.

In the Nuclear Delusion: Soviet American Relations in the Atomic Age, George Kennan, noted historian, Pulitzer prize winner, and former Deputy Ambassador to the Soviet Union, allows us a glimpse of delusion from an historical perspective. The sort of delusion Mr. Kennan deals with is relatively simple. It derives from a coupling of distorted facts with certain human characteristics we all share. It is peripheral to the more fundamental delusions uncovered through conceptual analysis, but it is a an important step in the right direction. And since it has everything to do with our present situation and, specifically, with the negotiations currently taking place in Geneva, I believe it is right on target:

When a military planner selects another country as the leading hypothetical opponent of his own country, the opponent against whom military preparations and operations are theoretically to be directed, the discipline of his profession obliges him to endow that opponent with extreme hostility and the most formidable of capabilities. In tens of thousands of documents, this image of the opponent is re-created and depicted in all its implacable formidable, until it becomes hopelessly identified with the real country in question. In this way, the planner’s hypothesis becomes, imperceptibly, the politician’s and the journalist’s reality. Even when there is some degree of substance behind the hypothesis, what emerges is invariably an overdrawn and distorted image. (P220)

Mr. Keenan goes to great lengths in his book to demonstrate the manner in which our Western perceptions of the Soviet Union, its character and motivations, have been greatly distorted. If this is true, it is certainly important for us to recognize it as being so. But, more important yet, is the fact that if he is right, our president (and most of us with him) are wrong. And since it is our president who is bidding for our very sanity, sanctity, and life, then it behooves us all to get clear of this confusion.

Distortions entail instability and inconsistency, which, Mr. Kennan, claims are vital prerequisites to successful policy. And we should all know by now just what it is that rests upon the success of our policies.#

#

@THOUGHT OUTLINE

Problem resolutions are subjective and relative, dependent upon satisfaction of individual or group setting parameters

Objectivity in problem resolution is no more than agreement on both sides as to their meeting satisfaction or their expectations

major problem is uncertainty as to knowing for certain that you have gained satisfaction and that the other side did not gain more than you. It is not enough that you alone have gained

The problem then is that opposition is presumed at the start that there is a conflict or battle to be won. A competition the resolution to this problem comes from dissolution of opposing parties

Is truth relative to culture, political system & beliefs?

There are many different types of resolutions to problems: explaining away, eliminating through ceasing a practice, incorporating into model of explanation, etc.

Are limitations to knowledge necessary as are limitations to sensations? When we overcome our limitations by posing a model, description, definition, form, etc. Are we making knowledge possible though relative always?

Must we synthesize to escape losing ourselves in the multiplicity of knowledge strands we have created?

Have we all along, and are we now, far removed from our base memory to language to computer, etc. Mathematical calculations by memory and writing to calculators and programmed computers? Must it be this way? New born baby can no longer survive without being cared for … Have we continually been shifting to ever higher levels which require apparatus to sustain us? Are we all somewhere between our most fundamental selves and our constructs? Is this the basis of our confusion? Do we bounce around from one level to another without knowing? Do we use apathy and no choice or decision as a means for dealing with an impossible decision? Are more and more of us reacting passively to such a situation as life grows more and more complicated for us all?

Thought and analysis seem to be open ended or never ending. We never run into a dead end unless we defined what end we desired in the first place. But insights can flow from us like different uses we put to language. What is this process which goes out in every direction from every tentacle of human knowledge? Is there a point where such insights come back upon themselves overlapping or saying the same as before? Making an outline filling it in using same or similar outline for filling in filling in, ad infinitum? Or what?

Focus, form, classification, etc. Separates a piece of existence from all the rest. Paying attention to certain elements over others, seems a hopeless undertaking given the immensity of things and possibilities in the universe

In terms of understanding, do you need to first understand the whole of something before you can understand any single element within it?

Where is the starting point for human knowledge? How do we define direction in terms of knowledge acquisition? Reflexiveness or reflection seems absent from an infant’s or adolescent’s life. When does it begin and how?

Reflecting on thought with thought is like trying to lift yourself up by pulling on your ankles. Like defining a word with other words.

Is the birth of reflection or reflexiveness to be found in public interaction (through physical expression and language) entailing others to give them meaning? Meaning must be public it would seem? Pointing to ourselves would be meaningless if no one else were around to understand it and if no one else were around to understand it it would be meaningless to ourselves!

Without memory, imprinting, signing, drawing, expressions, etc., we could not be reflective. Memory provides us with familiarity which is no more than repetition in its final analysis. No memory no language …

Confusion different from ignorance. Ignorance entails not yet knowing while confusion entails not understanding what is present or knowing what it would take to decide. Confusion and decision knowledge and expression (explanation, description)

What does the progression from simple to complex actually entail? Complexity seems to be “ordered” and thus can be disentangled in principle. How do we uncomplicated a matter? Which factors are crucial, peripheral, non essential?

Are humans “pre programmed”?

We are most certainly capable of focusing or attending to certain of the objects of our sensations. In such a way we are able to discriminate and remember. We do not know, to my knowledge, what happens to those objects (field of vision, words read while daydreaming, etc.) Which have not been attended to. Are they in some separate compartment of memory or have they not been taken in? Or have they been taken in only to the degree that they were attended to? The more attention paid, the more imprinting (chemical storage, whatever) taking place in our brains. Is this how it works? And further, is there a release value (or time frame) for unused impressions to simply disappear altogether from memory storage? What about old people remembering vivid memories of youth?

Fact: we can’t recall everything that has come into our field of sensations. Fact: repetition or repeating sensations makes likelihood of remembrance greater. But only if attended to! Focus and concentration are the main ingredients here!

Weeding out distractions from elements within a field is helpful to learning. But desire to focus is crucial! Creating artificial environments involving all sensations associated with real environment would be extremely helpful to any learning situation but still secondary to desire.

Desired ends tend to focus one’s attention while negative ends have the opposite effect. We need to locate immediate needs of individuals to assure strong connections. We can and do force concentration through negative reinforcement (you’ll never get a good job unless…) But this is unfortunate and a form of blackmail and control. Through a control over interest and concentration, we can exert a control over behavior

Cultural bias as reflected in language. Would lack of antonyms for certain words in our language point to the same? Or is this an impossibility? All relational words requiring an intelligible opposite for its own existence?

Controls are everywhere prevalent in life. Are they necessary always? Define “control” in its simplest terms. Can it be that it is no more and no less than our giving shape to one thing over another in the same way as we focus or attend to elements within our experiential fields? Definition, explanation, communications, etc. All imply control! We are all controllers at the same time as we are followers it is merely relative to whatever situation we happen to be in at any given time

Each time that we attend to something, we leave something else out. It is a self restrictive practice leading us to give up a part of our freedom in order to engage something else. And each time that we do this, we do so for some greater good (even if imagined or wrong). Thus the more we conform to the mutual needs of others and ourselves, the more restrictions we have placed upon our own freedoms. But what of the new choices and freedoms that present themselves to us as a result of allowing such vulnerability? Aren’t there even greater choices open to us? Perhaps. But now, I must take into consideration the desires or choices which other members of the “compact” when making personal choices. The situation is complicated. Responsibility increases and we begin dealing with “classes” of people.

And what of the knowledge tree? Is there not a parallel here? Each time we attend to something, we leave something else out. It is a self restrictive practice leaving us to give up something in favor of something else! Think of the process of classification involving the perception of similarities in things and choosing to attend to only the similarities and not the differences! We’ve lost something in the process, but have gained a whole host of new freedoms as well. But now we need to consider a great deal more when considering any one thing. We begin dealing with “classes” of knowledge and finally systems.

Is it possible to outline the patterns of control and vulnerability (or self restriction)? Where do such practices lead? Toward fewer or more freedoms? Toward a different kind of freedom a sort of “restrictive freedom” in the sense of accumulating more and more knowledge about a single thing and then repeating the process about one of its elements … Thus learning more and more about less and less? Is there a polarity here, an ever present opposing thrust? Is this synthesis? Now, given we have to contend with classes and systems of knowledge, do we always know where we are located at any given time in trying to understand or further our knowledge? Do we know where we need to be in order to get the job done? In other words, do we truly understand the process we are caught up in? Does anyone know?

We may engage the socialization process through personal fear for our own welfare, a desire for some personal advantage or another, or for the benefit of others. Increased socialization seems to entail increased centralization inasmuch as it seems necessary that there be some overseeing model or governing body (much like our theoretical constructs) to which we give up some or another part of ourselves or our personal freedom. Could it be otherwise? That is, is decentralization ever possible? Or is this illusory or tentative at best? Or would decentralization entail desocialization reversing the process of civilization? Are we committed or forced by natural pre programming to move continually toward “oneness” or “completeness”, thus coming full circle? From chaos to total comprehension of the whole? Further, is such comprehension to be considered artificial (inasmuch as we could imagine it to have been otherwise) than what it wound up being? Or is this a delusion? Do we feel closer now to total comprehension or further away? We seem to be further away. But is this sense of further like cutting a line segment in half, and a half in half, etc. Or like peering through the microscope feeling as though we are venturing further and further when from another perspective we have traveled no distance whatever?

Aggression seems to head toward decentralization and less responsibility. Our fears seem headed toward increased centralization and more responsibility. To the victors go the spoils and the controlling mechanisms. To the vanquished go increased cooperation, responsibility, abeyance. What do we make of this? Are the vanquished to be considered the victors on a different level of thought? Further down the road, perhaps? Not for the immediate but for the future? “The meek shall inherit the earth”! And what of “freedom” in all this? Is it strengthened or lessened? Must true freedom come through vulnerability?

Polarization between ideologies makes the world safe? Soviet Russia imposes a check on our own greed or propensity toward controlling others? Provides avenue for smaller nations to maintain sovereignty and benefit from both sides at the same side to the point of blackmail if necessary. Is this accidental or “natural” in some way or another. “For every force in one direction there is an equal force exerted …”. Any bearing here? Are there really differences between physical and social processes? Is there an impetus toward equilibrium or equality, always? Is there presently a nation drift toward one side or the other? Are reversals always to be regarded as tentative forcing us to pay the price at a later date? Is analogy of a rubber band appropriate here? Opposition can weaken our inclinations if it is formidable.

A lesser force requires a lesser counter force but does not entail it? How can we be assured? What does reversal mean in terms of social and knowledge activities? What reasons do we have for desiring to become more vulnerable? Would we become less vulnerable by allowing increased vulnerability? Is this the key to arms reductions and to the whole problem of reversals in general?

“Problem of reversals”, “problem of analysis”, “problem of control, centralization and less responsibility vs. freedom, decentralization and more responsibility”. Is the language illusive? Is the understanding of the concepts employed relative to further concepts or systems of concepts confusing or in need to elucidate the same?

“Problem of universals”

Are communism and democracy two sides of the same coin? Are they connected to the differences we have just explored? Communism representing centralization, control, increased social responsibility, intellectual structures and systems, etc. While democracy leans toward decentralization, increased individual freedom, non intellectualization, etc.? In what ways are we threatened by two different ideologies? How was it possible for two opposites (if they are opposites) to have built up (or polarized) in equilibrium?

Is there room for a third major ideology in the world? Is there an impetus toward the same? Would the third force have to carry elements of both the polarized forces? Does it in some way represent a synthesis or partial synthesis of the same?

Can we live with the current stalemate for any length of time? Can we willingly dismantle our forces when such forces are a part of our ideological build up? Are the super powers in more control than are the third world countries? Think about the “victors and the vanquished”. Must there be a “mediator” (supra structure) over and above U.S. And USSR that is required to get the job of reversal done? Must something be given up in the process? Will there be a transference of power? To the mediator? Is it a question of who will control the controllers, or can this step be avoided? Can each nation settle the differences alone?

Illusory qualities of our models of understanding. Models are used to assimilate data in a new way. Conclusions drawn from there findings oftentimes belies the fact that the models themselves form no conclusions whatever. “We” make conclusions in light of there findings and are deluded into thinking that the model itself formed the conclusion! Statistical models that collect data. Conclusions drawn from data get attributed to the model itself. Ex: 55% votes democratic and 45% republican conclusion: 55% in favor of democratic candidate and 45% in favor of republican. Error: statistical probability of getting a 50 50 split would be present if all voters merely guessed at which candidate wanted. Statistics could equally have pointed to possibility that only 5% actually were able to prefer one candidate over the other!

ON EDUCATION

We’ve been hearing the message for some time now that more and better education will be required to meet the needs of advancing technology. While this remains true, it only remains so for a relatively few. Technology has simplified our lives, not complicated them. Jobs have become less complicated as a result. While we are still in need of individuals with strong conceptual understandings, grounded in all of our present day educational disciplines, we do not require this of the majority. Indeed, it may even be dangerous one could argue. We may have already overeducated beyond our needs, for highly skilled, educated persons are everywhere to be found performing simple routine tasks.

One may warn here of the dangerous precedent of possibly polarizing our society into `educated’ and `ignorant’ factions. This notion carries with it several underlying assumptions which, to my thinking, are simply not true. First, it presupposes that unless liberal learning is approached in school, it will stand little chance of being developed by individuals during the course of their lives; that school is where an `appreciation’ of such subjects is developed and where its relative `contents’ are learned. Secondly, it presumes that such developments (the polarization process) will move at an even pace; that individuals will lose their individuality and become simply a part of the `common intelligence’; neither aspiring to nor learning any more than their counterparts. That there would not continue to be, in other words, multiple levels of power, affluence, and knowledge as is the case at present.

I believe that the root of this difficulty can be found in the dichotomy of `learner’ and `subject matter’. The learner has always been considered as a repository for knowledge, a vessel to fill. That all that needs to be done through the education process is to fill it! And, this is precisely what we attempted to do. We decided on the aims and content of education and went from there. Unfortunately, `filling’ practices are not conducive to learning processes. `Forceful entry’ simply does not work. If the matter being learned cannot `connect up’ with any previous learning or inclination, it is of little consequence to the learner. A student can only hope that it will remain in memory long enough to pass a quiz.

Not everything presented to a student is going to discount as learning, however. Many things will connect up to previous learner experiences. Some will be real connections (matching a learners conceptual framework) while some will only appear to be connected. These latter type `connections’ may be what comprises most liberal education today. Such connections may, for the most part, be only connections to previous `bogus’ learning still remaining in `limbo’ in our memories. In such a way, we build up “bogus educations”, comprising chunks of facts and ideas related to one another, but not to ourselves! We know this is so because we run into the greatest of difficulty whenever we attempt to express our ideas or factual knowledge in a consistent and comprehensive manner.

The upshot, then, is that we may not be accomplishing what we believe ourselves to be accomplishing in our schools. Rather than actually developing an appreciation for liberal studies, or learning their contents, we may only be expending tremendous amounts of teacher and student energies needlessly. We might better concentrate our efforts on discovering which of our current practices are worth salvaging and which are not; which parts of our curriculum remain appropriate today and which do not.

And to do this, we might better re focus our attention on the ideal of `individualized learning’ because there is definitely a need to do so. Education is relative to individuals in the final analysis. If there remain unresolved problems, it’s probably because we haven’t yet dealt adequately with this base. The individual’s supremacy within the learning process has never been doubted by educators only that it might be difficult, if not impossible, to ever effect such a program. However, with the presence of current technologies (namely the computer), the picture has changed to a large degree. The cost effective `ultimate approach’ to learning seems to be well within our grasp. We are presently in a position to be able to offer `individualized attention’ in a `group setting’ the best of both worlds!

But any such efforts will be to no avail if educators persist in putting the learning of `content’ before the learning of `skills’, and the learning of skills before the satisfaction of `basic human needs’. A student who is burdened by unfulfilled emotional needs will be a lousy candidate for learning skills. A student who has developed poor learning skills will be a lousy candidate we are certain of what we are doing while we are doing it; but most often, we aren’t. That is, we are generally swept along by the inherent structure of our logic and our language.

In such a way, a great number of new ideas regarding how best to teach reading, writing, and arithmetic skills, has been added to the various methodologies originally employed. While some may have been of great benefit to us, others, it may be said, have only served to complicate (weigh down) the original processes. Couple this added complexity and further use of time with the imposition of new curriculum requirements (the ever increasing content of our knowledge mass which we continue to build up), and it might be appropriately said: that we have built up the body of a truck over and surrounding a Volkswagen engine!

We need, more than ever before, to re evaluate our `progress’ by tracing it back to its beginnings and working forward from there. We need, in fact, to understand more about the process and stature of knowledge acquisition itself. For our lack today is not in knowledge, but in our ability to evaluate it; that is, to understand it!

Studies have shown that there will be an even greater proliferation of menial type jobs in the near future. Trying to foster a large base of liberally educated individuals to satisfy our technological requirements, will simply not work. Indeed, not only will this not work, but it may even reverse the process we are trying to invoke. Dealing with a heterogeneous society in a homogenous manner will only serve to develop within us a `bogus semblance’ of a common education. This can only lead us to further ignorance and confusion rather than to truth. In a democracy, the impetus for direction should always flow upwards from individuals to their representatives. The nations of the world, (especially those of Marxist persuasion), are watching we Americans closely as we grapple with the very essence of democracy our education! They too are looking for direction, for something to hang onto. Change has confused all of us, thrown us far too many curves. Many of our concepts and present day institutions as well, no longer fit their original purposes, and we are presently being forced to alter or shed many of them in favor of new ones. For these reasons, we need to look long and hard at what we are doing.

Education may essentially involve learning, but learning involves much more than education. It takes in genetic endowments, physical characteristics, environmental considerations, and personal experiences all of which go into making up individual differences. Adding to this base of differences, the imposition of `packaged’ courses, same age and time restrictions for learning, same curriculum content and learning methods and directions, same counterproductive grading and evaluation procedures, (done with little or no regard for individual needs and characteristics), will continue to be both wasteful and counter productive.

As I intimated earlier, dealing with a heterogeneous student population in a homogenous manner will only serve to develop within them a “bogus semblance of a common education”. The costs in terms of personal degradation, resulting frustration and confusion regarding the quality of knowledge and our ability to decide future directions, is too sad to reiterate. Suffice it to say that each year 600,000 high school dropouts get added to the scrap heap of the hard core unemployed.

We educate, in our society, out of democratic ideals, as well as for social, economic, and political needs and ends. We accomplish such ends by allowing our children “equal opportunity” to the same education (in terms of quantity and quality) as we are all entitled to. In fact we insist upon it!

Our claim is that such practices are crucial to the maintenance of our democracy, and that, without an educated society, we will be prone to the most disastrous consequences. But we must ask ourselves: was it the majority of the citizenry that came to this conclusion? Does the “we” I keep referring to really have to do with majority opinion?

So why don’t we ask of ourselves whether or not we believe that a lack in `formal education’ would handicap an individual in the performance of his or her democratic responsibilities? And why don’t we also ask ourselves whether or not the individual ought to have a say in the matter? That is, do we really believe that we ought to force ourselves to partake of this `privilege’, like it or not?

The answer to this latter question is, and has for some time been, yes! This privilege will, of necessity, be a mandatory one. But if voter apathy gets continually worse, will we, in the same manner, opt for forcing our citizenry to vote for the sake of democracy?

And what if, by some remote chance, we prove ourselves to have been wrong in holding to certain of these fundamental assumptions and beliefs? How would we know of our mistake? What could we rely on as a positive criterion? Our notice that things have not gone as planned? That confusion continues to reign? That our conceptions and models aren’t working?

And, assuming that this means is satisfactory to us, how will we aright such confusion and ineffectiveness after we discover it? Through further analysis of the plan, practices, or models we have employed? Through more research? Through extensions of many of the same practices whose effectiveness just came under question? Or should we expect one of the more brilliant members of our society to come up with a completely new model to bail us out?

In “The Paideia Proposal: An Educational Manifesto”, Mortimer Adler gives educators just such a model. Here it is for the taking, a complete, consistent, rationally intact model for educational reform. And one might think (as many educators do), that all that needs to be done now is to work out the details for implementation.

Now while the value of reading this book can’t be denied (it being nearly saturated with sound insights and the like), it is nonetheless, fraught with danger. The fact that this work represents a one man “manifesto” should, in itself, make us leery of his claims. No individual should ever believe himself to have “the” answer to a particular problem, especially when the parameters are as extensive as all of education!

And so we have but another proposal, based upon all sorts of good insights, and these insights tied together for us into a comprehensive model for action. It’s not the insights we need to question it’s the “tying”. It’s always the tying! This is what knowledge is all about defining, classifying, and finally integrating the same into larger constructions and models. And, again, what will determine the soundness of the model? Its internal consistency? No. Even nonsense can be consistent. Its workability? Well, maybe. But then we’ll have to wait until after the fact before we can make this sort of judgment. This puts us right back to where we are at present confused, distraught, and in a general quandary for not knowing what to do.

Well then, what? Should we go after professor Adler for attempting to get us to accept his limited definition of the overall problem? Shall we attack his basic premises and try to uproot him? The answer, my friend, “is blowing in the wind the answer is blowing in the wind”.

Which is to say that the problems and solutions which can be brought to bear on educational practices of the day, are anybody’s guess that they ought to be anybody’s guess and that not to acknowledge this (on the basis of our personal feelings regarding the subject), is to ignore the obvious answers.

Forget the `facts’ as they are presented for us. What do we sense is wrong? Observe and get to know your children. Talk to them. Understand what are their difficulties. Let them tell you what the solutions need to be for themselves. Each one of us carries the answers to our own individual problems. We only need to have them acted upon directly and not through our maze of concepts and descriptions regarding the same. Why await an “appropriate” description of what we already know intuitively?#

#

@OUR GREATEST SIN

I took the opportunity to test a personal hypothesis of mine while substitute teaching in one of the area junior high schools a few days ago. But before I tell you about this, let me give you some background information.

I have felt, for some time now, that our greatest failure in education today, has been our blind pursuit of education itself. That is, we have misled ourselves by focusing on purely educational and societal goals, and have all but forgotten the very crucial role that the individual (through his own emotional make up) must play in the process.

Our schools have been given the responsibility to `educate’ our children. Presumably, this means that our children will be aided in the development of personal learning skills, and will have the opportunity to put these to use in learning from the large body of knowledge our civilization has amassed thus far. If the teacher is capable, (having all the necessary ingredients for success) he or she stands ready to perform this admirable feat.

But what of the student? What ingredients are necessary to student capability and success? Ah…! Here we almost come to an abrupt halt. While we can cite a thousand and one things that a teacher ought to be in order to be successful, we don’t know what to say about an individual. We simply say that he had better be smart, attentive, have the right attitude and interest, etc. If he is ever going to be successful in school. In other words, he had better fit the model! Our ms directed focus thus leads us astray, and our greatest of all sins begins to unfold.

For education cannot consist of our `fitting’ into anything whatever. We may make use of descriptions, classifications, structures, etc. In building upon, and furthering our knowledge but we must never become a part of these same constructs. But we have become a part! And because we have, it grows increasingly difficult for us to see that we are. In the little space remaining, let me try to make this notion clearer.

In attempting to set up a system of education which would benefit individuals as well as the society at large, we made the mistake of presuming that this system was the only one possible. It was the `appropriate’ one based upon what we know and what we feel ought to be done in light of our knowledge. And to make matters worse, we attached a tremendous value to it, whereby those who were readily adaptable to it would reap the greatest rewards while those who were not, would suffer considerably.#

#

@INTERNATIONAL CURRENTS AFFECTING OUR LIVES

The post World War II advantages that we as a country were able to enjoy seem now to be coming to an end. If not coming to an end, such advantages are at least seen to be in some sort of transition which has made a large number of us very uncomfortable.

New technology, world wide economic shifts and gains, are taking place daily within countries that formerly were in no position to offer serious competition. Ironically, it is the same cheap labor that made possible our own expansion that is now being used against us. The difference being, that ownership of the means of production belong now to the countries themselves rather than to “American” business.

What has resulted has been stiff competition in the manufacture and sale of goods in world markets, and has been the primary reason for industrial belt tightening in our own. Businesses and industries have been forced to cut excessive “fat” (oftentimes “lean”), to maintain a competitive edge–or to remain in the competition at all, let alone maintaining advantage. Indeed, some manufacturer’s have even joined with foreign competition in order to salvage what is left to be salvaged. Thus, we have joint American Foreign companies springing up everywhere, as well as joint manufacture of the parts and systems that go into American products.

And so, whether we are talking about the effects of increased automation, computer or robotization of industrial methods and systems, or severe foreign competition as a result of cheaper labor, major technological advances (emulation and stealing of technology), which is taking place throughout the world at present, the end result is the same–THERE ARE SIMPLY TOO FEW JOBS FOR TOO MANY WORKERS! And since we are here talking about “world” economies and economic pressures effecting us all, the subject of underemployment becomes a world problem.

It is not simply the case that we have too few jobs in the United States, then, it is a matter of there being too few jobs in the world! In the same way as our businesses and industries were forced to join foreign competition in order to survive, so too must we take on a world perspective and understanding as regards our own employment and underemployment. We must develop an appreciation and understanding of those plights and circumstances others our having to contend with, to better appreciate the effects and changes being wrought within our own.

In the meantime, those of us who feel as though we are now “on the outside looking in” due to some recent eruption within our lives, need to either change our definition of what constitutes “outside” or “inside”, or need to make ourselves still more competitive for the challenges facing us. To reiterate: JOBS WILL INCREASINGLY GO ONLY TO THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE BEST SUITED TO HANDLING THEM!

The high regard for “excellence” these days, high annual salaries commanded by corporate “super CEO’s”, as well as other individuals who are able to demonstrate a direct link between the skills they employ and the making of profits, is nothing more than an elaboration of this fact. No business that expects to survive in today’s international economy, can tolerate meaningless jobs, or unqualified personnel within them, even if it means telling one’s own son or daughter, son in law, or best golfing buddy, that it time to move over or leave altogether.

The beneficial side to the current crisis is that we are undergoing a “cleansing” process within corporate America that smacks of righteousness, even if unintended. It is becoming increasing likely that a person who exhibits sound behavior and effective work performance will in fact be looked upon favorably and rewarded appropriately, all without having to fight and claw for such recognition. This was never the case to my knowledge. We may be witnessing the end to the old system of familial loyalty and all the rest of it in favor of survival; once again, the irony being that surrounding oneself with family and friends was once regarded as the very thing needed to assure one’s own survival!

There is a general feeling these days that we are currently witnessing the demise of the middle class in this country; that some of the post war “advantages” accrued to us were little more than luck due merely to our being in the right place, at the right time, in the right economic shape, having the right resources, and that the resultant “middle class” phenomena was no more than that–a phenomena–temporary at best. As this scenario goes, we ought to consider ourselves lucky for having enjoyed the privileges of it all while it lasted, and to now graciously learn to let go. In fact, we may have no other choice than to let go as it will grow increasingly easy for those of us with the right skills and advantages to grow ever richer at the expense of those of us who are without the same, and thus, pressured to accept increasing poverty.

I have found this scenario to ring true in my own dealings with clients who have recently lost their jobs. I have witnessed many former professional and skilled workers who, following layoffs from what had been highly lucrative employment, were forced to go through a process of changing expectations and acceptance. This pattern generally followed along these line: first hope and strong confidence for retaining their current status within a new employment, then dashed hopes of ever being able to do so, followed (after much grief and soul searching) by a “lowering of expectations” in order to succeed in attaining something. These are, perhaps, the lucky ones who find themselves, through redefinition, able to cut their losses and get on with their lives.
There are others who have simply gone to pieces!

Unfortunately (or fortunately), young people are beginning to demonstrate a lessening of expectations, excepting, perhaps, the top 10% of our scholastic achievers. They will confidently choose to compete and conform with whatever today’s work place demands of them. And most will succeed.

On the other hand, there is another segment of our young population that will not fare so well. This segment will be easiest to exploit as there are so many of them with similar skills and aptitudes. Their dilemma can be illustrated by our typical fast food chains who represent some of our nation’s largest corporations–employing millions of young, average, American kids–at little more than minimum wage! It is this group of young adults, then, that has rightfully grown suspicious of their chances for success. And, so they choose to ignore the situation or simply accept it for what it is. And, as it turns out, thousands of these fast food employees turn out to be former college students and graduates who have found that they could do no better than to return what was formerly a part-time position needed to acquire a college education.

Now very few of us are ignorant of the fact that rapid change is taking place within the world at large. What is not understood, and is terribly frustrating to us all, is our inability to know how such transformations will ultimately turn out. And so, the tendency has been for us to proceed as if nothing were different. We borrow what we need to borrow in order to maintain a status we think we deserve. We encourage large scale debt (for ourselves and our children) to obtain college educations that will do little of what we hope for. Our high schools continue to perpetuate bogus educations for graduates who learn how to further the same in college. What results are massive numbers of meaningless credentials; empty, without substance. And the sham continues when we accept what we are told is the case by educators, proceed to perpetuate the myth to our children, (who understand the sham better than we, but cannot effectively argue their case due the strength of tradition and expectation that controls our adult behaviors), and pressure them to undertake what was once right for us but, perhaps, is without relevance to them.

Parties, alcohol and drugs, commercials, movies, and comedy acts that stretch sanity and current morality to the limits, are “appropriate” for a society that finds itself without heroes, without leadership, without direction, and without a general consensus of appropriate behavior. On the other hand, the truly abhorrent have taken on the role–“new hero’s” for the times. Everything, then, remains as usual… only the characters and characteristics have changed. Thus, our well-heeled, pinstriped TV evangelist remains a hero while in our hearts we know him to be a sham; our beer commercials, expounding the notion that one ought to celebrate achievement with a case of Michelob, serves to celebrate a value which is dear to us and one which also serves to line the pockets of the commercial’s sponsor; while our comedy stars continue to advance to the extremes of brutality, crudeness, and insanity in order to capture our deadened imaginations. What better examples could we possibly have for a society trying to free itself from ignorance and confusion?

Foreign competition, joblessness, ever advancing technology and ensuing change, perpetual competition for our minds and our purses, political and economic uncertainties, changing values, increasing ignorance, and unlimited confusion in literally every walk of life; what does all of this have to do with life and living? Everything! #

#

@MARX

If Karl Marx were only alive today, he might think he were witnessing the final transformation of the proletariat; from having to produce surplus value (for the benefit of the owners of the means of production), to becoming part owners of the means of production themselves.

And wouldn’t he be doubly surprised to note that such occurrences are emanating from a mature capitalistic society and not from the “intermediate” socialist ones that Marx considered necessary to making such a transition. Indeed, while communist nations today are seen to be creeping away from their most ardently held dogma’s, capitalist nations seem to be experimenting with (and seem to be the only ones with the maturity for), engaging in communistic ideals! Now this is embarrassing, to say the least, to the relatively advanced socialist nations. That the capitalist system may ultimately prove itself to be the better “way” to the greater good–is only too well understood. In fact, it may prove to be too much to swallow, there not being time enough, perhaps, for a graceful and face saving transition to something else.

Ironic? Well, considering the fact that Marx’ theory of value–that the measure of the value of a commodity is the amount of labor necessary to produce it–is gradually going by the wayside due to advanced computer and robotic techniques; and considering that it takes a relatively sophisticated work force to understand the many facets of industry (something which has evolved through the open “team work” approach of modern capitalistic industries) … no, it’s not so ironic.

New relationships need more than ever to be drawn between men and machines. Whereas men used to be the programming instrument (the operator) of the machine, the computer attached to machine is presently taking on more and more of these programming tasks. Even the “work ethic” no longer carries the same significance as it did not very long ago. It is no longer clear which criteria shall be employed in meeting out the benefits of a society to its membership. But it is something we ought to start thinking about.

Again, is it ironic that a society based upon mutual distrust–organized to foster and protect individual freedoms at almost any cost–having a persistent disregard for anyone claiming to know what is right… should prove itself more adaptable to the future than those nations professing a faith in knowledge as supreme; in the notion that some men can know what is best for others, and also able to “manage” and “direct” them for the greater good? And again I say, no, it is not ironic.

What is ironic, is that anyone could be so arrogant and so misled as to believe that their personal truth could serve all of us. We only have to turn the mirror on ourselves to admit that we do not understand what we see; that we are ourselves fragmented and confused to greater and lesser degrees;–and that we are, all of us, too embarrassed to reveal this greatest of hoaxes.#

#

@JANUARY 21, 1986

I feel compelled to write my thoughts on social problems and issues. But where will I begin? Which of the broken threads of society’s fabric will I choose for my starting point? Abortion? Crime? Poverty? War? Which?

Since all of these are obvious problems or issues confronting us, it seems a simple matter of making a choice. After all, each of these words is descriptive of its own subject matter, confined or bounded by definition. It would be easy to isolate one or the other of them for further scrutiny and contemplation. Wouldn’t it?

Well maybe. But something still seems to be amiss. My confidence is shaken, for one thing. Something inside me is saying that if I take this approach, even if successful, I will only wind up adding to the prevalent confusion. That while I may succeed in writing about one or the other of these topics, my writing will be too broad (too “vague” or “superficial”) to be directly applicable to its resolution. Such an approach could only have a long range value, if it is to be considered of any value at all!

It seems an obvious truism to us, that we will get further along toward the resolution of a problem if we deal with its “specifics” rather than with its “generalities”. This is made all the more obvious to us when it is presented as I have just presented it; for we find it easy to support such a notion through our conceptual storehouse of mental imagery.

“The shortest distance between two points is a straight line”. Obvious enough! “Dealing with the general is like `coating’ or placing a veneer over the whole of something but you cannot effect a situation unless you are able to penetrate its depths directly effect one or the other of its elements”. “You resolve problems by meeting them head on!”

I am, nonetheless, still perplexed by these notions. Something else in side of me is telling me that our usage of words like “direct”, “aspects”, “particulars”, “elements”, “specifics”, etc. Do not really take us any closer to the matters at hand. To be sure, they “appear” to be doing this, but I have discovered that they seem destined to always fall short of getting the job done! Why? Why is it that we are able to outline and compare and contrast the “generalities” and “specifics” of a given situation, and then at some later date, take these same “specifics” or “generalities” and divide each group into still further specifics and generalities? Why won’t this process come to an end? Why must our dealings be forever relative to something else, ad infinitum? What is it here that is deluding us that we don’t understand? How will we ever get at the “particulars” if they refuse to remain particulars?

It would seem that the matter of resolving problems “rationally” is a bit stickier than what we might have at first anticipated. That while such problems as poverty, crime, war, etc. Seem to be definable by use of singular words (nouns) and ultimately, by definition their parameters are not! That while all such nouns would seem to describe some finite set of actions, they, in fact, do no more than drive us toward the infinite! It’s like trying to reach the largest numeral by continuing the process of counting!

It would seem that our descriptions, classifications and definitions represent an attempt to freeze the dynamics of a situation in order to take hold of it. That such static definitions are in fact what makes knowledge possible in the first place. But why? Why can’t there be “dynamic definition” recognizing the fact that nothing ever stands still in the universe as we know it? Won’t static definitions always fall short of the mark? Or does this represent a necessary methodology inasmuch as it may be our only way to progression and understanding? Is it progression that is followed by description, definition, and knowledge or the other way around? Or is it both ways, perhaps?

More importantly still: ought we to regard our strongest knowledge as being that which has been written down, classified, defined and explained throughout our body of literature? Or can we possibly make claim to this being the “weakest” form of knowledge representing merely the “static” portion, so to speak?

Well, what might we make of this? Is our ordinary speech within the ordinary context of daily activity to be our paradigm? Or will we want to reduce it to our perceptions or sensations only? A commonplace philosophical inquiry you say? Perhaps it is. Only keep in mind that we are attempting to operate from outside our concepts rather than from within as has been the custom!

After all, don’t we snap pictures, paint scenes, offer definitions, in order to be able to make further use of them at some future time? But, let’s not forget that the use we put them to is not necessitated by our actions or original purpose! For all that we know, the “uses” to which such actions may be put may just be unanswered or “infinite”! Which brings us back to our original dilemma

It’s as though we would be unable to understand anything at all without unless we forcibly make did so to accept the simplistic notion we are, in fact, too easily deluded by our use of nouns.

Philosophers have for some time it is easy to be deluded by this. Nor should we allow ourselves to be deluded by their apparent “simplicity” simplicity and neither are they free of how can I be so bold (or confused) as to believe that I can begin at the outside, with the whole subject matter as my starting point, as it were?

“Whole subject matter”? Can I be correct in this assertion? Are the words `abortion’, `crime’, `poverty’ and `war’ each descriptive of some whole subject matter#

#

@KNOWLEDGE: FROM SIMPLE TO COMPLEX
(1/31/86)

Knowledge has been built up over the centuries from simple to complex

There are levels of understanding as is reflected by our use of general terms

General ideas do not seem to be merely simple ideas with a broader scope than the particulars it represents

The term “particular” is itself a general idea, built up from still further particulars yet. In the same way, the term “general” can be thought of as a particular on some still more general notion yet

The process is not infinite, I suspect merely difficult to trace

What did Locke have to say on this subject?

Our assertions are subject to so much difficulty because their validity rests upon so much else.

To test an assertion (respond to it) one has to trace backwards, stopping at each fork to look forward again from that particular perspective assess which limb (direction) would be appropriate to continue travel in order to satisfy the original assertion. That is, to decide whether or not one must continue the reverse travel or to return on a sister (or parallel branch) of equal analogies are difficult. All sorts of possibilities come out of them. The tree or “branch analogy” is itself a highly useful theoretical model. It ranks, in my opinion, with the great systems in potential if not in fact

Must we suppose the ascent of matter from simple to ever more complex as being consistent with our logic as well as our perception of the case?

The “force” of growth, accretion, whatever, seems to progress toward further complexity regardless of temporary set backs along the way. Death, extinction, etc. Does not inhibit the process as we continue along a progressive line.

It is difficult enough to ask why this progression exist at all, let alone determine if it can continue without end?

Toffler’s “accelerated change” notion makes one wonder what new forms of human behavior and understanding will come out of this. It seems obvious that there is too much for any one to take in. That our machines can perform simple tasks quicker and more accurately than our own functions enable us to do.

Our inventions are extensions of ourselves much as our “own” bodies are extensions of all that comprise us simpler organisms and systems.

Confusion has resulted from our analysis that we are in some way separate from the world surrounding us. The effects of the medium enveloping us is not readily apparent and thus we see only a part and marvel at the miracle of it all.

It might be wise to go back to the early thinkers to examine how they saw the world through the logic of their day. Surely, there would not be so much hindering debris standing in the way of our vision.

Metaphysics is the big picture, epistemology represents the details. We work from the outside with the former and from the inside to the outside with the latter. This is not clear at all. Posing a metaphysical theory is a culmination of a process which has been going on for a very long time. It is the end of a sequence that tries to describe the beginning! Like the historian who traces back from the present to the past and then writes (sets out) his story from the past to the present. We must not delude ourselves into thinking that the historian can begin in the past. Even if he is able to study directly about the past. This sleight of hand simply fails to consider all that went (had to) go before. This is also true for the archaeologist who is digging up the past in the present! You must ask yourself where he got such notions in the first place. What makes him think that he can dig up the past?

In the same way, then, when someone utters a statement like “criminals need to be punished!” Or “abortions are wrong!” Or “that is a dog over there!”, One is conveying a mountain of underlying information and notions at the same time. Sometimes it works well for us to make such leaps and sometimes it causes us difficulty. The point is: the leaps are going to get ever broader as we continue to accelerate our behavior, notions, information, and tools.

What does our logic tell us at this juncture? That our limitations will be overcome by our own machinery? That such will become the new generation of man? That we will become our own machines?

Is this how the miracle of “life” developed? Going from so called “inanimate” life to “animate”. What could have taken place in our past to make it necessary for simple inanimate material to develop toward animate?

Perhaps we are ready to handle such a notion. We could not have been able to until we were able to experience it, providing us with something to compare. What are the requirements for being able to draw an analogy?

I am not talking “purposeful” behavior. Purpose is a human attribute, yet another sleight of hand. Built up from sensations and memory. Memory is the miracle worker, the real catalyst behind our mental notions. It freezes life and allows us the opportunity to view it again and more importantly, the opportunity to compare it to other things.

[Memory freezes life and creates illusion of sameness]#

#

@MAY 18, 1986

Species come and go. Does our stature in the order of things exempt us from this demise?

Sometimes it is difficult to hold on to the belief that our human heritage carries with it a positive progression.

We are well aware of the difficulty we all share in trying to understand ourselves and our behavior. Each of us struggles to make appropriate decisions regarding our own lives as well as those of our families and fellow human beings.

We planted two small seeds and waited

Before long two sprouts came into view

And when our flowers began to blossom

Enter… The caretakers!

I am incensed! Once again, one of our members has proven himself insensitive and ignorant regarding people and learning. Once again, I am reminded …

This exemplifies the raw state of human behavior. To react on this level… What of `levels’ of behavior? Ought we to meet “fire with fire” on matching levels of human discourse? Are there levels of behavior more humanistic than others? A pyramid (Maslow)? Can certain level responses ameliorate lower level actions?

How does one correct a wrong action when that action is deeply ingrained in life and learning, acceptance and belief?

Rabble we are. Rabble we are not! What is it that forces us to holding one or the other belief? Why are we so uncertain of ourselves and our behavior? Why the pyramid of confusion related to levels of life and learning? It is as though we have backed ourselves into a corner of high level confusion while trying to better protect our own interests, and for which we now must suffer along with those we sought protection from? Is this the plight of the more intelligent of our membership? Is our current strife the result of accident, purposeful behavior, or a little of each?

Each of us acts to the degree that we are comfortable with what we know. Not necessarily so! What constitutes making up one’s mind’? Think of all the preliminary steps that might precede such a state. Time element… In the sense of being in a hurry with little time left for making a choice. Frustration element… In the sense of refusing to continue in a state of ignorance and inaction out of the discomfort it wrought. Understanding… When one feels he has arrived at a knowing state and feels certain about which action is appropriate. Reflection… When one has paid his dues to reason and simply decides on the basis of what appears to be the most rational choice.

And then there are the emotions. Where and how do they come into play in regards to decision making? How do they affect our moods, states of knowing and feelings of certainty? Can these moods or emotions exist separately from their counterparts? Counterparts? In what sense? What are the ties between reason and emotion? The quality of either? And again, are we talking about matching levels or a criss crossing of relations?#

#

@OCTOBER 26, 1986

Maybe it’s a sign of getting older, I don’t know. But it seems as though life, complicated as it still is for me, is nevertheless giving up many of its mysteries. At least, broad chunks of it seem to be taking on a real semblance of meaning for me, even while the rest of the world seems to be slipping behind. I realize that it may be sheer arrogance on my part to make such a statement, or, perhaps, only misguided confusion resulting from my middle aged status and need for summing up, as the notion goes. But, everywhere it seems, I see children playing grown up roles which I had always understood would only be played by the most mature and honest adults our society was capable of producing. I see simple minded notions proffered by not so simple minded evangelists, (secular as well as religious), sucking in and holding at bay, large swarms of humanity gullible or desperate enough to follow their lead.

We speak of crimes and those committing them in isolated, well defined ways–as though they were somehow detached from, or of no direct relationship to, other circumstances or crimes very closely related.

We focus, define, and shut out the rest. This makes the thing being focused upon highly visible and easily understood. We might, for example overlook the thousands of instances whereby individuals have killed two or three times to concentrate on those who have killed six or more times. We then ascribe reasons to the one set which we claim are different from the former.

THERE ARE NO REAL GAPS in our lives and activities as there are no real gaps in nature or the universe. There is only intervention (perception) followed by definition and the illusions emanating from the same. I am here referring to our notions inherent in our epistemology and language that leads us to isolate events. #

#

@FUTURE TRENDS–NO GOING BACK
(2-15-87)

Structure entails leaving out. One cannot bring together all knowledge and then present an all encompassing structure to re present it. It would be redundant since the world is presented already!

The presupposition is that it is not presented clearly; that we must attempt to figure things out from the basis of our perceptions; from what our perceptions inform us of.

Do perceptions convey concepts? Notions of roundness, flatness, etc.–or do we learn these? We know things about our world that are hidden from our basic perceptions. Was this accomplished through concept formation? What is the process here?

Have our concepts taken us out on a limb? Away from basic understandings altogether? I believe so. A parallel can be found in technology and the implements we use in our everyday life which have no other meaning to us otherwise. We do not understand how things work but use them anyway.

If our concepts have taken us out on a limb in our understanding of ourselves and the needs of both ourselves and others, then is their a real danger of our becoming lost? And if we are at a “systems” level in the sense of no one of us knowing all of the details, then isn’t there even more of a danger for us. If something goes awry to put a kink in the system (such as devastation of property and resources and know how which can accompany a war), then aren’t we risking greater dangers because so many of us are “out on a limb” or dependent upon our conceptual advances and their material results?

Can our population go back to nature and survive if it had to? Could other populations do the same given their own natural resources? I think not. And so it is imperative that we do nothing to de stabilize the systems we have in place. But can we do this in isolation? Ought we to protect ourselves first and then invite others to join us or duplicate our ways even when it is impossible for them to do so? Or should we assess this situation together from the standpoint of world survival and rule? The key to stability is the Soviet Union and ourselves. We must understand ourselves and our needs and come to terms. We must lay out an appropriate description of matters together in order to maintain control of the situation elsewhere in the world and we must do it with the participation of others. Why won’t the UN work in this regard? Is there too much stacked against us like the situation with South Africa presently?

South Africa is a microcosm of what will take place between the many poor nations and the few rich in the very near future. We had better watch carefully and appreciate the difficulties. They belong to ourselves as well. SOUTH AFRICA TODAY IS AMERICA TOMORROW. The world has INFORMATION. They know what we have, our advantages, and expect that we will fight to maintain these. They are preparing to fight us for their own survival. WE ARE ATTACKING SOUTH AFRICA TO WARD THE WORLD OFF OUR OWN BACKS…TO DIVERT THEIR ATTENTION FROM WHAT WE KNOW IS COMING.#@

RELATIVE REPETITION–RELATIVE SYSTEM (8-10-87)

There is order (repetition) in everything we perceive and are able to define; the rising and setting sun, the dripping faucet, etc. Without repetition, definition would not be possible–we could not ascribe anything to anything! The very act of ascribing or defining entails repetition, yet repetition is relative in the sense that what we perceive is never exactly the same. Close, very close, sometimes not so close, different although definable just the same.

Closely definable things have no perceptible differences. Thus the syllogism or closed systems of mathematics seem to have certainty and exactness while the vaguely similar is wrought with problems associated with proper definition or recognition. In these latter cases, there is much confusion… relative repetition… relative system.

While the universe as a whole seems to be unfolding in a singular or unilateral direction, there seems to be overlapping taking place within. The very notion of repetition entails recognition which further entails memory. We could not know that something was being repeated unless we could first recognize (re know) it. It is the process of comparing a former perception (or memory of it) with a current event. Common sequences of events lead us to expect certain repetitions, like rain following the sound of thunder and dark skies, and so on. In the same way, we are able to formulate predictions of future events. Thus, we are recording devices among other things. #

#

@PROGRESSION THROUGH LIMITATION
(8-16-87)

The very act of uttering something–anything at all–is already to leave something out.

Each utterance points to itself and, therefore, does not point to any of the rest of the world. It leaves out all else!

It is a form of focus, and hacks off or disguises from view all else in order that one may attend to one thing and nothing else.

Question. Do we need to understand the entire world prior to understanding a given assertion?… Or do we understand the assertion only because we ignore all of the rest?

To satisfy the Skeptic, one would need to have an understanding of the all things (omniscience) prior to gaining absolute certainty

To be able to assert something, anything at all, we as individuals need to ignore or exclude the entire world outside the assertion.

Focusing, pointing, describing, referring, intent, purpose, meaning, etc. are all “limiting” notions in this sense while qualifying (perhaps, justifying) the absence of everything else.

One is not interested in this or that. It does not pertain. Not warranted, etc.

We set up structures and models which allow us to systematically “hack off” the rest of world. We write articles and books which do the same. Each focuses on a topic, theme, problem, etc. and proceeds as though we can proceed in this way!

When the boundary lines are approached (as they must), one steers clear of them, being careful not to go beyond the points allotted to the specific purpose. One forces the fit, in other words, wherever and whenever such forcing becomes necessary; that is, one reasserts decided upon parameters, in spite of the persistent presence of the world of facts and knowledge–shored up on the outside and pushing to get in–wanting to challenge the notion that they can or ought to remain peripheral to the question at issue. With this perpetual agony always at the author’s door, the only way out is to force, through “definition” or basic premises and assumptions, etc., what will have to be understood at the outset by the reader. Unchallengeable, in other words.

The initial “challenge”, then, emanates from the authors own mind. Only after his work is published, or put into the hands of others, does another form of “outside” challenge begin; thus challenging the author’s own basic premises (yes, nothing is sacred!), logical consistency, usage of facts, correctness in portraying them, etc.–and all the rest.

Thus, while the author may feel some pang of guilt, some sense of incompleteness, he nonetheless understands that to give in (or to address) the outside forces of knowledge, is to go on endlessly while any sense of focus or coherence becomes lost in a sea of confusion. He knows first hand that such an approach would take him through an endless process of engaging ever newer, ever larger fields of knowledge, thereby forcing redefinition of focus and new parameters over and over again without end!#

#

@OUR SYSTEM FOR OBJECTIVE KNOWLEDGE

(8-16-87)

Our present system of objective knowledge rests in current summations of knowledge in respective fields; summations of traditionally held values and beliefs understood to be held in consensus by us all; summations which are too restricted from the whole of objective knowledge.

True objective knowledge in the idealistic sense attached to truth and certainty, is unobtainable, perhaps nonsensical. Relative objectivity, on the other hand, is always with us and resides in each individual. It is the sum of all individuals that must be taken into account in order to have relative objective certainty for a given field/class.

In the US’s field, as in any country, total representation is not taken into account. The beliefs, actions, considerations of the most vile among us MUST be taken into consideration IF we hold objective knowledge to be a desirable and sought after goal.

The same, of course, pertains to the entire world, whereby if we are to take seriously the goal of total relative objectivity for the entire earth, we must include ALL known values in our field.

Thus, the first question has to do with whether or not those in power agree that it ought to be accomplished. This entails that a NEED is seen for the same; that not to evoke this approach will be worse than to ignore it.

THE DEVIL MUST BE ALLOWED ONTO THE PLAYING FIELD!

“GOD MADE THE SUN TO SHINE ON BOTH THE GOOD AND THE EVIL” MATTHEW

When this is fully understood, we can then concentrate on deciding just how the information (total field) will be compiled, structured, and utilized.

Where is the devil to be found? Within and without us all! The devil is to be found wherever we envision something that is not to our own advantage. The devil emanates from personal fear. Evil is anything that can cause us harm.

Thus, evil itself becomes relative. The “practice” of communism is evil to ourselves while the “practice” of democracy is evil (or foolish) to the communists. Both sides couch their claims by alluding to the “practice” of either system, thus at the same time acknowledging the good intent of either system, but blaming the futility, falsity, or misuse of either. We will do or say whatever we need to do or say to protect ourselves from this devil. We justify our actions, in a sense, by saying “the devil made me do it!”

Do we have the courage to allow the devil onto the playing field? All values and beliefs, world wide, even when they directly threaten us? We claim that self preservation is a basic right; that it is a natural tendency inherent in the world. And so it is. But when we run head on into another’s same right, we tend to justify our own stance rather than try to understand the predicament. What is this predicament? And what should we do about it?

At bottom, it is the stalemate between the world as we find it and the world as we wish it. Survival of the fittest and survival as we would wish it. The “real” and the “ideal”. We have inherited a challenge… perhaps a despicable challenge, but a challenge to be sure.#

#

@PROBLEMS AND ISSUES OF THE DAY
(8-16-87)

ORCHESTRATED DELUSION through intentional, layered, usage of confusion. Those in know, have sophisticated means for taking advantage of those that are not knowledgeable enough to recognize that schemes are being employed to mislead themselves. Advantage is taken when an individual assumes they are operating (or others are operating) out of a given set of rules, traditions, beliefs, etc. when they are not. Auto Manufacturer kickbacks to Dealers, Consumers, low interest rates, etc. are all schemes disguising initially inflated prices. Let the Buyer Beware is to condone this free for all.

Stock market investments may represent another area where the general unsophisticated consumer is led down the primrose path believing that money is there to be made when the whole idea is to foster this (just like lotteries) by emphasizing the few that do make money and disguise the vast majority who don’t. But the pool of money is not wasted. It goes to those who are sophisticated enough, or in a position favorable enough to get it. Thus, the general public is invited to play a game in which they do not fully understand. The rules proffered and the rules “played” are two different things. Information regarding the total loss of stock market investments by the “beginner” investor is deftly kept out of the lime light.

The unwary consumer is preyed upon by making use of human frailties such as greed, or the need for security through wealth. Such “values” are promoted by those with the greatest advantage. In the same way that an auto manufacturer would certainly want promote the joys of auto ownership, so too do the money lenders want to promote the benefits of having money, even if it is not your own. Surplus money, Wall Street tells us, should be invested on Wall Street–where else? The fox is telling us that the safest place to play is in its own den!

The point is that the total machine operates like a runaway truck. Nowhere is anyone told the workings of the system; that they needn’t have gotten aboard this vehicle at all; that there are alternative approaches to life. Nowhere are the brakes being applied or anyone asking just where this truck is headed!

The world will always be led by those who are leaders or “advantaged” in other ways as well. The advantage can be in brainpower, money, strength, influence, or anything whatever. One cannot know whether he has a given advantage until he first knows what it is he or she values or seeks. Everyone could theoretically, if not in fact, be advantaged. We would naturally gravitate towards those directions if not for interference from situations, rules, beliefs, surroundings, etc. provided us through whatever culture we belong to.

NATURAL DELUSION: such as we find in the many layers of knowledge and concepts which oftentimes lead us in opposite directions and into confusion except for the most shallow forms of speech. Need to understand that we are “out on a limb” in ordinary language in the same way as we are intellectually. Our conceptual layers confuse and mislead us and we build more confusion into the system through misled practices. Learning from the calculator as a base rather than fundamental arithmetic concepts. This situation of being removed far from our original homes permeates our lives and we must accept that we cannot return home. There is a natural behavior taking place parallel to this in the psychological sphere as well. If children were left alone to develop in any way that was “natural” to themselves without our interference in setting values and rules… might wind up killing themselves and the strongest and most witty seek to gain their advantage in the unnatural surroundings they find themselves in. We must understand the differences between evolution and transplantation! whether we are talking about persons or ideas.

We get into trouble when we transplant ideas, systems, words, etc. into context in which they do not belong. Okay to do so long as we are aware of what we are doing.

School classroom did not evolve a social system. We created an artificial one and support it through teaching of certain values, rules, and discipline!#

#

@THE DESIGN OF THE “SWITCH
(8-16-87)

NOTION THAT “NATURAL” WORLD FREE FROM RESTRICTIVE DEFINITION, ETC. IS FREE OF INCONSISTENCY…THAT SUCH MATTERS WOULD NOT HAVE ANY PLACE WHATEVER. QUESTION SURROUNDS OUR RUNNING INTO INCONSISTENCIES AND DIRECT OPPOSITION IN OUR INTELLECTUAL ENDEAVORS LEADING US, PERHAPS, TO ASSUME THAT SOMETHING WE ARE DOING IS WRONG. A SYSTEM ERROR. A CONCEPTUAL ERROR, ETC. THE FOLLOWING REMARKS REPRESENT A FAILED ATTEMPT AT TRYING TO DEAL WITH THIS.

We might try to imagine a “natural order of things” free from the many restrictions we have imposed; restrictions having to do with `classification’ and `definition’ and their “fruits” of `identification’, `description’, and `relationships”. We might attempt to make this form of abstraction because we believe it could shed light on our knowledge of the world and rid ourselves of inconsistencies, etc. But try as we might, we delude ourselves believing this possible. It becomes tantamount to wanting to “see” the world without “seeing”!; that is, without utilizing ones own eyes and other means of perception. We cannot conceive of a “non identifiable” things because the qualities we will surely perceive (shape, color, feel, taste, etc.) are parts of their identities! We could at most try to eliminate most of our perceptions of it and pretend that things could exist in this way. Or we could project in the opposite direction and claim some theoretical possibility for their being other perceptions which simply are not belonging to ourselves.

We further refine and define things for greater precision.

I’ve been sucked into a philosophical muddle because I had a “preconceived” notion of a world without inhibiting, mankind imposed structures. Preconception may mean “wishful thinking” or the act of trying to establish something as a fact in order to build your case when it has not been established at all! And yet, such preconceptions come all too easily. We pluck them out of the air, or they come to us mysteriously when we are deep in thought, and we term them (perhaps, mistakenly as “CONCEPTS”). I think that many such concepts are “misconceptions” and we must be wary of them. They may win arguments, but they also wreak havoc on our knowledge mass.

We have here a basic philosophical dilemma having to do with the problem of perception or the relationship between ourselves and the so called “external” world. Our language is wrought with imprecision in this regard because our conceptions cannot be tested. They cannot be tested because we would have to determine whether or not they are “true of the world” and we can’t seem to get outside of our perceptions and the world in order to put it to the test! Is the question valid? #

#

@SELF WORLD RELATIONS
(8-17-87)

The triumvirate of “world”, “self”, and “relations”, represents three distinct segments of our body of knowledge. In fact, we might regard the same as being the whole of our knowledge!

But, the question arises, are we, in fact, able to study and gain knowledge of these various segments; that is, the world by itself, ourselves by ourselves, and the relationships existing between ourselves and world?

Put this way, we want to say “no!” To every part of the question. We want to point to the impossibility of our ever being able to detach ourselves or our perceptions from the objects perceived! And we want to vehemently deny our being able to detach ourselves from ourselves and the world in order to gain the detached perspective which we feel is necessary to the task!

But where and how did such parameters arise? We might admit to not being able to make the “detachments” as described, but don’t we nevertheless claim to have amassed knowledge in all three of these spheres? Are we misleading ourselves in believing we have been successful in this enterprise? Must we “qualify” our knowledge because of this?

“We” want to say “no” and still claim to have knowledge within all three spheres.

So what does knowledge of world, self, and their interrelationships really amount to? When we gain knowledge of the world, do we also recognize the presence of ourselves as being integral to the process? And what about the introspective sphere, and the imagined outside “objective” approach which requires studying relationships between ourselves and the world.

Knowledge of world not based upon illusion–but relative notions. Perceptions not exact but close enough. Repetition not exact but close enough. In fact, they are exactly right for the concepts (and uses) derived from them. When not close enough for a given use, then they can’t be utilized appropriately and we become unsure, indecisive, etc.#

#

@ BIG: THE BROAD PERSPECTIVE

(8-24-87)

How easily we become hostage to details; misled, misdirected, and entangled. While we struggle with one thread, we overlook the needs of another, and when those knock us on the head, we leave the former. Events lead and control us rather than the other way around. We bury ourselves in details because we start with details rather than with a general picture of what we are able to do, and then, carefully choosing to pursue this detail or that in accordance to what we deem manageable.

Life begins with details. We are always working from the particular to the general. Everything about our knowledge, language, structure, etc. indicates that this is so; that we are able to leap ahead, control or manage because we are able to generalize. These “constructs” (mental or otherwise) are tools for ordering our universe (personal and otherwise).

But in order to attend to the general, one must first take care of the immediate. But if one takes care of the immediate, he risks getting bogged down in it and never gaining the opportunity for the former. It can, and often is, a vicious circle.

The vicious circle, however, is an intellectual construct. It is already a generalized view. In reality, the particular and the general remain relative concepts and can be construed as being one or the other depending upon context. Any particular thing that you think of can be regarded as a general notion and vice versa–no matter how simple you make the case!

It is more a question of time than anything else. If we are preoccupied with one thing, we cannot be doing another. And the question becomes: What is the necessity for doing one thing over another and what are the effects? Could it be different? Do we in fact have the freedom? We are often shackled by responsibility. That’s the meaning of it after all. Responsibilities make our efforts more complex and difficult. Other lives and all that goes with these.#

#

@LANGUAGE/CONCEPTS: A LIFE OF THEIR OWN?

(9-11-87)

Do we live in a relativistic world? A world in which nothing can be pointed to that is free of change? Are our notions all “relative” in the sense that they are and must always be undergoing alterations of a sort? Are some of our concepts and definitions immutable? Like geometrical definitions for example. If so, what is it that makes them meet this criterion and is it sufficient?

We can try to stipulate a meaning for a word even though we understand the pressures that will be brought to bear on our having done so. We know that in the end it will fail because meanings are derived from, and altered through, life’s activity–and this cannot be stopped. But what of the definition of circle, triangle, etc.? So called “closed” definitions that have little or nothing to do with events in the world? Are these “absolutes”?

Perhaps we can say that they are absolutes only because they have nothing to do with events in the world! That had we claimed that triangles exist in the world, our claim would soon suffer the onslaught “relativistic” assumptions regarding perception, change, and motion.

But we cannot talk about “absolutes”, “relativity”, “definition”, “meaning”, etc. without a context; as though they carry their own meanings with them! This is a greatest source of confusion regarding these notions.

So from where did such notions derive? And if there are ordinary meanings that preceded those presently aggravating us, then when and how did these latter one arise? Needless to say, pre Socratic individuals were talking about these matters and our records of writings from this point back grow less and less. Thus, we cannot count on historical records to help us out.

We might try to find evidence of similar type activity that took place in more modern times, or perhaps, is going on at present, that does not seem to be derived from prior notions. Thus, we can look to the “activity” or “process” of formulating such notions for clues.

Like art and music seemingly going through stages, maybe language activity follows the same pattern. Perhaps the words we use lead us rather than the other way around. Perhaps we need to think of language as having a life of its own, a “living” thing, something that has its own direction and ability to perpetuate itself, in ways that we did not intend, nor are we able to control. Perhaps the process of language does not belong to us, but is no more than another form of expression or extension of ourselves, much as our machines must be considered to be.

If this is so, then where did we derive our notion of being in charge? When, in other words, did we begin the habit of calling “discoveries” “creations”? I suspect it has to do with the act of description; that crediting someone for a discovery is very similar to crediting that person with having “created” whatever it was that was discovered. Of course, it depends on the circumstances. Balboa would have had a difficult time explaining his “creation” of the Pacific Ocean upon his return to Portugal, if in fact he did return. But when the process is vague or complex or mysterious, it becomes much easier to effect this “sleight of hand”.

This is not to say that our use of the term “creation” is wrong. We do create, concoct, build, formulate, invent, all sorts of things. And those that are involved are surely deserving of credit for having done so should these enterprises be considered deserving of credit, that is. But when we speak of ourselves as having invented or created language, tools, rules, and all the rest… we begin to stretch the creation concept beyond its own boundaries–or beyond the meaning we wish now to hold it to. Thus, we have a conflict between a growing concept in terms of usage, and a precisely defined, “stable” meaning and notion we wish to hold on to.

But if on going usage of a term defies a precise meaning of it, then aren’t such usages to be regarded as improper? Yes, but only within the restrictions already imposed. A concept has artificially been “frozen” in time. Notions regarding its meaning have been “stipulated” in spite of its ever changing usage, and the entire process considered to be valid and valuable to those involved. Thus, for those persons, at least, impropriety becomes a valid concern. It is similar to a commandment. If one commands something of another and is not obeyed, then to that person at least, an impropriety has taken place.

On a much larger plane, holding onto “precise” meanings of constitutions, institutional bodies of knowledge, rules, laws, purposes, etc. all are subject to this same sort of conflict. As I write these words, the Roman Catholic Pope is visiting our nation in order to try to resolve the very same sort of conflict. Trying to hold on to original dogma, precise meanings and purposes which have been defined for the church, in spite of pressures to change them emanating from activities running counter to them by its “adherents”, is a conceptual conflict!

Thus, the question becomes one of understanding development and usage of concepts and their relationship to human activity; that is, the manner in which our concepts themselves are used–such as controlling human behavior, providing tools for furthering knowledge through manipulation (experiment) or by extending our perception of things in order that we might come to have broader or more refined “pictures”, “notions”, etc.

Our concepts, then, spring back upon us, like “living” things that have a life force of their own. It reminds me of the “Gaia” theory presented by that gentleman living in England. His claim is that the entire planet earth can be looked upon as a “single living organism” doing whatever it can to sustain and protect itself! I like this view and know that it will lead to new avenues of thought and discovery. And as we continue to stretch our concepts in order to gain new knowledge, we are never quite certain as to whether we are employing them for our use, or being employed or manipulated by them–for their use!

Nonsense you say? My speaking of “their use” as though such concepts were living things irks more than confuses you! I know. We feel much more certain of this being nonsensical than we do about admitting to the confusion regarding our usage of concepts. But we do recognize that confusion does increase when we broaden current notions in order to explain new directions in thought. In the above example, our concept or definition of “life” simply will not permit the inclusion of a concept or planet in the same way as it allows a singular organism. And yet, no one doubts that these same concepts do in fact emanate from life! So why shouldn’t they be considered living things? When detached from life, they cease to develop and multiply and begin to die. When attached to life, they continue like any other part of ourselves, and when we die, pass on through others (and who knows, maybe genetically as well) and thus continue in the same way as every other part of ourselves.

Again, we are uncomfortable with “stretching” our notions in this way. To do so is to ask us to rethink, reshape, redefine, etc. something that we have grown accustomed to. The more radical the departure from ordinary understanding, the more disinclined we are for going along. After all, when our concepts are uprooted, reshaped, redefined–so too are we! Why is this? #

#

@THOUGHT/CONCEPTS/LIMITATIONS

(10-12-87)

When I am thinking about things in general; especially when I am thinking “generally”, I very often come to a point of saturation. I’m talking about a feeling of heaviness within my stomach that tells me its all too much to absorb–too much to sort and classify–too much to hold in perspective at one time.

I think this is important. It’s saying something about thought or my capacity for it, perhaps. It may also say something about yours as well. It may also be pointing to our limitation for thinking or conceptualizing. I can’t recall whether this same feeling arises when I’m pursuing a single topic or whether it results only when I am trying to take a comprehensive view of a broad based concept or several intertwining ones. I will pay closer attention to this from now on.I keep thinking about the analogy of thought processes or conceptualizing as being like a stretched rubber band. The further it is stretched, the higher the resistance to its being stretched. Limitations to thought or to the process? Could such a limitation be freed through some higher form of conceptualization should we be unable to replace what we have with anything else, which does in fact seem unlikely.

But then, we did discover our planet to be round while all perceptual evidence pointed to its being flat; our relative position within the milky way (thus, an outside observation) while forced to remain inside all along. And we did these things through the manipulation and playing out of concepts.

The whole process of thought and knowledge seems to revolve around penetration into and separation from our conceptions; the push and pull of opposition. And the notion of “opposition” has been treated variously throughout the ages by thinkers of every persuasion and discipline. It’s one of our POWER concepts, in my opinion. CLASSIFICATION, DEFINITION, CONCEPT, SYSTEM, etc. are some others.

But then, these are ALL at bottom “conceptions” or “ideas” as we might prefer to put it#

#

@LEARNING

(10-22-87)

“Take control of your life–Make things happen”. Understand yourself, your world, and your relations to it. Learn. Grasp. Know.

We to place major emphasis upon the dichotomy of object and knower as if these were the only two elements in a learning situation. Not that simple. The knower is multi faceted and is not always knowing even though the brain continues to function–and this is the point. We know what it is to hear and see without really attending to either at times and, thus, are unable to describe what has transpired if asked. All of us know what it is like to read a page or chapter without “really” reading it. Without focus or attention paid to the object in question, very little is retained. But don’t make the mistake of thinking attention is like an “on off” switch–fully on or fully off. It should be thought of as a continuum of attention that can be increased or decreased depending upon prevailing circumstances.

What constitutes such circumstances? This is the crucial question that needs to be dealt with. And I am certain that psychology has already amassed a good deal of worthwhile information in this regard. Well, where is it then? How has it been translated into current practices and curriculum within our schools? While there might be much that can be pointed to in answer to this question, I can point to too much else that would deny its ever having been put to use. For everywhere we look we see classrooms filled with individuals crying out to be treated as such. Everywhere we look, we see individuals vying for attention, trying desperately to demonstrate to others what it is that they know and feel–what is that is important to their own lives.

While I have not scrutinized the literature of learning or cognition, common sense would seem to dictate that two obvious points of reference (dynamic forces) perhaps necessary to high level attention, would be that the objects or information be personally needed or of definite interest to the individual. On the other hand, it is commonplace that we tend, on the other hand, to “inform” our children of what it is that “ought” to interest them. In other words, we try through description and example to convince them of the importance of what we are saying and thus, hope that they will come to the necessary understanding and acceptance of its appropriateness. But appropriate or not, this is not criteria enough to assure a strong level of attention.

So how far out on that “continuum of attention” will those faithful to the promise be able to reach? And if the answer is oftentimes “not very far”, then what importance does our being right really have? What importance to the individual?–what importance to the society at large?

Are we wrong, then, in our approach? Ought we to compromise? Or don’t we dare risk the consequences of tending to, and supporting personal direction?

THE CRY IS FOR MORE AND MORE SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS, ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY. “WE MUST MAINTAIN OUR ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE. WE MUSTN’T FALL BEHIND THE REST OF THE WORLD.” AND WE CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THIS THRUST BY FOCUSING UPON IT AND IGNORING ALL ELSE THAT DOES NOT FIT THE MODEL. AND IN SO DOING WE LITERALLY SACRIFICE LIVES. AND IN SO DOING, WE LITERALLY SACRIFICE ALL OF US. AN IGNORANT ASSESSMENT AND APPROACH TO A VERY PAROCHIAL VIEW.

The truth of the matter is that we are afraid of the potential outcome of attending to individuals. What if we run short of engineers? What if too many of us fall in love with poetry? What will become of us? The forces directing us now are the same ones that will continue to direct us. We can only boggle them–slow them down through interference. “Go with the flow”, you know–“trust in the force Luke”, we might be operating at maximum efficiency. The mistakes we are making presently will come back to haunt us. We will pay the price for the millions of “half baked” educations that we continue to criticize and decry, but do nothing about. And what of our original goal? It too will be set back considerably. For neither are such actions conducive to the making of great scientist and engineers. We are in a muddle and we don’t know how to get out!

There is a lot to be understood regarding learning, storage, and retrieval of information within our brains. But there is also a very real need for understanding what is already there. Too little attention is paid to our present knowledge mass; conceptual levels or general levels of understanding that tend to get in the way of communications and learning. I’m talking about the structure of knowledge, language, and concepts ultimately–that field of so called knowledge that has taken us to the present, is threatening to take us into the future, and of which we know little or nothing. #

#

@RIDING ON A SPHERE

(10-23-87)

Riding on a sphere through space headed for who knows where; a self contained space ship with a living cargo; a spaceship similar to, though somewhat cruder to our own envisioning of future travels; travels which will take us in our own directions. How ironic, and yet so predictable, that we are once again imitating what has already been given us. Yes, and how predictable that we remain ready to accept credit for the whole of it.

Riding on a sphere through space headed for who knows where; a self contained space ship with a living cargo; a former embryo whose years must be measured in billions; who by this time has nurtured children old enough to venture from home; not unlike our own children. How ironic, and yet so predictable, that we have become what we are. Yes, and how predictable that we are only too ready to accept credit for the whole of it.

Riding on a sphere through space headed for who knows where. A self contained space ship with a living cargo; a cargo of children ready to explore the universe; not unlike our naive selves. How ironic, and yet so predictable, that we understand so little about why we are headed.

It’s all quite accidental you say? That we are headed for no place in particular; for no reason whatever; within a universe born out of nothing? Is this what you’ve reasoned? Or is it simply a measure of your defiance?

I do understand your feelings. I’m angry about this whole affair myself. Like you, I don’t like going anywhere without knowing where I’m going; that is, unless I choose to. Neither do I enjoy abiding by rules forced upon me.

But throughout my meandering within my forty seven years, I have come to understand that these feelings are not the result of reason. No, reason is the biggest joke of all; and that topic will also have its day. But for now, the simple truth is that I am angry, perhaps incensed; and it is because of this, that I may shut my eyes to truth; because of this that I demand to know why I am born to die; why I must be pained to live; and why my survival requires another’s demise. I want answers. And I will continue to demand that there be someone to address!

Riding on a sphere through space headed for who knows where. A self contained space ship with a living cargo; a cargo that believes itself to have discovered a living continuum of good to evil, of sense to nonsense, of knowledge to ignorance; and back again; not of itself but of its mother. How ironic, and yet so predictable, that our own vanity remains our greatest curse and challenge. Yes, and how predictable that we remain steadfast in our refusal to accept this blame. #

#

@RELATIVE NOTIONS

I am a generalist and specialist inasmuch as I both generalize and specialize in the process of learning and thinking. I am a Generalist in terms of my overall intention; that of wanting to discover and provide explanations through noting generalities of and between things. I am a Specialist inasmuch as my interest is focused upon the broad spheres of personal and social behavior (from a problematic perspective) and the processes of learning or acquiring knowledge from the same perspective. The relationships (actual and potential) existing within as well as between these two broadly defined spheres is representative of both my focus and faith. Our faith that reason and knowledge can be made to serve as a potential unifier and eradicator of all that troubles us, remains our most viable hope, warranted or not. And even if this faith proves to be unwarranted by showing the supremacy of human emotion and self-interest in the affairs of the world, our knowledge that this is so is nonetheless knowledge, and no less potent for being so.

Faith comes into play since it remains unclear as to how relevant our knowledge is to
As such, I tend to focus upon personal and social behavior, culture (from an institutional perspective) and its relationships to

What is a “Specialist”? What is a “Generalist”?

Generalist=Possibilities, relationships between things… telescope… wholes… upwards

Specialist=Possibilities, relationships within things… microscope… parts… downwards

The Generalist takes specialized excursions (short ones) down a number of paths NOT to see what lies ahead but only to gain familiarity. His purpose remains outside the thing itself

A Generalist looks at possibilities and relationships between things. Concepts and ideas are what is most important; concentration on broad classes of things rather than to the particulars belonging to them; toward finding broader classes yet in a continuing process toward a universal explanation of all things. The generalist is a unifier, constantly and consistently seeking new perspectives through differing connections or composites of disparate things; things which have not been explained to satisfaction; things which are puzzling or perplexing us and in need of explanation. It is this need that provides the force behind the activity. The Generalist is a builder of structure; a creator of explanations and possibilities. He seeks commonality

The Specialist attempts to break common things down into its constituent parts;
There is no difference between what the Generalist does and what the Specialist does other than defining ones field of operation. It is the degree to which one concentrates. There are `established fields of concentration’ which have been defined and labeled. The Generalist is not interested in these except in terms of their relationships to one another or for some useful bit of information to be used in building or supporting another relationship.

The specialist must periodically surface to note the relationships his in-depth findings have upon other surrounding things. He cannot remain a specialist always.

Breadth of field depends upon one’s aims, driving force

Particulars are classified

Classes are defined

One can draw a circle and devotes a lifetime to learning what lies within it, like a time frame a historian might choose. To call one a “specialist” in this regard is useful as a description of what is taking place as well as a definition of its parameters. One limits oneself to particulars and applies findings to the classes to which they belong–to the `general’, in other words.

A Specialist attempts to learn more and more about less and less; that is, willingly undergoes a process of limiting options by choosing to focus upon one or several of these. The process of limiting options can stop at any point, in which case one of necessity becomes a generalist. For example, if ones parameters have to do with cell physiology, and there is a reluctance to focus upon one element over another (mitochondria over nucleus, etc.), then one is attempting to learn–in general–more and more about ALL of the things falling within the cell structure.

On the other hand, a Generalist attempts to learn more and more about more and more, but soon understands that he is forced to accept less and less in terms of in-depth knowledge. The process of including every option that presents itself can stop at any point, in which case one of necessity becomes a Specialist. For example, if ones chooses to limit oneself to the study of Sociology, Anthropology and Psychology, then he will from that point become a Specialist so long as the three respective fields are taken together and concentrated upon. While the Specialist limits the field through exclusion, the Generalist broadens his through inclusion. Neither can have it both ways without paying the price!

A Specialist (Particularist) is a focused Generalist or continually focusing as a Specialist

A Generalist is…

This is the danger when we attempt to make nouns out of verbs or define a process as a static thing…

Process of looking at a class (AS A PARTICULAR) and its particulars, concentrating on one or several of its particulars (sub-class) and continuing the process…. We can call this process or activity “Particularizing”. It entails limitation through exclusion.

Process of looking

What makes all of this possible is the `relative’ position we find ourselves to be in terms of our limited perception. We are limited to whatever our perceptual makeup allows, to whatever experiences we have or are able to have, and much of this contingent upon such things as circumstances, location and time, opportunity, etc. What is most important to note is that new dimensions have been added to thought through knowledge and invention. Early philosophers reasoned that all things had to be made up of smaller parts and that there had to be “invisible” things (potential perceptions) resting outside our vision since we clearly are not able to see all such parts. So long as our vision was limited to our normal eyesight

Broaden the vision, lessen

Limit the vision, broaden

We tend to think that `concentrated depth of field’ is stronger, and therefore more valuable than, `shallow breadth of field’. It depends upon perspective and purpose. Complex activities require those who can grasp relationships and their possibilities as well as those who can provide in-depth, product information. Knowledge gets translated into products and services which are manufactured or established and sold to consumers. Overseeing the intricacies involved in the formulation, coordination and implementation of these processes is the job of generalist. Provision of particular skills and knowledge is the job of the specialist.

Clearly relative (and, therefore interchangeable terms) whose meanings can take on polar proportions depending upon perspective

Why are “Specialist” drawn toward specialization while “Generalist” are repulsed by the same? Is there a common denominator at work? Is the attraction and repulsion belonging to the same magnet?

What benefits are accrued to those who resist specialization; who are repulsed by specialization in the same manner as others are drawn to it?

What is a “generalist” anyway, but a reactionary to acceptance; acceptance of finiteness and place.#

#

@FEBRUARY 25, 1989

Order seems to be meaningless without an observer; concept of order, rotation, repetition, relations, correspondence, etc. are all relative to an observer and a particular point or location. Remove either the observer or the point and you remove the conception. Mathematical constructs are not replications of things perceived in the world–they are approximations that have been “frozen” into pseudo-absolutes by the very act of construction! What determines their effectiveness, degree of accuracy , will be the degree of imperceptible difference the view offers us; that is, how well it conforms to our own perception of the matter and the degree to which it proves useful and, therefore, long-lasting.

If we develop the notion of `relative’ absolutes or conceptions into a model (which is just another one of its kind), we can then throw out the whole ball of wax by saying that there are no absolutes, etc. which others will claim is not tenable. This is what Francis Schaeffer is doing when he argues in defense of a Creator, Personality or Reason for Existing.

It is absurd to suppose that something can come from nothing unless you presuppose a God loaded with all sorts of “sufficient” qualities; that is, qualities ascribed in order to make sense of the notion that something can come from nothing. In effect, Schaeffer tries to force the fit through a process of limitation. God becomes a sort of invisible clay for us to mold into whatever configuration suits our purpose. It’s a `sleight of hand’ move that works something like this:

FACT: Things exist undeniably

FACT: Our conception of existence necessitates and presupposes a prior cause (or preexistence of something other than what we experience) in order to satisfactorily explain how things came to be

FACT: When we ask not how a single thing came to be but how all things came to be, we find that we are left with having to conceive of how something could come from nothing.

FACT: But we cannot conceive of something coming from nothing without first `imagining’ what it would have to be like. Since our notion of God seems to have all of the “sufficient” attributes, then God must have created the universe.

And so all of the negative short-comings of our inability to conceive of what is impossible are put into (or have previously been put into) our on-going `construction’ of God. This is the real “sleight of hand”, that of hiding this on-going process or accumulation of necessary attributes. God exists because He suffices. He suffices because we make Him suffice!

Of course, Schaeffer does not look at this half of the equation. He chooses only to look at our current conception of God and does not even consider that the same arguments that led to the search for a sufficient reason can also be directed to our notion of God. Why, in other words, must we not also find it impossible to conceive of a God that has no beginning or end, etc.?

It was at this point that I closed the book. By page 13 when he began to reiterate that the only possible solution to the problem, the only one that is sufficient as an explanation, would be the Judeo-Christian God, I knew that it was time to say goodbye .Rather than look at the concepts we are employing and the manner in which we are employing them, Schaffer chose to make the usual leap of faith and proceeded to rest everything upon man’s ability to reason–which to my way of thinking, fosters the greatest illusion of them all!

Too much faith has been put into our already nebulous notions regarding the usage of reason. We tend to get carried away with are most powerful conceptions and begin to imagine all sorts of powers that are simply not there. “Counting can go on forever”, “Give me a big enough lever and I’ll move the earth”, “The universe is like a large machine”, “Something cannot come from nothing”, “God created the universe”, etc. All of these give rise to all sorts of feelings that seem to carry a special significance or power. We go on adding to our constructs as needed… adding `concepts’ (which still depict `things’, though necessarily in a slightly different sense); things such as force, infinity, omniscience, relativity, structure, chaos, purpose, and all the rest of the nebulae we have extended to the point of absurdity.

To much tampering has been made of our notion of God. We have defined and re-defined our conceptions to suit one or another’s purpose down through the ages. We have succeeded only in adding confusion and not in making our conception more precise. We sense our limitations, fears and vulnerability in a world that demands that we do so. Our gods have resembled our greatest fears and also our greatest hopes. They have run the gamut from evil to good and back again. Our spiritual selves are at present nearly exhausted, nearly lost in the sea of conceptual confusion that presently surrounds us; that has been tens of thousands of years in the making; that has managed to construct a thousand fences, which promised protection, but only confined us more.

I have literally been sickened by the degree to which confusion continues to be fostered today; the way that simple truths have been steered into the grossest entanglements imaginable. And, rather than question what it is we are doing to make it so, we continue to insist that the matter is even more complicated (complex) than what we had imagined. No doubt this is true of many things–but how much of its complicated `nature’ is our own doing–is never spoken?As was said, we readily recognize our limitations, fears and vulnerabilities. All of us have at least some sense of good and bad about the world which is probably contingent upon the way each of us has fared. While some are presently contemplating the origin of the universe, others are contemplating the origin of their next meal. While some are working on changing our genetic coding, others are standing with spears ready for the hunt. And we are all too quick to think that there are significant differences dividing them.

Historians have described events, Poets have expressed feelings and conceptions, Philosophers have added “reason” and “order” to the same, and Science has put these to use. This is the sequence of events that has been depicted more or less. It too is a very shallow view of what has taken place in fact.

This view tries to foster the notion of progress, of building upon a foundation laid long ago and crediting the respective foundations with having made the whole thing possible. We have all sorts of models, histories and descriptions to support this belief. Wherever gaps have shown themselves, we have been quick to fill them in. In this regard, we have assured ourselves that ideas give rise to actions, theories and science to technology and invention, philosophy to science, parents to the learning of language in children, teaching to learning in general, explanations from simple to complex. How many Industrialist, Inventors, Scientist, Educators, etc. have I seen near blushing as they felt compelled to attribute their achievements, not to such things as `hit and miss’, `sweat and hard work’, `sheer accident’, `simple observation of something which simply happened during the course of the action or experiment’ and the like–but emanating from “reason”, “planing”, “theory”, “intention” and all of the other constructs we wish to maintain in their appropriate place. The simple truth gets buried deeper and deeper as we continue to maintain these charades. No one wants to be first to admit that he sees the “king as naked”. The consequences of such a betrayal may be too much to risk in some cases and too relishing to want to give up in others. “Let someone else do it… I’m loving what is being attributed to me. What’s the harm?”

I have always found it difficult to get past an introduction or first chapter of most books I have thought I would like to read. As a result, I have closed many more books than I have read. I have always felt a sense of guilt from having made these early assessments about the strength of what was about to be propounded, but I’m beginning to believe that I have been right to do so. Authors have a way of drawing you in. An uncomfortable nibble here and there and pretty soon you’ve taken a bite which you find you can’t spit out at the appropriate time when you realize that you’ve been taken in, and that you are very uncomfortable with the conclusion that has seemingly come from nowhere. Now you are perplexed by the maze of conceptions you find yourself to be a part of but not aware of how you arrived. I find it simpler to examine an authors basic premises at the outset. I immediately look for the foundation supporting the authors beliefs. If it is coherent to me, I’ll read on, if not, I’ll close it. No one should feel obligated to absorb what does not fit their respective makeup.

Not everyone’s criteria for action and belief is the same. We want to believe that there is a single standard, but there is not. Some look beyond or around the building blocks which have been given us. Others accept and relish these and attempt to build ever newer configurations out of the same. And still others are content with understanding, emulating, describing, transferring, etc. what has already been said by the “masters” and also by the best of the current “disciples”–those secondary and tertiary sources who seem always to want us to believe that have somehow surpassed those that gave them their foundations. We get the feeling that such persons can offer us more `up-to-date’ or more relevant extensions of this same thought; that they can, at least, explain the way to understanding it.

But the truth of the matter is that whether we are examining a film strip, the events of history, the story of ideas, architecture, music, dance, inventions and the like, we will only find a few highlights if that is what we are looking for. This doesn’t mean that the rest is debris–only that these were not major turning points, innovations and the like. Thus, if you want to concentrate on the history of thought, for example, you are going to have to look at the whole of life, looking into the realms of art, poetry, philosophy, and science, and probably much more besides. What is important to note is that to do so, you will depend upon those secondary and tertiary persons who have had to select these for us. Thus, there is a general consensus as to what constitutes the great literature, the major ideas and turning points. However, these `primary’ sources may not be as primary as we like to think, but, perhaps, have only served as conduits through which knowledge and perceptions passed. In the same way that we want to attribute the source of great ideas to our great universities, or great discoveries or events to ideas, intentions, or plans preceding them, so too do we want to attribute great things to those who seemingly gave rise to the same.

I am not trying to say that the “classics” are not great books or that those they represent are not great persons. I am only trying to draw a parallel to the way in which we construct our knowledge. For we do not always wish to describe things for what they are or in the way we see them–but, more often than not, in a way which we would `like’ them to be. The promulgation of traditional delusions are no longer necessary, in my opinion, and may even be a danger to us at present. I believe that truth rests closest to our passions and emotions and is very weak in the realm of reason. I believe that knowledge rests more with everyday perceptions and events in the world than within our conceptual frameworks. Great ideas come from very ordinary sources, oftentimes from very ordinary persons who most probably go unnoticed in the process. We want to believe that there are great persons in the same way as we want to believe that there are great solutions to our ever-present uncertainties, fears and vulnerabilities. We want to believe it so much in fact, that we will resort to lying as a source of protection from ourselves.

Now I am not trying to remove that protection because I’m a cynic or some sort of bruised `misfit’ who wants to wreak vengeance upon those who have slighted me. I want to remove the protection because I honestly feel that it is in the way of our very survival. I believe it crucially important that we begin the process of cleaning out our intellectual or conceptual closets. We need to remove any unnecessary debris that is serving to create barriers that divide us from understanding our human and ecological counterparts throughout the world. It is expressed knowledge, values and beliefs–long held traditions that have been built up over the centuries–resting upon survival instincts and all other animal characteristics relating us to our surroundings, that must successfully dealt with.

Since the surroundings affecting us may belong to other cultures far from our own shores and vice-versa, we must come to mutual understandings (if not respect) if we are to survive the highly volatile mess our ego’s, greed and cowardice has wrought. But more than this, we must not think that the solutions to our problems will be found in our repositories of knowledge and action–our governmental, educational, economic or religious institutions. No! They will not be found here–not ultimately. They have axes to grind, traditions to uphold, constituencies to serve, and above all, practices stemming from ill-founded, oftentimes makeshift beliefs, proffered in the name of conformity and for the sake of maintaining their status-quo.

No, the solution resides with and in all of us. While we must expect that our leadership will come clean with the facts, we must be prepared to accept them for what they are. We must, in other words, accept back responsibility for ourselves–responsibilities which we willingly gave up for the sake of making life easier.

The world is confusing. Our knowledge tree continues to foster this confusion rather than eradicate it. The answers are simply not in the hands of the experts. There are no experts that don’t also have counterparts in total opposition to themselves. How much more evidence do we require? How much longer are we going to be willing to wait it out, claiming that it’s all out of our control, much too complicated, and all the rest of this nonsense that we know is nonsense. As humans, we know what others want and need–let’s cut out the bull! Let’s quit pretending that we don’t see it, that they don’t deserve it, or that this is simply “the way things are.” We have a lot of confessing to do, all of us; and we had better get at it because it’s not going to get any easier down the road. We had better get ready to admit the commonality we share with others; it is everywhere obvious and always present to ourselves–our fears, hopes, vulnerabilities.#

#

MAY 3, 1989

DIY vs. services for philosophy. Doing for others leads to more dependency and allows for things to be more complicated (light law), making dependency upon specialist greater.

Which products and services should be for and which by individuals?

Are people to be regarded as machinery, highly specialized types and simple, is this okay? Natural?

Must we s@trive to get people to keep up with the current knowledge demand?

Should we continue to simplify for them to do?

Should we continue to simplify for them or simply do for them?

Telephones, electricity, doctors, and lawyers, etc. are all “for them” approaches, as our televisions, calculators, etc.

We do not attempt to teach individuals how to make their own. The world is to complicated. Demands, specialization and order to increase specific knowledge.

We must get more refined or focused to do so, like a microscope.

To escape this dilemma, we must have many microscopes, simultaneously focused on many area and then be able to draw the results through synthesis. Or combine efforts of these individual explorations or perspectives or classified excursions (limited pathways).

We apply their results. Who is the we?

Is knowledge and information amasses? We have to find better, more simplified means for organizing and assessing it.

Should each individual remain at the hub of their own or turn the hub over to someone else? Or can specialists assist with the process and not remove it? We are totally removed from the judicial process.

Individuals must not lose sight of directions and understanding of the world no matter how simplified their holistic view.

We must simplify complicated matters for individuals without removing control or access to them.

3

We do not (can not) get outside our limited means for perceiving. But we can expand it indefinitely. Like concentric circles.

While we risk getting route bound if we grow to fast within the current confines of our knowledge or systems contain our actions no break through in this regard will simplify its mass by allowing more room within.

How do new breakthroughs enlarge in our vision? How does this work? What do these breakthroughs really consist of? Knowledge or system? Facts or structure? Contents or vessels?

Currently we are heavily laden with both understanding our contents and because of this are not able to make appropriate decisions in light of directions and assessment. We are becoming “route bound.” Within the confines of our knowledge we either need to better our understand of how we are entangled by studying the interweaving routes, etc and noting how they got there or try to find a larger bag in order for them to spread out. But will they spread or will they continue to squeeze inward, choking themselves? In this analogy appropriate?

[Note: The analogy or model provides a new concept which is now applied back to the knowledge which produced it in the first place]

Values do not rest upon truths. Knowledge does not rest upon truths. Both rest upon the natural workings of life. Truth, justice, etc. represents specialized excoriation into the innermost means of our concepts, but really represent rearrangement of our structures or activities as Wittgenstein might chose to view it.

Context-shifting, concept-shifting, misconception about language and use of words.

Things that are beneficial to ourselves and taught. Things that are beneficial to our families are valued and taught. Things that are beneficial to our community are tried, valued, and taught. But this does not do in some sort of sequence it is possible that values beneficial to myself are taught to the tribe for my benefit and not theirs. Or primarily for mine even though to their to a degree.

This is the way the world has and continues to work. If I value an abortion and many oppose me, tension ensues. If I try to resolve it through intellectual means or legal means pointing to the law or structure what it is intended it doesn’t help.

Usually resort to arbitrary means. Democratic principals, voting, supreme court, etc. We resort to our agree upon structures as a final arbitrator. Structure is a guide for something, never the thing itself (is this true?). It is a simplified method of narrowing the field to a few individuals, it means that individuals do not have the right to decide everything for themselves but agree to give up or are forced to give up their right because society demand it. Much like the monarchs of old had to give up. But, we are argue furiously before we turn it over to the structure or to the courts. We give it our best shot.

Dichotomy: While life information and knowledge seems to grow more complicated, individuals seem to be gaining or demanding more and more control over our destinies.

Why are individuals demanding more control over our lives today? What is changed? Fever has lessened. Freedom reigns, information has increased. Knowledge of arbitrary nature of ideas and knowledge is increasing as has the awareness of the way the world works. Thus, each of us knows that power rules and that certain individuals and groups (special interests) are working on their own behalf. Why shouldn’t I? the strongest, smartest, will have the greatest advantage and they will decide how their advantages will be put to use.

Human debris, world wide will result as labor becomes unneeded and knowledge reigns. But what kind of knowledge? Who will decide? And upon what basis? Who will be looking out for the greater good? Government?

5

do such individuals represent a small minority? How many remain unaffected? What will happen to those who cling to human values. Will they go out by the wayside? Will we lose any advantage? Do we need government? Administrators and not policy/decision makers. Is government losing its control to individuals? Like monarchies? To the nobility? Everywhere on every level there are demands for restricting. Movements continue to go in the direction of individual control. Entanglements of psychological, religious, social, political, and economics structures is growing every more complex and in need of understanding. We can not live without structure and so we must continuously work toward adapting our structures to current needs. Do we follow individual citizens or do we leave them? It is an old dilemma. who ranks first? Does it make sense to raise an ought when it seem that those bit fit will win the day? Convenience the rest of us? What they have in mind, their intentions makes all the difference. That is, are they doing for themselves or for the greater good? The greater good equals benefits the majority in spite of individual advantages. Claiming the greater good while working for self or group, etc., equals benefits or equals benefits that clever powerful among us and holds the majority in check. Where do our ideas rise from? Feelings for humanity? For those who are the smartest? Or from those who are the strongest? Or from those who are struggling to survive. Leaders of masses also who put ideas in our heads. Where do they come from and what motivates them?

6

The masses are led by leaders or thinkers who are really concerned about the ideas rather than the person’s for which they are meant to serve or whom they are meant to serve. Or do they come from the haves as a means for controlling the have-nots? Does spouse equality create an illusion of it’s being while taken their own advantage. Like assisting people out the door of a company, through out placement, using non-profit community agencies to lead sanction and respectability to the process. But when the powers that are so obvious and we all consider ourselves in their service. They provide jobs and decide who they will employ, not the people, government based upon need. Based upon value and the profit motivation. If we assist corporations in making materials we will be giving money in order to purchase them. If we want products we must help the producers to produce them and our reward shall be our ability to purchase them. We give labor, they give money. We give them back part of that money. If no demand for products then no demand for labor. We desire material well-being. Producers tempt us to purchase even beyond our means. We think that it is better to sit in our boats on a lake then to sit in our chair and converse, etc. Picnic in a park do travel far than near, etc. We must assess what is important to ourselves rather than what we are told should be important. We must understand our world. If a few persons with a few machines are able to make a lot of products, which only a few can afford, only if you will buy them and what will be their incentive. To work if the producers turn their produce over to the people free. Thus, promoting privilege.

7

Privilege must be advantageous to few workers to keep them working. Only ones that can afford products, etc.

Too simplistic. Current trends, few jobs going to fewer people. Using foreign laborer to produce goods cheaper, which is great for the short-term. This is an illusion and works like credit, it will catch up to us. We are exhausting our assets, our surpluses, accumulated from better days. We are extending our promise of future labor further and further (an indentured system) into the future. If we can not make good in our promise, then what? Those to whom we are indebted will take it back by law. We must back away from credit and establish ourselves on a foundation of reality rather than promise. Real surpluses must be accrued rather than pretended. Global trends, non-industrial agents will seek advantages through knowledge acquisitions. But, will probably try to live off of the rich nations, like providing services. Their best minds will compete with ours for jobs and push the demand for labor further downward. Corp[orations will take advantage of global labor pools and jobber opportunities existing outside our borders. We will be distracted by what is going on, by the availability of cheaper goods coming into our country. As other nations demand more and prices go up, we will seek still poorer nations to continue the supply of labor. (This gets complicated and very sketchy trying to predict the future).

It is better to look at the immediate trends and potential consequences than prepare for the worst, food shelter, clothing, land, water, shelter, taxation, always a threat.

Worse faced scenario: depression, famine, etc. to correct entanglement, errors, illusions, foreseen nature. Starting over allows new opportunity to begin fresh. We feel the contents and the effects of our structures without understanding them. We attempt to describe them, but fail to do so. Always diametrically opposing view points. Structure seems pre-eminent existing for us involving in spite of our understanding of what is taking place and continually alluding us in it’s wake.

Events lead us, and not the other way around. The world acts upon us and we in turn act upon it. Describing what is taking place as it occurs and also giving ourselves the credit. While each of us is at the center of his own universe we recognize many other centers as well. We recognize the structures that surround us and also the structures that we ourselves are. We know that we are limited without knowing our limitations. While we will always remain finite, we are not, since we are and do seems capable of unlimited extension. It is difficult to envision this and when it has been envisioned, we are never sure as to whether we are aided to it by the model that presented itself to us or whether division is the model? Our knowledge grows through description classification structure. Poets express feelings, philosophers create structures through description classification, sexual models. Socials sciences use such structures and models to produce knowledge. The end is known first.

Our knowledge rests upon structures and models which rest upon our expressions and ideas which rests upon sensations.

10

Read them serves the group of advantage, the strong, smart, and powerful. Premarkets serve the industrialized nations. Individuals freedoms serves the individuals. Open ideas serve the same and control the masses. Opportunities do likewise and meager samples like lotto can help. The rich and powerful want freedom to reign within their shores, but dictatorships within other countries. A few individuals can thus serve the masses for them, open markets, etc. Which is imperialism. While eastern block nations remains close to us, we couldn’t penetrate them by these means. Danger to communist block now is that they will be susceptible or vulnerable to us. Their masses will suffer at the expense of the greatly who will sell off their wealth to the US.

American is retooled, getting leaner and meaner. Perhaps the best is yet to come via the efforts of our advance guard. But if we cease to be needed as a source of labor why should they help us? With the only few gained from it all? Thus, the corporation and it’s elite membership will mass the real wealth and this membership will be drawn from the ranks of all nations, but won’t this force people of all nations to come together for a common person? Won’t this have a unifying effect?

11

If:We maintain our technological superiority can we continue to exploit cheap labor markers worldwide we manage to but other peoples slavery through payoffs, etc.

We outsmart and manipulate the rest of the world as we have done with our own people.

Production depends upon high RND and machinery costs.

Individuals with highly specialized talent will be required by industry.

THEN: We will retain control over the controllers, the world will hate us even more. We will show our indifference to the plight of the masses.

Production of goods and services: government and corporations by corporations for corporations. Government both supports and handicaps industry. Industry used government institutions, the press both supports handicaps in industry in government and government makes use of the press. The press are like children trying to spy on the main actors and tell them when not enough to tell, they create an illusion of news, commercial it, press caters to advertisers and people. Advertisers pay by numbers of people watching, getting people to watch in the main thing, pander to the populous. Give them what they want, if want tough, give them tough. If want action, give them action. Self-centered population, given them self-centered press.

Educational Institutions:

Catering to science which caters to technology which caters to industry.
The economy is GOD and all things become subservient to it.
Money from government and industry gets funneled into colleges and universities through grants and thus become dependent.

Application is the goal and industry owns the opportunities.

11

We exploited labor and labor learned how to exploit back. Exploiting the world will teach the world to fight back and unite, leaving labor behind, ignoring masses will lead them to seek help elsewhere.

America must set an example:

1.Freedom to choose or impose restrictions upon ourselves.
2.Opportunity to exploit others at the same time as we help them, actually not exploiting persons, but situations, to gain labor from a starving person in return for food is only exploitation if an equal labrum is maintained. no barriers to advancement, this must be the rule.
3.Labor force not needed, must concentrate on more humanitarian pursuits, fostering the arts and social sciences in addition to physical sciences OR we must go out into the world to assist and ameliorate the play of others.
5.We must interfere with government and corporations, buying political dictators at the expense of the their own people, this is wrong.
6.We must test now whether government is for the people for industry.
7.Industry moves silently and behind the scenes because they are in control and winning.

Freedom is very difficult and equals self-imposed restrictions. Exploitation must have rules and these must be valued. The more advantage, (superiority in some cases) a person or group has, the more good it can do for those that it exploits as well for itself. The poorest nations can be exploited to the greatest extent, and thus stand the most to benefit. We must not judge the process by our standards, that is considerate in human since we are ourselves are controlled and fed so much better, but what is important is that the process is understood and negotiated by exploiter and exploited. Law of supply and demand will take place and exploited will compete for opportunities and thus, will make lesser gains. Exploiters will compete for the greatest advantages well. This can hold exploited down and create and equal labrum, must not happen. But it can also force labor to do a better job, aiding the companies competitions stands. In the final analyst depends on the company’s honesty in revealing its success. As long as books are closed, how can anyone know? What if labor is replaced by machines? Machines produce food, shelter, clothing, etc., and in the hands of whom? If labor not needed, who will care?

It all boils to integrity of values, honesty and it must not be the case that I will help myself first and then others, rather it must be I will help myself and others as I live my life.

12

What will the percentages be? How much will I give to others? What is just? Commendable? Appropriate? We come back to ideas and uncertainties, goodwill must be in abundance. But, doesn’t goodwill derive from ill will? Doesn’t goodwill have its roots and evil? Does evil come from good? It doesn’t seem likely. Evil is given, it is our birthright that we have all inherited. Our challenges to overcome our surroundings by overcoming ourselves. Compassion is born out of witness and sorrow and our memories of it. Selfishness is to choose to ignore and breeds evil. Human is to act upon it and breeds good. Our feelings of compassion natural under such circumstances? Those who would not. Humanism necessitates giving of oneself to another for their benefit and not one’s own, not primarily at least. Can do both, is given of oneself or one’s own benefit primarily but also helps others. Sacrifice is giving oneself for own benefit primarily but also helps others (as you dictated, you did not know what this sentence meant).

Virtues

From where are these derived and what do they consist of?

What are these based upon?

What foundation is required?

Do they fall when foundation erodes that bread them.

Why should I pay attention to or act upon my feelings of compassion?

What will determine whether I do or don’t?

Why am I concerned about helping others?

Why an I searching for truth and certainty?

What do the latter have in common?

Will love and admiration be my reward for offering knowledge and assistance?

Has lack of love and attention left the void that drives me to do good?

The drive for self gratification causes one to reach out for something extraordinary for others in order to gain what one wants. Why not simply ask for love and attention? Why must it be deserved? Why must it have strings?

If one wasn’t denies love and respect, they would not crave it, if they didn’t crave it they would not attempt to earn it. If they didn’t attempt to earn it, they would not accomplish extraordinary things for others. If they didn’t make such large scale attempts the world would less be dynamic, would it be less humane? Is there an equal labrum which must be met or at least which compels us in the direction and degree of satisfaction that is required by the initial lack, there is an equal labrum, dualism, and perhaps synthesis. It compels us to act in the way we do. How can we learn to love one another for no reason other than that we are? It would be easier to accomplish this with strangers than with our own children, since the latter will be in our midst and interacting with ourselves. We can at least imagine that the stranger is all that we hope for and thus deserving of our love and respect. The love of others is born out of love and respect. The love of others is born out of love itself and all things we consider where the honorable, etc. The closer one approximates us, the greater our respect.

Learning stages during youth is the need for parents to protect, what parents say is true. Only later can it be safe to compare what they say with others.#

END

#

@”THIS IS MY BODY AND THIS IS MY BLOOD”
(3-27-89)

Our drive for knowledge and certainty, self-gratification and power, usurps nearly everything which might or ought to be of interest to us. This drive is powerful and potentially beneficial inasmuch as it leads us to new explorations and findings. It is powerfully dangerous inasmuch as it tempts us into confusion when others wish to `share’ and `persuade’ us of the relevance of their own findings. Since faith and belief is so dependent upon what others believe (or might come to believe), then it is important for each of us to convince others in order to prove to ourselves that we are right. Winning converts is just another form of self-gratification for this most powerful of drives.

The more powerful and influencing the drive, the more potentially aggressive and influencing will be the person contending with it. Such persons will make a near vocation out of inspiring others to their own beliefs. They are so badly in need of an anchor (a foundation) for life, that they will consume whomever is in reach. [Consumption is not too strong a word for “psychological consumption” is as real as the normal usage of the term]. Easy prey, the impressionable and inexperienced young are always targets. They are most open to `new’ knowledge and because it is new, are easily awed by things, many of which, are simplistic at best. The old, the tired and worn, the poor and destitute, are also easy targets because their needs are great. CONFUSION provides the fertile soil needed by zealots of every kind. They bring order to chaos through simplification. And since we are all eager to be shown the way–the “real” way–we are all highly susceptible to letting down our guards. In fact, the “letting down of our guards” is one of the strongest ploys used by such persons. They tell us to simply believe what they say is true. One must give themselves up without regard for such trivial and non-essential things as `evidence’, `gut feelings’, and whatever else may stand in the way. They will determine what is to be counted as evidence! They will set the right foundation for belief. They will provide the necessary mystique to steer us from reality into the realm of `possibilities’, which is confusion at best. And at the appropriate time, they will begin to make sense of the confusion. The pieces will seemingly begin to fall into place for us. And why not? We have all but abandoned any semblance of what nature has provided us for dealing with our normal activities. Having succeeded in pulling us outside `normalcy’ (outside of the protection of our homes, if you will), we are now ripe for CONSUMPTION!

This oldest of survival instincts has taken on new dimensions due to the complicated nature of our lives and world at present. The world has not changed. It is still operating per usual. The only thing that is different is the prevalence of confusion (the thickness and uncertainty of the permutations made of our knowledge) that has changed the `appearance’ of our activities. Today, we consume others without killing them. For the `strong’ continue to psychologically, economically, and spiritually consume the unwary and vulnerable. Unlike days of old, the `weak’ no longer have to be physically weak. They need only to be emotionally unstable enough to serve as potential prey; prey that may require time and cultivation to win over. While economic consumption may work best with easy prey, psychological consumption does not. If the end result is to be worthwhile, the struggle to overcome must be present. There must, in other words, be a challenge for the predator. The psychological predator must win over someone whose knowledge is respected. This is the only way in which they can acquire the needed evidence or corroboration needed to satisfy their own beliefs. Remember, they are ego-centric to an extreme. The only important thing is to satisfy their own cravings.

It is easy to discover weaknesses in people. Simply discover what a person longs for or is afraid of, and either supply or protect that person from the same. We sometimes use such knowledge to support and protect those we love. We also do the same out of self-centered need and greed. Thus, goodness carries with it the seeds for bad. In the same way that a gun can be used for good or bad, so too can our own psychological needs and propensities. In other words, things `labeled’ good or evil never do `carry’ their meanings as a permanent thing. Good and evil are interchangeable depending upon ones perspective, situation, knowledge and belief. When one opens themselves to love through trust, they are at the same time making themselves vulnerable to that same person. That person can send pain and remorse through the `open channel’ just as easily as love.

So how do we know when another is acting in a way that is not in our own interest when that person is at the same time providing us with things that are valued by us? How do we recognize the difference when either party may not even be fully aware of what they are doing and why? In other words, how do we refuse what is immediately satisfying to us on the basis of some further and future applied criteria? If someone does good for the wrong reasons, is he still doing good? If someone is doing good things initially in order to entice someone to do bad at a latter time, do we make two different judgments or is the initial “good” to be judged as bad from the outset… “the ends don’t justify the means”.

And how are we expected to deny our own self-gratification when it seems immediately right to us to fulfill all such needs? When are temptations right and when should they be resisted by ourselves? How do we feed without consuming? How do we satisfy our own urges and needs through seeking to satisfy the needs of others? How do we recognize when we are `truly’ satisfying others rather than ourselves? When is it clear to us that we are?–that we aren’t?

Like most things in the world, the world continues to go on despite our understanding and ignorance. We continue to act despite our not knowing why we do so. And we continue to make decisions despite our not having a hold on truth and certainty. So what do we make of this?

I believe that our knowledge and the perceivable world is restricted to our own makeups; that each of us is “the measure of all things” for the same reasons and that the universe can be regarded as finite in this sense only. That is, we are playing with a `closed deck’ which seemingly has unlimited possibilities due to our ability to continually dissect, analyze and add to knowledge. The world may be considered `infinite’ in the sense of our seemingly unlimited potential for extending ourselves (our senses as well as our physical properties). What should count as information or knowledge seems to be anyone’s guess, and is in fact always dependent upon what each one of us does in fact choose to believe. On the other hand, “choice” may be too strong a term. For it seems that very few of us can actually point to things we believe in with any degree of conviction. All of our beliefs seem always to be contingent upon, or relative to something else, making it difficult at best to even talk about the matter. Rather, we will most always point to what we have learned from others; to accepted knowledge, perhaps, or will simply ignore the questions when put to us. Those with the most daring will assert their beliefs with an air of conviction and then set themselves to defending these until their defenses have been driven to the point of personal bias or arbitrary acceptance of one thing or another. But most of us, as was said, will admit to not knowing and will remain in very good company by so doing#

#

@JUNE 10, 1989

The act of defining, or making more precise the meaning of a word, or as the philosopher is apt to do, look for meaning by focusing upon usages of terms in varying contexts and imposing contexts of his own…

Each time that a word is used to assist the definition, its multitude of meanings in various contexts comes with it and changes the character of the progress achieved. One must make room for it by enlarging the concept.

Introversion is the act of looking into oneself and many other things as well

The Introvert is one who prefers doing this to being with others

“self”, “looking into oneself”, “ones own thoughts”, etc. suggests all sorts of things that are in question or beg of further clarification if you are a philosopher and are aware of the conceptual depths underlying these.

A words meaning is its use primarily. But can we give meaning to words? Yes, but only in the sense of furthering a definition by adding to it or taking away from it; that is stipulating what ought to be the case; that is, by pointing out inconsistencies or contradictions which would occur in the new contexts which we are envisioning for it. Thus, new dimensions are added that demand further precision.

There is no precision in language in the way that it is normally used. It is when we demand that it be precise that we get into trouble. This is because we believe that words say “true” things about persons and things “if they are used accurately” and “false” things when they are not. Our expectations are high and we treat usage very seriously.

LOOK AT WHAT HAPPENS

Being an “Introvert” suggests a preference preoccupation with self ( )in the sense of preferring to experience ones own thoughts and feelings by oneself rather than in the company of others.

But is preferring to be alone the same as

Preoccupation with one’s own thoughts and images in the sense that these reside in memory and are capable of being reproduced within oneself

Whether about oneself or about others
Talking to oneself (or by oneself) rather than with others.#

GLASNOST AND PERISTROIKA: A CONCEPTUAL MATTER? (6-12-89)

How can a society restructure while remaining intact? How is an establishment reestablished without beginning anew? The question is almost a contradiction in terms when put this way; and yet, it remains a question as important to the theologian (or to fundamental dogma and emanating church law) as it is to the politician and social scientist who need also contend with systems of laws and institutions. And it certainly of large-scale importance to the USSR and China at this very moment.

We understand that a system of laws or government represents guidelines for behavior which, at bottom, is little more than a system of controls. In a free society, we believe that we are all pretty much aware of the proper or improper workings of such controls since they supposedly remain visible to us. We have also come to believe that the maintenance of controls through the creation of illusions, artificial environments, beliefs without foundation, etc. remain for repressive, non-democratic dictatorial regimes, and not for ourselves.

And so we have applauded recent moves in the communist world toward more democratization and greater decentralization. It seems clearer that the maintenance of such systems is proving unbearable for the representative leadership; that the complicated nature of modern society (due pretty much to recent innovations within the technological and economic spheres) has made the art of ruling in `concentrated form’ simply too difficult. As eradication or simplification seems to be the only real answer to complication, the communist world has been caught up in the dilemma of having to deal with a multi-faceted world (requiring multi-faceted minds, ideas and practices), while having to direct and control the same through simplification. Unfortunately, “simplicity” usually translates to tighter and more repressive measures as was the case in China last week.

The communist faith, that the world can both be understood and directed for the benefit of society at large, although admirable in its paternal sense, represents an arrogance of such monumental proportions that it should cause us all to shudder. At bottom, it is no more than an unwarranted faith in the power of reason to show the way; a faith and power which allows others to know what is best for ourselves, even when we do not even know what is best for ourselves! This is the real lesson to be learned and acknowledged; and most assuredly, is the lesson which is slowly and painfully implanting itself within the communist world.

What took place in China was nothing more than the communist dilemma in action. To reiterate, “How can a society restructure while remaining intact?” The Chinese tried to avoid the dilemma altogether through “remodeling” rather than restructuring, or by implementing piece-meal “patch-up” measures without fully understanding the true dimensions of the problem.

Two weeks ago on the David Brinkley show, “Citizen Henry” [Kissinger], in the absence of foreign policy leadership and our need to fill it (especially during crises), summed the problem up by pointing to the Chinese failure to enact political reforms alongside economic ones. He also pointed out the merits of Deng’s efforts over the years and to the fact that most reforms have been the result of him, the very person the students want to oust! By now, everyone has repeated as their own what Henry has said, including the President of the United States in his recent press conference. In such a way, recent moves on the part of the Chinese toward repression and reprisal (leading to the resumption and perpetuation of lies covering lies… illusions covering illusions… and always punishment to correct the perpetrators) have been both abhorred and condemned by our government–while, at the same time, assuredly `understood’.

While Kissinger’s remarks may be on target, they do not go far enough. A structural problem is a `conceptual’ problem even if we rarely view it in this way. So, while it may be fair to say that the Chinese government (or those retaining power) chose to do what they believed was their only choice, this is not what matters. What matters is how and why they got to be in this most unfortunate situation! It demands a recognition and understanding not of what fills the structure (personalities, parties, etc.), but of the workings of the structure itself! If we dare to look, we will discover that all structures and models have limitations, and further, that such limitations increase as the system is given more and more responsibility. In such a way, all systems and models must come to an eventual non-renewable state, or remain sterile and ineffective. I think history has continually demonstrated that even when we are smart enough to maintain our structures through continual maintenance and `appropriate’ change, all such efforts ultimately will cease to be effective as any good computer programmer knows, and the Roman church is beginning to understand, albeit painfully.

And so, rather than acknowledge and sympathize with the real difficulties besetting the communist world and all of us; rather than assist in raising Chinese people’s own awareness of the same, or of the need to foster greater understanding of a highly complex situation while maintaining order throughout, our government has chosen instead to `goad’ over the hoped for demise of the communist system and has even begun to take active `reprisals’, thus further aggravating an already tense situation and helping to re-raise the iron curtain.

Children leading children. When are we going to understand that we are not the only creatures in this world who profess to value and care about others besides ourselves? When will we understand that we are not the only ones trying to cope with the uncertainties of the present and a future that is growing more and more dismal? Rather than leave the important questions unanswered, unknown or ignored, why can’t we work to resolve them? When the facts of the world demand that we play a greater part in global maturation; demand that we broaden our views and encompass greater responsibilities more in line with our spiritual, mental and material capabilities, why do we persist in behaving like children?

Communist nations, like all nations, will continue to do what they perceive to be in their own best interest. They will take into consideration the effects which world-wide structures (especially our own) will have upon them. Some will find it relatively easy to change models, depending upon the strength of external and internal resistance, commitments (in either direction), loyalties, economic and political ties with the West, and many other things as well. Some, like China (and the USSR), will find it very difficult to find appropriate models which will meet the demands of the 21st century and yet be consistent with the personal values, beliefs, and national aspirations of its peoples. It is their failure to accomplish this that we need to dread rather than that they might. Any society which needs to resort to repression and delusion in order to maintain control, needs to be pitied rather than condemned, assisted rather than attacked. Illusions are unnatural and like rubber bands, are in tension and want to spring back to their natural state. Stretching the rubber band further to encompass more is only a temporary expedient as it eventually approaches its limit and breaking point. It will not be in our interest for any communist country to reach that point.

Just as Southern Europe found itself to be without the resources needed for the then up-coming industrial revolution, non-democratic forms of government are finding their political (or “conceptual”) apparatus incapable of meeting the challenges of a fast-paced world. To be an effective competitor in the 21st century, nations must foster and channel individual creativity into group efforts while retaining the interest and loyalty of its members. More importantly, individuals will need to become increasingly involved and accountable for shaping their own freedoms, which really means shaping and accepting self-imposed restrictions considered to be fair and beneficial to all. It is this need more than any other that dictatorial or oligarchic regimes are ill-equipped to handle. At bottom it is a conceptual matter deserving of our fullest cooperation and support. At its best it is a spiritual matter containing the hopes of all.

THE COURAGE TO SEE (6-16-89)

We used to talk of the “need for survival” as though it were an absolute driving force common to all. But we no longer believe this. For many, the mind has learned to reject the urgings of the body to continue, not because Christ told us that life should not be taken so seriously, but because many no longer believe in the hope that He promised. While theism continues to de-materialize throughout the Western World (with some exceptions), materialistic hope (thought to be a viable or “natural” replacement), is, for many, beginning to follow in the same wake. What does this parallel suggest for us? Is materialism or material well-being actually threatening to displace our impetus to survive, to continue as a species? Are we risking removal of our strongest motivations to life by displacing our basic need for food and shelter, and thus, the need for assurance of the same through faith in a benevolent savior? Are we presently in need of a renewal of hope; a renewal of faith that there yet remains purpose and meaning that makes life worth living?

The approaches taken as a result of such stresses are varied. Some are attempt to reach backwards to recoup what has been lost or displaced. Others are finding themselves capable of proceeding into the future without any such assurances, or else are satisfied with what has been given them. And still others have lamentably given up the quest altogether as the current upswing in suicides demonstrates. Speaking for myself, and with the hope that there are many others of like mind, I believe that the search for meaning and purpose is both necessary to the health and survival of humankind during this next century, and is within our grasp, here in the present, as it has always been the case. It will take courage to uncover it, however– courage to appraise, understand and, finally, to accept what we may not wish to accept. We will have to find the courage to see things for what we see them to be with our own eyes and not because some other told us. Much of what we’ve been told down through the ages has been bogus; intended delusion in many cases, `leaps’ of faith passing for truth in many other cases, oftentimes simply the result of sheer arrogance. We will have to have the courage to refrain from putting on our accustomed blinders whenever we are uncomfortable with the truth or its absence. In such a way, we can, and will, come to an honest appraisal of what we are (and this means an accurate appraisal of what we know and how we know it), and we will do so without having contempt for either ourselves or for others who may differ from us. We will, in other words, find courage enough to bring the DEVIL himself onto the same playing field as we. And it will be precisely this ultimate act of faith in ourselves that will finally decide if we are worth survival!

THE MARRIAGE OF MATERIALISM & SCIENCE (6-16-89)

Materialism represents a hope grounded in the present; a wish for all that may be afforded to us in this life. In its capitalistic form, it represents an open invitation to all to compete for the power necessary to gaining and sustaining wealth and knowledge. It is at the same time, the fault of, and the solution to, the “shackles binding the common man” which was so much discussed during the period of Enlightenment. This “enlightenment” of was borne out of the despair preceding the Renaissance and the renewed hope it brought. It was and remains an awareness that mankind does not, and probably never has, played by the same rules; that the “advantaged” in particular (first the ruling aristocracy and then the merchant class), have all along used their advantage to delude, direct and control the majority. Moreover, religion, more than any other medium in the hands of the powerful (including armed might), has been their most potent weapon in limiting the competition to themselves. Mr. Darwin and others have since indicated that such practices are “natural”, mere products of life!

Unfortunately, views such as this carry with them their own sense of hopelessness and despair. We had gotten used to the idea that we were at least capable of something more than this, even if this was and remains our starting point. This highly simplistic model of life seems to negate our capacity and esteem for loving and caring for others. It seems to focus upon a skeletal concept of the way life works, stripped, in other words, of many of life’s other elements. If these `other’ elements were to be included, they would tend to confuse and obstruct it. It is not that the model is wrong, it is simply that all it is taken to mean is not right.

In similar ways we are deluded into accepting all sorts of simplistic notions in every walk of life today. Whether we are talking about schools, economy, politics or social issues, science (or the scientific method), has replaced the “Ivory Tower” of the Humanities and God as our new Guardian. And it has done this through classification and simplification, both the curse and blessing of knowledge. In essence, it has taken broad-based liberal thinking (always tending toward generalization without preconceived ends), and has forced the same to yield “knowledge” through specialization, structure or limitation. Simplicity makes it possible for us to “leap” without knowing why; that is, without understanding what it is we are leaping over or toward. In any case, who’s watching our steps? Who’s keeping track of the complexities which increasingly go unnoticed, but which, incessantly, gnaw at us, forcing us to seek relief in “acceptable confusion”. Such is the current state of knowledge today. Such is the current state of humankind.

PERCEPTION (7-12-89)

THE WORLD EXIST, THEREFORE GOD EXISTS

WE WANT TO BELIEVE THAT THE WORLD EXIST AS WE PERCEIVE IT TO EXIST; WHETHER OR NOT WE ARE PERCEIVING IT; THAT IS, THAT OUR ORGANS OF PERCEPTION ARE “JUST RIGHT” FOR PERCEIVING WHAT “JUST IS” IN THE WAY THAT IT IS!

WOULD THE SO-CALLED LAWS GOVERNING THE UNIVERSE BE THE SAME IF WE WERE CONSTITUTED DIFFERENTLY? WE WOULD SAY YES, ALTHOUGH WE WOULD ADMIT TO NOT HAVING THE MEANS FOR KNOWING IT.

WE CAN IMAGINE BOTH LIMITS AND EXTENSIONS TO THINGS AND PROCESSES WE ARE ALREADY FAMILIAR WITH

A TABLE AS BIG AS A MOUNTAIN VIEW… AN EYE INCAPABLE OF SEEING IN PERSPECTIVE, OR UNABLE TO FOCUS… OR AN EYE ABLE TO TELESCOPE OR MICROSCOPE ITS VISION… A NOSE THAT COULD DISTINGUISH SMELLS OR HEAR SOUNDS AS WELL AS OTHER ANIMALS SEEM CAPABLE OF, ETC.

WHAT IS IMAGINABLE CAN ONLY BE TAKEN FROM WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW… OR HAVE EXPERIENCED. WE CAN IMAGINE OR REASON TO THE NOTION THAT WE WOULD BE BLIND TO EVERYTHING IF IT WERE NOT FOR PERSPECTIVE WHICH LIMITS OUR VISION. ONLY “LIMIT” MAY BE THE WRONG CHOICE OF WORDS SINCE SUCH LIMITATIONS ARE THE VERY THINGS WHICH MAKE PERCEPTION POSSIBLE!

LIMITATION MAKES PERCEPTION POSSIBLE
UNLIMITED PERCEPTION IS NO PERCEPTION
LIMITATION ALLOWS DISCRIMINATION
DISCRIMINATION MAKES UNDERSTANDING POSSIBLE
WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION, NO KNOWLEDGE

ALL THINGS ARE LIMITED TO THEMSELVES
ALL THINGS ARE EXTENDED TO THEMSELVES
LIMIT AND EXTENSION ARE THE SAME THING
OPPOSITES ARE THE SAME

TO BE LIMITED IS TO BE DEFINABLE
TO BE UNLIMITED IS TO BE INDEFINABLE

SIMULTANEOUS SENSATION MAKES CONSCIOUSNESS, DUALISM, OPPOSITION, PERHAPS, POSSIBLE

WE BELIEVE THAT WE ARE IN THE MIDST OF A CONTINUUM BETWEEN THE LARGE AND THE SMALL. BETWEEN WHAT ELSE?

DO WE ALSO SUPPOSE THAT WE ARE EXACTLY BETWEEN THE LARGEST AND SMALLEST. WHY OR WHY NOT SUPPOSE THIS?

BECAUSE OUR ORGANS OF PERCEPTION ARE WHAT THEY ARE AND THUS NECESSITATES THAT EXTENSIONS IN EITHER DIRECTION BE UNIFORM? MUST WE SUPPOSE SUCH UNIFORMITY EXISTS? WHY? WHAT ABOUT THE `REAL’ WORLD OUTSIDE OUR PERCEPTION?

WE ALWAYS SEEM TO BE “BETWEEN” OPPOSITES… WHY?

FOR EVERY FORCE THERE IS AN EQUAL FORCE IN OPPOSITION

UNIFORMITIES MAKE DUALISM AND OPPOSITION POSSIBLE

WHY DO WE HAVE RELATIONAL TERMS WHICH ARE DEPENDENT UPON ONE ANOTHER FOR THEIR RESPECTIVE MEANINGS? SO THAT THEY CAN BE MEANINGFUL? WHY ARE THEY NONETHELESS RELATIVE TO SOMETHING ELSE… AN OBJECT OF COMPARISON? “IT’S AS BIG AS…”, “SMALLER THAN…”

Adjectives ascribe characteristics of things which may or may not be true.
Nouns stand-in for objects and play a different role; that is, identifies the object

FOR EVERY OCCURRENCE…

Perspective limits our vision in order that we may see

Without perspective, we would be blind as the nearest thing to ourselves would always cover our field of vision

We would consider this `illusory’ because we already know about perspective and its accompanying notions regarding distance, space, and things

We want to say that perspective aids us in knowing about this same world of material, space and distance; that such things are there to be understood

But how do we know this? Would these same notions have arisen had we in fact been unable to distinguish between things? Assuming that we could have survived in such a state, would these concepts have been possible? If so, in what form?

(Removing a variable from a set of distinguishable characteristics represents one way of presenting an alternative view or thought)

What if we could not hear, feel, taste, or smell, that is, had no means, whatever, of experiencing the universe?

WITH SENSATIONS GOES CONSCIOUSNESS
CONSCIOUSNESS = SENSING + (AWARENESS/RECOGNITION)

CAN WE IMAGINE SUPERIOR ORGANS OF SENSATION BESIDES OUR OWN? SUPERIOR ALTERATIONS/CONFIGURATIONS OF EXISTING ONES?

What if we could alter our visual perception to telescope or microscope objects to us rather than mere focusing! Focusing is dependent upon our eye makeup which is extended by use of instruments in either direction

What if we could make louder near inaudible sounds without use of instrumentation.

Keener sense of smell, touch, taste

OCTOBER 26, 1989

Society has needs
Business has needs
Special Interest Groups have needs (micro societies? or socialized groups of individuals?)
Individuals have needs (developmental–assimilation or dissimulation?)

Which comes first from a developmental and sharing of values point?
Which should come first?
What do these share in common?

The world is already here and somewhat defined.
Is it our job to assist the individual in finding his place?
Is this an example of defining oneself?
Assisting in making choices among classes of things?
Religions, Beliefs, Institutions, Social Groups?
How do we define something in motion, in a state of going or becoming?
One’s fitting is a process at best… of change
How has the world come to be defined in the way that it is?
How does this ongoing process work?
Descriptions after the case?
Then definition is stated knowledge after the fact
What is the fact?
Who and what shapes events?
`Individuals’ and `groups of individuals’ and natural `law’?
Striving of individuals same/different from striving of groups?
Do our cues come from our `selves’ or from what is given us by society?
How do we separate the cause from the effect when they appear to be simultaneous?
Which do we concentrate on, the forces driving us from within or from without?
How can these be separated? Or is this an illusion?
Is it all without? Is the individual an abstraction? Or is society an abstraction?
Why am I having to ask this question? Why the dichotomy?
Are both abstractions? Abstracted from what?

DUALISMS CAUSE EMERGENCES OF THIRD PARTIES. TWO EYES GIVE RISE TO `DEPTH PERCEPTION’ WHERE EITHER BY ITSELF COULD NOT. TWO BRAINS (LEFT AND RIGHT OR TWO CPUs) CAN BE DOING THE SAME GIVING RISE TO THINGS HAVING THE CHARACTER OF `TWO OPPOSING TENDENCIES’ PLUS SOMETHING EXTRA!… THE `SELF’ OR `CONSCIOUSNESS’! `SIMULTANEOUS OPPOSITION’ WHEN DERIVED FROM OR FOCUSED UPON A (SINGLE OR DOUBLE?) SOURCE… AN INDIVIDUAL. NOT ALWAYS IN OPPOSITION TO BEGIN WITH BUT TENDS TOWARD THIS. WHY?

Is it `duality imposed upon singularity’ (two brains perceiving one world) or `duality imposed upon duality’ (two brains perceiving two perspectives of one world). The first implies a sort of synchronization between the two brains while the latter suggests separation… I think. Other classifications are possible and need to be looked at from all angles.

PERHAPS IT IS TWO PERSPECTIVES OF A SINGLE WORLD CAUSED (OR INTRODUCED) BY A SINGLE BRAIN–BUT PERCEIVED BY THE OTHER HALF WHILE BEING INTRODUCED–THAT ULTIMATELY GIVES RISE TO CONSCIOUSNESS OR `SELF’ AWARENESS!

But dual perceptions do not by themselves give rise to opposition.
Can two views give rise to sense of depth if experienced by only one brain?
I doubt this. There needs to be interplay, synchronization, or at least, oscillation between the two halves. What part does the fact that two brains reside in one body play on this?

The world proceeds with or without satisfactory explanation. It is its own force and we are not even remotely in control. It is not enough to know one’s place in society. We want to know our place (individually or collectively) in the universe. That is, we want to understand the universe! We seek omniscience (Godliness) as a minimum, and this will to understanding, like Nietzsche’s “will to power” and society’s concept of God, seems to be no more than an `expression and representation’ of the same; our personal cry in the wilderness for both understanding and salvation… depending upon our individual circumstances.

Emotion and Representation
Expression and Description

Are there levels to such “willing”? That is, do some individuals seek an understanding of themselves within a family, community, or other social settings while others seek the same understanding within the universe? I think this is likely. There seem to be differing levels and objects of understanding depending upon individual and group (or cultural) characteristics.

THOUGHTS
1990

JANUARY 11, 1990

A free market economy is one in which producers guess what it is that consumers want and are willing to purchase.

What consumers want and are willing to purchase results from perceived needs and interests

Perceived needs and interests result from one’s relationship to the environment and, specifically, to what it contains

The environment contains knowledge and material; values and things which shape our perception of needs and interests

BUT, WHY ARE CERTAIN VALUES HELD AND CERTAIN THINGS DESIRED?

The answers are to be discovered in our emotional selves

MOMENTARY: Excitement, Rest, Winning, Overcoming, Laughing
DURATION: Adventure, Comfort, Contentment, Dreaming, Reading, Seeing a movie, Taking a ride,
SUSTAINED: Wealth, Happiness, Meaning, Purpose, Love, Trust, Commitment, Dedication, Values, Beliefs, Knowledge, Prestige, Honor, Power

These are the very things that producers (marketing experts) try to tie their products to; that is, trying to convince us that their product will in fact satisfy our need or partially satisfy it.

But why is wealth and power more desirable to us than community service, for example? For the same reason that the gun is held in more esteem than the bow and arrow? Power or far-reaching effectiveness?

Modern civilization seems no different than primitive. Underlying motivations seem to be universal–FEAR! Power is a safeguard against fear and is itself a primary source of fear when one does not possess it. Thus, to know that another has a gun while I have a bow is to be put into a position of both fear and want.

SURVIVAL AND WORSHIP
PLACATION OF FEAR AND HARM THROUGH WORSHIP (GOD AND POWERFUL MEN, INSTITUTIONS, GOVERNMENTS)
STRIVING AND DEMAND TO BE WORSHIPPED (NOTICED, ADMIRED, ENVIED)

What do we fear most? Not surviving and not being worshipped.
Money is a chief means of survival and wealth (and power) at least guaranteeing envy, if not admiration and respect.

BUT, SURVIVAL AND ESTEEM ARE NOT THE ONLY THINGS WE DESIRE! WE HAVE BEEN LED TO BELIEVE THAT THIS IS ALL THAT MATTERS–ALL THAT IS NECESSARY. WE ARE COMMITTED TO SAYING TO HELL WITH VALUES, BELIEFS, KNOWLEDGE, PURPOSE AND MEANING… THESE ARE RELATIVE AND THEREFORE, MEANINGLESS IN THEMSELVES

What makes relativity unacceptable? Dreaded? Why do we demand nothing less than certainty; a certainty that we hold must be there for discovery; a certainty that must not be artificial in the sense of being man-made?

What makes us afraid of `creating’ the stuff of the emotions and mind, our longings and aspirations, even while we believe ourselves to be engaged in creating out of the stuff of the world? What is it? What is it that is so sacrosanct about our compulsion to hold to universal and immutable truths, even while we suspect that they will forever remain beyond our scope of understanding? Why do our attempts at ignoring these, our feigning contentment without them, never satisfying? Why is it that whenever we attempt to replace this struggle with the more tangible challenges of everyday life, challenges whose ends are understood and, at least, in principle, reachable, it is never enough?

We try to find contentment in a purposeless, meaningless world by refusing to play with the cards dealt us. We try to squelch our emotional reaching by denying them–thus, denying not only our `selves’ but also our relation to the world. We try to assert our independence whenever we ignore our dependence upon a world which we know is not of our own thinking and doing; is not within our control; and certainly is not the result of our own programming. In such ways, we take credit for chunks of time in which given events take place without others knowing, and, thus, no one to dispute our having taken credit for them. Such is the power of description–after the event. Such is the human condition.

Why do our emotional experiences impact us more than our knowledge?–A sense of `something’ unknown considered to be of higher order than that which we’ve defined?–An inexplicable longing over a concrete experience?

We recognize that there is more to ourselves than what can be described whenever our groping remain unsatisfied. Be these groping for words or explanations to describe what one wishes to convey, its always the same. For even when we feign to believe that the words `peace’ or `contentment’ aptly describe their emotional counterparts, we know imagine that we

Is `self-deception’ a delusion owing to the conflict between desire to both credit and blame ourselves for our actions

THE NOTIONS UNDERLYING THE ABOVE ARE DIFFICULT AND FORCE THE RAISING OF PHILOSOPHICAL ISSUES REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP OF MAN TO HIS WORLD AND SPECIFICALLY, TO THE PROBLEM OF DUALISM WHICH SEEMS TO UNDERLAY THE WHOLE OF IT.

JANUARY 18, 1990

How do we become overwhelmed?
What are the categories overloading us?
Stemming from outside and within us…

I am overloaded, spread thin, nearly incapacitated
I cannot overcome what I cannot understand
Stemming from outside and within me…

Knowing too little and wanting too much
Breadth destroying depth and depth, breadth…
Stemming from outside and within me…

While our memory banks shield us from the confusion of having to face all of its contents at any given time, an accompanying feeling (a knowing that it is there in its entirety) still remains, oftentimes hanging like a heavy weight around our necks. We don’t have to think about the fact that we are living in a complicated and dangerous world to realize it. We carry it and sense its presence nearly always. We sense its effects upon our emotions, upon our bodies, without having to look at the particulars. It’s as though we have consolidated concepts of our individual worlds and it is these bundled ideas (constructs) that affect us.

JANUARY 30, 1990

School curriculums are illusory. Don’t represent what needs to be learned and not set-up to learn it.

Knowledge is not being applied to learning in an orderly manner. Wealth of information can be brought in but isn’t. Curriculum doesn’t address our real needs. Shallow idea regarding the benefits of science and industry over all else. Public is pulled along out of need and because it would be difficult to escape. Dionysian tendencies have been all but eradicated in education in favor of Apollonian faith justifying our present order.

WE MUST UNDERSTAND THIS DUALITY THAT WORKS US–EVERYONE OF US; THAT OPPOSES AND THEN UNITES US ONLY TO REPEAT THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER. WE MUST UNDERSTAND FIRST WHAT WE NEED TO CONTROL.

Language must be emphasized over all else
History and structure of knowledge needs to be emphasized
Summaries (the essence of knowledge) needed–most theoretical–outlines of knowledge tree more important than historical facts
Must be translated into vocational knowledge–present or needed
Students must be understood and properly evaluated. Must know their types, aptitudes, interests, etc. and cater to them in a significant way

WHY? Because we must. We must to escape the dilemma we find ourselves to be in.

How do we escape determinism or fate? It robs us of our will to act, to make a difference, to decide what is best, even if relative to something else. Why pretend to be making a difference when we know we are not?

If we cannot make a difference, are we merely observers? Or, as observers, can we predict what is going to unfold next? and then do something about it?–that is, change a course out of necessity because it is of benefit to ourselves? Is this the final criterion for action? evolution in action?

Doing what we are compelled to do matters. It matters to whatever or whomever compels us. Can we deny this compulsion? Yes, if it is not sufficient or justified, it will be denied. Can we overcome the impetus to survive at present? Yes, some of us can and others cannot. Will those who cannot be the ones best fit to survive? Who are they? And what makes them the fittest?

We are in an age where nihilism is conceived as a present danger. Man without his gods is supposedly lost and deeply depressed. All those promises told us gone with the wind.

Nihilism hell! Never has it been a better and more opportune time to be alive than at present. We have been privileged observers of we know not what and may look forward to. Our relative “certainties” have been the real tormentors, or would have been the tormentors if they really were certainties. The Absolute is a finality that must never come… can never come if our present character remains what it is. Let us go in search of our creator and not be so preposterous as to believe we can deny the fact of our own existence. Accident you say? This is an impossible conception and for that reason alone must be thrown out. It demonstrates the degree to which we have become entangled in our own confusion.

Language has tied us in knots. Our inability to understand its workings (its place) has made all the difference to our current dilemma. How will these knots be broken? Will they be broken? In other words, does OUR survival even matter? Is THIS the problem then… the FEAR that we may be going from a something to a nothing in the course of something that matters only to a someone who we are not privileged to know? A mere moment that only matters for the moment? A means to an end that is not ours? An insignificance to ourselves?

Why, then, were we permitted to observe? to know at least this much? to be able to evaluate our present condition in this way? Why were we not spared this knowledge?

How circular this all becomes. Out of despair comes what? An urgency to act? Is there a “pessimism of strength” as Nietzsche proclaimed? Does our present tragedy contain the seeds for overcoming itself? If so, then it was necessary that we observe and sense our own dilemma. It is nonsensical to suppose that it could be otherwise. Our concepts would be empty. Would a wolf behave as a wolf without some understanding of what it wanted and needed to do to get it?

The knots are intentional. Dualism in parallel, in opposition, or synthesized is the way of the world as we know it. It underlies concept formation. It provides us a means for becoming something else; a tension that fuels the machinery of life. Our beliefs and concepts are in tension. Everywhere we look we see polarity at the outermost parameters of thought. We have been witness to, have observed and recorded, a good number of significant concepts along the way; concepts which may all be regarded as true if we could only envision the context which would make this possible.

Well, do we dare hope that some new compelling reason for continuing will take hold of us? Yes, we should all dare to hope for this outcome of the present age. In fact, the process of renewal is already taking shape as our present crisis continues to mount; continues down the road of gloom and seeming doom. We see this vision everywhere where the knots are tightest; and they seem to be tight in every sphere: education, religion, politics, economy and in our sense of social well-being generally.

As in every major crisis, there will be consequences to pay; the wounded and the dead. But, hopefully, there will also be human survivors that will serve to extend our “moment” through a renewal of faith and purpose in our existence accompanied by an exuberance toward the future! Who will receive this new knowledge? Will it be survivors from the ranks of the most entangled (those closest to or “creators” of the knots) who will lead the rest of us? or those who do not really sense the knots? In the final analysis, will such knots be untangled, cut out, or simply ignored?

Think about the knot of Christianity. What do we see to be taking place? Structures are being stretched to limits that are impossible to maintain without reevaluation and re-structuring. While much within them is simply ignored while leaving some semblance of an empty `whole’ intact; churches that follow rather than lead. Many have sought to escape this dilemma by turning their backs on present knowledge and returning to a more fundamental faith; perhaps, a sort of last-ditch faith that chooses to deny reality rather than face it. But, is reality (or our knowledge) so clear as to leave us another choice? If so, where is it? What is it? Our inability `to show the way’ (or even to present options) has forced many to cling to whatever happens to be closest to them; at best, turning out to be someone as confused as they, and at worst, someone crazy, greedy, or just plain evil.

Think about the knot of current-day politics, especially as this relates to our misunderstanding (or disguised misunderstanding) of the world at large. Why do we refuse to take account of our differences? Why do we choose to contain them rather than assimilate them, or, at least, order them in a fashion which we are only too familiar with? Selfishness necessitates controls to serve its own ends. Private controls in this sense works against those it controls and tightens the knot further. Lies, misinformation and the like, may loosen the knot here and there and may succeed in maintaining a particular status-quo for a very long time. But what is different about today is precisely that time has grown shorter while the consequences of our actions or lack of action loom ever larger. Totalitarianism has proven itself incapable of controlling and stimulating individuals at the same time; that is, toward ends imposed by the regime in power and not stemming from those individuals it supposedly serves. Capitalism is proving itself incapable

What will be important to note is that it will not be WE who will create this new faith and purpose. It will be given us as everything thus far has been given us, and we won’t mind admitting it. Our willingness to settle this issue once and for all will be a part of our new beginning; a new sense of values that will put this delusion to rest.

FEBRUARY 2, 1990

The more I read, the more astounded I become. What astounds me is our capability and willingness to deceive both ourselves and society at large; a willingness which, I suppose, rests upon a base of conceit and a general recklessness supported by comfort in knowing that no one is really in a position to challenge us. In fact, the more theoretical our base, the more room we find for boldness–a boldness without reservation or qualification.

I read the article on “Psychology” in the Encyclopedia of Philosophy last night. It covered root ideas beginning with “antiquity” (pre-Socratic!) to the present. To me, it presented a brief history of confusion without apology; leaving me with a deep anxiety in wondering why this has to be this way. I could only conclude that such ambiguity was not the result of ignorance but, perhaps, is borne out of conceit. After all, we have whatever facts we have and we have a system for dealing with them; why then can’t we deal with them? Why can’t we even know what we know? What is failing here, presentation or process? In every case, it seems that we take hold of basic notions (powerful concepts or intuited understandings) which both compel and desert us at the same time, and then run aground! Why? Why isn’t this a question of first priority? Why not check ourselves and our actions–decide once and for all, now!–if it is our concepts that delude us or ourselves through their usage?

Nietzsche is a case in point. I read about a third of the way through his “Birth of Tragedy” until I grew tired of the number of bold assertions made in defense of his primary conception of a world where opposing forces (“Dionysian” and “Apollonian” tendencies) work their will on us. Such “conceptions” as his certainly are, are usually brilliant as they come to us. But we soon prove ourselves unworthy of their trust. Rather, our history is fraught with examples of the same few themes repeating themselves over and over in varying disguise. When will we admit to being on the wrong track? When will we stop turning “grandeur revelations” into “delusions of personal grandeur?”

I have always had the problem of closing books without reading them; never allowing an author the opportunity to present his case in full. Well, I’m certain that I missed a good number of opportunities in this regard, but I am just as certain that I avoided a good deal of confusion at the same time. Why should I be expected to tolerate lies, half-truths, ambiguity, and all the rest? One word uttered (as Russell said) is already to embark down the road of confusion. I understand his saying this. I’ve read enough and thought enough to have come to this conclusion on my own. But, I don’t consider this a fatal shortcoming–I consider it an appropriate starting point! What then, has language and thought wrought? What tricks do our concepts play on us? What is this process of `playing out’ (stretching and expending) which seems always present in the process of thinking? Indeed, what is this process? What are we absolutely certain of and what not? And, most important, will we have the nerve to admit what is certain and to disregard what isn’t? Will we, in short, describe what is given us as it is given us, without prejudice or want of credit?

FEBRUARY 16, 1990

If I were able, I would like to develop a systematic and integrated approach to Accessing (methods), Amassing (structuring), Evaluating (epistemology), and Utilizing (ordered values) existing knowledge. Why? Because it seems the natural thing to do so. In fact, I feel a compulsion to do so which I’m certain is stemming from current necessity. To my way of looking at it, nature exhibits the building of structure upon structure upon structure. This leads to complication and confusion, a confusion which everyone acknowledges may very well destroy us. What to do? Conquer it through understanding. How? Not by concentrating upon the present. The complexity of the present is the very thing that holds us captive to the present. It’s simply too much for any of us to handle. So, should we “trust in God”?… “go with the flow” and “hope for the best?”… or should we make an attempt at shackling this runaway monster which is ourselves?

The pattern of our progression to present day confusion is akin to the process of ingestion, growth and excrement. We grow through ingestion but we explain ourselves (establish our understanding) by concentrating on our excrement–from what we leave behind, and not from what has been given us. The expression “He knows his shit” may be even more laudable (and revealing) than what we imagined. This soon forgotten knowledge deprives us from knowing how we got to where we are. Up until now, we didn’t have to understand it–nor did we particularly want to. But now, we are finding that we must understand it–and we still do not particularly want to! But what about the complicated nature of the task? To develop a systematic and integrated approach to accessing, amassing, evaluating, and utilizing knowledge is a tall order. Aren’t all of the various disciplines engaged in this very thing in one way or another?”

Yes, but this is the problem. We need “one way” and not simply “another”. It’s time to synthesize, to draw together what we have. There are many ways of accessing knowledge, just as there are many ways of structuring it, evaluating it, and using it. But because this is so, and will always continue to be so, is no reason why we should not, from time to time, draw it together in a coherent fashion in order to serve some purpose. The time is now. Our purpose is survival!

“But values differ from one person to another, from one culture, society and another; how will we decide between these. Will it be based upon epistemological considerations or values? Aren’t all our foundations somewhat shaky? Wouldn’t the increased efficiency you are seeking (a better order and stability) imply a form of coercion, rigidity of purpose, forced definition, or simply a “chopping off” of whatever we deem to interfere with our purpose? Can we simply refuse to consider what is not in our interest?”Yes we can and do. This is the way of all knowledge. We couldn’t utter a single word without chopping off or ignoring a great deal else. We can’t focus our eyes on any one thing without ignoring all the rest which lies outside our focus.

It may very well be that the pursuit or establishment of knowledge runs counter to itself; or that we run counter to ourselves whenever we engage in thought or the pursuit of knowledge in general. Why? We make assertions like the following: “The earth revolves around the sun”, “There are four seasons”, “The earth’s revolving around the sun causes the four seasons”. We ask: “Why does the earth revolve around the sun?”–and may respond: “The earth revolves around the sun in order to cause the seasons.” What is it that is happening to us when we assert such facts, connect them, and then try to explain them by referring to the connection itself? Are we really making some ground? Are such explanations pseudo or illusory?

And where does one start on such a journey? At the theoretical bases of knowledge? But, are these really starting points or do they in fact represent the end of our journeys? Doesn’t theory rests upon facts? So why do we want to look upon the final formulation as the essence itself? How does this ladder work and where does it lead? Will we discover the true depths of knowledge to be in simple observation?–our starting point?

Accessing and contemplating the “essences” of knowledge (the forms, theories and ideas representing the culmination of a process that may have for its beginning the far-off reaches of “ordinary perception”), simply dumbfounds us. Ordinary perception? Are these passive revelations to serve as our foundations for knowledge? They don’t say anything! They just are!

We would like to believe that such an assertion is true. But, in fact, it’s a bold-faced lie and we know it. We insist on `taking credit for our perceptions’ and have devised a multitude of ways for accomplishing this. But, I’m not interested in exposing this myth. It’s no more and no less than another of the many considerations we have to make. As such, it too is important to understand. Illusion, delusion, lying, falsity, etc. are as important to us as their counterparts insofar as our quest for understanding is concerned. But, this form of depth is not necessary to our present task. We are not attempting to resolve theoretical problems or differences, we are trying to tally them, make some order of them, undertake to evaluate them, and finally, put them to an expressed use. On the other hand, since I do enjoy intuiting like nothing else in this world, and, like a movie screen, simply relish in discovering ever new forms, possibilities or perspectives in way we perceive the world, I will continue in this vein for the moment.

We might look upon our senses and perceptions as providing both a limitation for ourselves and also a means to overcoming the same. Our eyes limit us to seeing only so far but allow us to see further with the aid of a telescope. Perhaps, it would be more appropriate to say that it is the interplay of our senses that allows us to overcome the limitations of each. Thus, the bifurcation of allowance and limitation can be seen to extend to, or, perhaps, results from, a bifurcation existing of our brains. This duality we experience, and speak of in everyday life, results from opposition which in turn gives rise to a third force, dimension, perception, etc. which would not have been possible had it not this constitution. Seeing with both eyes gives rise to a perception unlike seeing with either both in terms of scope and depth, that 3-dimensional quality we enjoy. Dualism in the mind or within mental perception (imagining, sensing emotions or bodily functions, or verbally articulating what we are experiencing, etc.) may all be the result of our having not one but two brains serving two different purposes. Each has a different constitution that sometimes works in tandem with each other and sometimes not; sometimes the one observing what is merely given by the other in the same way as the world is given us through “outer” perception.

MARCH 3, 1990

In many ways, genetics seems to protect us from ourselves. It ensures survival through differentiation, something which evolution theory claims is necessary to adaptation. . But, it must also be observed that while it ensures that we be different from our offspring, it, at the same time, ensures that we strive for sameness in this regard. Opposition is inherent in the system which is nature. More subtle still, it has been said in general terms that we all strive to mold the world to ourselves; that, whether we are speaking of our children or of our friends and acquaintances, we invariably strive to get out of them something satisfying to ourselves. On the other hand, the reverse of this notion seems equally true and obvious; that is, in life, we find not only persons who wish to dominate and influence, but also those who wish mainly to cooperate and comply. Why?

Psychologists

Whether or not this striving is…Not that we conform to them, but they to us. It is only after meeting a certain threshold of failure in this regard that we may reverse this tendency. Our understanding of the world surrounding us seems contingent upon our being able to relate to it. That is, we understand and esteem our own relations because this is the ground of understanding. Subjective understanding seems certain to ourselves while objective knowledge seems only to rest upon combinations of faith and force.

Our striving seem to carry in them the seeds of their own destruction–a seed bed of resistance designed by nature. In our various relationships with others, we invariably find ourselves resorting to different modes of behavior, all designed to overcome or influence, resist or adapt.

JOURNEY’S END
MARCH 15-16, 1990

I

Anguish caused by confusion.
Confusion resulting from overwhelming perceptions.
Unused intuition without promise of application.
Mental applications without promise of verification.

On to the next thought, the process renews,
Over and over the cycle ensues.
Intuition or concept, application or test,
If it remains in the mind, well, you know the rest.

A thought without action is only half alive,
So a system of thought only half survives;
Until it finds through experience its proper domain,
Nothing is settled, no sir!–only confusion remains.

But what is the proper object of thought for me?
Will it come from without or from within to see?
And how will I distinguish it from all other forms?
For my senses bombard me while I remain without norms.

The given of sensation–or the given of mind?
Nature and activity–or relations and kind?
Structure from without–or structure from within?
How to decide?–How to begin?

II

Anguish caused by confusion.
Confusion resulting from indecision.
Which ought I to heed?–Self? Nature? or Society?
Which criteria would be appropriate to my quest?

Now hold on a minute! You’re taking this too far!
What makes you think freedom and fate are on par?
Confusion indeed, you get what you deserve,
For thinking these notions other than absurd.

Events, repetition, memory and relations,
All these are given each person his station.
We cannot be responsible for what is not ours,
Why continue this battle? Why foster these scars?

Just ask yourself: Does structure carry with it a sense of its use?
Of course it does!–so your intuitions are without excuse.
But if you insist on obligation, then here’s what you can do,
Relate your intuitions to others as they were related to you.

And if this is still not enough and you desire mere action,
Again, take intuition’s lead–gain satisfaction!
For whether compelled from within or compelled from without,
I’m afraid structure and use is all we’re about.

III

Anguish caused by belittlement.
Belittlement resulting from lack of choice.
Why aren’t we in control of our destiny?
Why excluded from knowing what and why we are?

If structure and use is all we’re about,
Then, whose structure? Whose usage?–From whom do we sprout!
Who chooses to hide us from ourselves and others?
From what source this cruelty, this cruelty that smothers?

What source this opposition that holds us between,
Polar concepts and relations, our continuum screen?–
This “dualistic” separation giving rise to the soul,
This propelling delusion thinking we’re in control?

Yes, what source this opposition between all that is?
What force makes intelligible all that lives?
And will polar concepts and relations be all that is true?
Is this all we are?–Simple division to you?

Who are you?, Tell me! What is your game?
Is it to keep us from knowing we’re one and the same?
Is it to keep us from knowing that what compels us to thee,
Derives from no source other than we?

IV

Anguish caused by confusion.
Confusion resulting from pain.
Why are we nothing more than mere usage?
Why are we and not? Why violated so?

Poor soul! You can’t let it be!
You must puzzle it, fight it, do all except see;
Though all things are given you through revelation told,
You will choose to ignore these because this be your mold.

And you’ll continue to blame me for what you can’t see,
Continue to blame me for not being me!
And you’ll curse the confusion to which you are prone,
The oppositional conflict which for you was sown!

Now understand that the certainty you desire can never be,
It’s an illusion at best and entails stopping me!
And you’ll soon come to realize that the world will not wait,
And appreciate better the nature of fate.

For the force that propels and condemns you as well,
Is the self-same power of heaven and hell.
Yes, it’s Satan and I all rolled into one,
When you understand this, both our wills will be one.

V

Anguish caused by confusion.
Confusion caused by remorse and fatigue.
Why am I left to invent my God?
Why am I kept from rest?

But you are me and nothing more,
Is it only me who I implore?
Only me who speaks for you?
Only me for all things true?

And why do I speak in this way of things so close,
Of things important that I know most?
Of things belonging to me alone,
Almost answers to questions known?

And what of this “relative certainty” I speak,
This stoppage of you which allows me a peek?
This freezing of concepts of which I’m aware,
Is the birth of all knowledge and source of despair.

From this flow of contradictions can my will be done?
From my understanding that opposites are not two but one?
By accepting the given with grace, without shame,
May I continue my journey toward whence I came?

VI

Anguish caused by confusion.
Confusion resulting from knowledge of constraints.
How can I simply accept intuition and follow its lead?
How can I resist resistance? Let my passions go?

There are sounds to hear in this silent night,
Of things surrounding, of things within sight;
Observations to repeat, connect and store,
In memory with all that I cherish and adore.

But what of the rest… sorrow, pain and death?
Of the fear that anticipates that last final breath?
What price for endurance or for faith in reward?
What dignity of purpose for coming on board?

So we propel through opposites and synthesis I presume,
And are a constant becoming in death and in bloom.
But is this your message or merely mine?
Given me by me or by you throughout time?

Or are you just another link on the way up to God,
A mere speck of dust–a mere clump of sod?
A superior intelligence and nothing more?
Another rung–another door.

VII

Anguish caused by confusion.
Confusion resulting from loneliness.
Can it be that we are left incomplete and all alone?
An accidental compulsion without purpose?

Now I see where you’re headed and I must forewarn,
That your thinking will lead you to more sorrow and scorn;
For be you guided by an intelligence or nothing at all,
You’ll continue to crave it in response to your call!

You as much as said it when speaking as He,
That we’ll insist on becoming more than can be.
That we will fight to the end our relative limitation,
Ignoring my admonishment: “to each person his station”.

That in spite of our illusion of stoppage within motion,
We will continue to seek certainty from our relative notions.
But you said much, much more in your own revelation,
When you hinted of freedom through unbounded limitation!

So why not concentrate on this and strengthen your position?
Help break our “molds”–enhance our condition;
For we are in need of an escape as you know full well,
Heaven grows fainter as we move closer to hell.

VIII

Anguish caused by confusion.
Confusion resulting from frustration and ignorance.
How am I to project beyond my personal limitations?
How will I gain a perspective from without while remaining within?

But wait! Why should I feel obligated to deal,
With a society that pretends that illusions are real?
With a society that ignores what is important to see;
With a society that has done little or nothing for me?

Why serve a disinterested crowd that’s asleep?
Why shake a complacency amidst wolves and sheep?
Better they not know what each is about,
Better their cowardice shield them from doubt.

No, this is not my construction, built from my brick and mortar,
This is their tower–their flimsy order!
And if illusion of freedom is enough for the rest,
Let them live with their contradictions as an ultimate test.

No, I’ll not carry their burden–I’ll not carry it as mine,
A burden unwanted and ignored by their kind.
No, this conflict of opposites I stand ready to engage,
Will be my personal battle in a war to be waged.

IX

Anger caused by bitterness.
Bitterness resulting from entrapment realized.
Why is it that I must carry another’s burden?
Why can’t I escape society’s hold?

Because think what you may and think what you must,
It’s fate that entraps you–it’s fate that’s unjust.
Yes, it’s that self-same fate that holds us like cattle,
That supreme force of mind that now calls you to battle.

So don’t confuse your enemy as you seem want to do,
For there is no shame in ignorance nor in reliance upon the few.
Though lonely be your burden, though lonely be your quest,
In doing for yourself, my friend, you’ll benefit all the rest.

And remember too what lies in store as you ready to meet your foe,
You’ll have to walk in lonely spots, too frightening for most to go.
From whence the courage to venture, then, where others dare not tread?,
If not from deep familiarity with hardship, grief and dread.

So what good can come of cloistering a source or two for blame?
When the challenge that confronts you is for all the world to tame?
Yes, your true strength comes from wanting, the source of your travail,
So on to battle our champion, for each of us, prevail!

X

Anxiety due to fear.
Fear stemming from the unknown.
What will happen to me when I come face-to-face with truth?
What if that truth belittles me? What of my self-esteem?

There’s an anxious sort of emptiness now that only I remain,
Without supporting crutches–without my holy chains.
For now that I’m unraveled, my true self bared to see,
I’m frightened more than ever–simply frightened to be me.

A puzzling thing this freedom, this submission to nakedness,
This test of strength that dares receive the dress of truthfulness.
And should I prove unready, meagerly tempered for the test,
Will I be allowed to refuse what comes and return to my empty nest?

Deceptive though comforting delusion is gaining entry to my mind,
I know this as safe confusion, or a clinging to that which blinds.
But for now I must gather-up courage, to withstand myself impure,
No matter how daunting my spectacle, I must stand ready to persevere…

Nearly fifty years have passed till now, my stretch of loneliness,
Nearly fifty years of trial, nearly fifty years unblessed.
But it’s not for me that I come to you, this one last time for sure,
But to plead for all the painful rest before I shut the door.

THOUGHTS

All structure is limited of itself
To be something is not to be something else
Connection implies separation
Relations require separation
Separations are relative, changing
We can abstract different forms from the same field
Relations depend upon our abstractions, focus and classifications
We are hidden from potential relative notions or relations
We seem to be moving while the world remains still, etc.
Something must be permanent to us
So limitations are necessary to understanding
But limitation creates unknowns, the soil for gods
Opening and shutting our eyes makes the world appear and disappear
Feel or not feel, taste or not taste. dualism, on-off throughout
Abstraction depends upon ability to focus our attention, inner or outer compulsion and recognition through memory
Dualism an illusion based upon relative yes-no’s, see-not see, feel-not feel which are merely intensity differences rather than what we make of them.
Open-shut eyes, sleep-awake… although there is much in between, we wind up with dualistic parameters. Why?
Class of observations called life vs. class called death
There’s a certainty about this distinction. Why?
Sleep cannot be detached from its counterpart “Awake” because they:
developed out of one another?, because their meanings grew out of their polar opposites? always even? could one have gained more meaning than the other… be lopsided? Because to add something to one side is automatically to add to the other?
People close their eyes when asleep
People open their eyes when awake
No difference as to which observation made first
Opposition (dualism) gives simultaneous strength to each
This makes possible our conceptions
Three-sidedness would have confused the matter
How do dualistic notions take hold in the beginning?
What makes this a dualistic world?
Because we are in one-to-one correspondence with it?
Because sensation is an on-off thing?
Because meaning cannot take hold if in-between is focused upon?
Meaning derives from opposition?
Meaning is recognition is abstraction is duality
Relativity implies in-betweenness, other levels, etc. to which the opposite concepts (hot-cold) may be compared. Polarization loses force through quantification as when we say something is 20 degrees, 40 degrees etc. This only made possible because of `hot-cold’ outer parameters which can be absolute zero and up. We can ignore the origins after climbing to the roof, like throwing out the gold that supported paper money.
All meaning has its roots in abstraction which is a dualistic process initially
Neutrality-inbetweeness-pure sensation may be possible at birth but abstractions soon ensue and nothing is ever perceived in the same way again. Build upon former perceptions. Memory gets updated but probably represents a blend of synthesis of all perceptions rather than retaining the new to the exclusion of the old.

Can we focus internally? in dreams as well as memory?
Internal sensation parallels external. Can there be further levels?
Introspection vs. microscope or telescope?

Meaning has nothing to do with labeling or naming
We ask for meaning when we want understanding
Asking for meaning

MARCH, 1990

1

The usage of language is not dependant upon its grammar, rule, etc. The concept of “white,” etc is dependant upon usage of the word “white” in numerous cases.

Must have an idea or conception of whiteness, (abstractions) through activities of life. If I intend whiteness, etc. my use will reflect this or if not reflected, will convey through multiple usage causing successive approximation to the idea of the whitish in the learner.

Abstracting qualities, etc. is the key. Knowledge rests upon abstraction. Abstracting is a process of life.

Abstraction equals separation or focus?

Arises through seen commonality, but remains present while other things change. Takes many situations, trials, and errors. All qualities of things are available to us at once. We learn to separate them after we have learned them. Separation is part of our understanding or is the understanding, we can now go to things and focus upon this quality. Or, we could recognize a color in many objects, be drawn to the color, etc without having an idea or universal understanding of it. Ideas and concepts are linguistic (NO!!).

2

We can abstract qualities without use of language.

We can be drawn to a quality and recognize it in other objects.

We can be drawn to and recognize colors, shapes, smells, textures, and tastes.

We can focus upon these qualities (abstract).

Through activities others can learn or abstract the same and communicate their intentions to others.

Activity and accompanying sounds, behavior, etc. leads to identification with the qualities giving rise to non-behavioral language.

Language allows us to name or label these.

Names allows us to communicate the qualities without their being present.

3

Our individual makeups determine what we are interested in, dislike’s, can’t understand, or not understand.

If interested in knowing more about something we hate, is this because we want to affirm? or insure our beliefs? or can we be objective? or will we only take what serves our purposes?

Must teacher create a door for each pupil to link up what is to studied? Shouldn’t the teacher know the degree of distance, familiarity, difficulty each student will have?

Teaching needs to be a profession, sharpest minds, most creative, but this does not imply that the teacher need to be so. It does not imply that sharp and creative people are educated. Talent is everywhere and needs to be brought into the classroom (visiting poets, artists, actors, scientists, etc.) School should be a meeting place for the same. Volunteerism encourages or money set aside for the purpose of traveling sophist school to school. Classroom teachers don’t need depth of knowledge, they need breath. Facilitators need to understand the interconnectedness of knowledge human learning.

4

Each of us intuits differently. Much of our intuition goes unnoticed and unexpressed. We must encourage and evaluate all such expression. There is currently a was and resultant vacuum of knowledge and direction. We have concentrated on sense and overlooked intuition which sounds or which provides the conceptual foundation for the former.

Experimentation is only one way of manipulating observations and experience, not the only way, nor the most important for that matter. It tends to run away from us, like a child from it’s parents and then discovers that it can not handle the environment that it finds itself in. Maturing is lacking, purpose beyond the mere sake of continuing in the activity.

Science is a method for obtaining knowledge, not the only method, yet it is scientists who speak out on social and political issues. Why? Are philosophers, social science, etc to buried in confusion to do so?

Is it because of the simplicity of science and it’s methods and the ignorant desire to replicate it in other areas that the scientist seems to be the only one free on constraints to speak out on social issues. Even when they lack the depth of understanding to do so. Politicians (law and economics) are in the same boat, they represent a single strain, specialization that proceeds without a broad based understanding. Principles underlying specialized fields of study are few, and all of them the result of intuition through observation (external or introspective), the result of experiment or activity of any kind.

Expression, constructions, (physical activity, writing, art, human behavior, experiment, observing nature, etc) are all sources for intuitive apprehension.

BUT IT IS THE INTUITIVE APPREHENSION THAT COUNTS AND GIVES RISE TO THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES, POSTULATED IDEAS, CONCEPTS, HYPOTHESIS THAT BOTH ACT AS CATALYSTS AND EXPLANATION FOR OUR ACTIVITIES EMANATING FROM.

ACTIVITIES

Classification-Synthesis-Summations-Explanations
Experiment-Construction or Application, Etc.

We can’t feed off Plato and Aristotle forever. The chain is weakening.

New concepts are needed, we must find the means to satisfy and cater to the needs of fundamentalists, socialists, atheists, murderers, and the devil himself.

Survival is the impetus. But can competition any longer be the means? Is the sense of winning overcoming opposition? NO.

Opposition must be subsumed, integrated.

Integration is the key, it has always been the key!

5

Competition must be seen as fair by all parties. One nation against another works only when close to equal.

If there is a wide discrepancy is there an advantage? NO.

The Soviet Union provided for its members to control and lead; dictatorships paid off by US to control and reap benefits from communists; third world nations lent support to maintain their system or overthrow and change to communism such as Cuba, Nicaragua.

6

Must find outlets for our passions, mental inhibition of physical needs is cruel, dangerous, damaging and often brutal.

Slave trade of human flesh in Japan currently.

Dope and alcohol as means of feeling good and releasing pent-up frustrations.

Taboos need to be reevaluated in many cases and in many cases tossed out.

There needs to be less fear and more to hope for.

We need to feel safe, loved, satisfied, and secure about the present and the future.

We need to feel good about ourselves, our families, town, country, and the world.

7

Can we integrate ourselves within our present confines (family, nation) or must integration result from disintegration on one level to a new integration on another?

Family breakups leave individuals to find more extended families, special interest groups, fundamental lists, society, clubs, etc., with stronger ties than such organization had prior.

Is society disintegrating in order to re-synthesize?

Is the strong grouping around social issues representative of this trend and need for family, community, and a new level?

The process is in motion, but understanding lags behind, as it always must.

Something has to take place before we can begin to note similarities, trends, and directions.

8

It seems as though society as a whole is moving toward new integration. Family boundaries and national boundaries no longer apply. Boundaries breaking down don’t matter.

Industry and technology are the new gods and they will be worshipped variously by us in relation in what they do for us or against us. Support us, provide for us, etc.

The high priest of the temple is Kodak, for example, for those who can best support and protect it’s efforts.

Highly dependent upon fuel (electric, oil, gas, food, ores, and minerals) and need money to pay taxes. Must pay for food, shelter, and clothing, safety goods and services, and medicine. We must work for pay. Work involves producing or offering all of the above services and commodities.

Paid in accordance to job or company, supply and demand one skills and contributions, etc. Jobs, skills, etc are described and labeled and given requirements, degrees, licenses, certificates of qualification, etc.

Individuals must always conform to fit. They must do what society tells them what to do in order to qualify for membership. Society hates non-members or non-conformists. But non-conformity is a natural product of classification.

An example:

I want food, shelter, and clothing.
I want safety and security.
I want to think, write, teach, and enjoy life in general.
I cannot have or do any of the above without having money or credentials.
I cannot have money or credentials without school or paid work.
I cannot have school or paid work without conforming to what is in place.

9

The new societies (corporate societies) will make the rules, but they will need fewer laborers. What about those who do not work? Who will provide for them? Will we provide goods free for them? Will the state or corporation be the new providers? Will the lack of a need for labor usher in socialism? Can capitalism work without full employment?

Capitalism must always give something back, it must hold out a promise (unrestricted accessibility) for others or be attacked. The benefits of the corporation must trickle down and upward mobility remain a real potential. System of finance (borrowing, collateral, law, stock purchases) has led to individuals taking companies over whereas only companies were in the position to do this formerly. Individuals can amass companies and companies can amass companies.

A few individuals can control the means of production and thus, society (an oligarchy of financiers or industrialists worldwide). Are they required to handle the social ramifications? Will they subsume government defense? They are defense! They can produce defenses for any country if allowed or in control. Multi-national corporations will make this a possibility. Information and technology cannot be contained.

MAY 24, 1990

There seems to be two sides to everything
Continuum stretching to polarization and finalization–closure
Closed concepts and systems of concepts
Contemplating this alone can occupy one for a lifetime

Example: Freedom of information can be used for the benefit of ourselves and all human kind
It can also be used for the benefit of oneself or a group with absolutely no thought of benefiting others

Question: Should the good-intentioned keep it to themselves in order to prevent the bad-intentioned from misusing it?

Is there a continuum between good and bad-intentions, or is it more like an on-off switch?

Take/Compile/Hoard & Restrict for one’s own benefit or Compile & Share?
And what if one’s usage of such information runs counter to another’s?
What if the East uses Western information with the intention of causing the West harm? Or a single nation against any other?

We are dealing here with general concepts?
What underlies and serves to simplify these?
What about the continuum stretching from `selfishness to altruism’?
No, I am not looking to a philosophical interpretation of these concepts. I am in search of their grounding in experience!

What does nature say to us in this regard?
What can biology and anthropology offer us?
From what does altruism spring in the individual, family, pack or tribe?
Surplus?
The perceived benefits of reciprocity to oneself, family, tribe at appropriate times?
Is this a form of `exploitation’ at every level?

Is exploitation `right or wrong’ or simply `natural’?
A matter of `reason’ or a matter of `fact’?
The general rising above the particular? System?
In deciding, ought we to heed one or the other, or both?
Do we want to connect with nature or continue the pretense of having risen above her?
How important is illusion and delusion to modern-day civilization anyway?
Its mortar?

`Primitive Society’ and `Advanced Society’
How relative, really, are these terms or notions?
Surely, here is a case that can be turned upside-down!
And it is increasingly apparent that the same may be true of our entire conceptual heap!
Is this due to our concepts being closed, limited, or finite in every case?
Or can there be `unlimited limitations’ allowing us an escape in the sense that a microscope surpasses the limitations imposed by our sense of sight?
So do our concepts impose limitations or freedoms insofar as thought and experience is concerned?
But, then, this is really too big a mouthful for any of us. The question presupposes far too much, and certainly is too far removed from its experiential roots.

So what is the relationship between experience and language anyway? Surely, what has been said so far (whether precise or not) suffices to show what in fact serves as anchors to our motivations and actions. Surely one can see how immensely important this is and also recognize how little attention is given it! So,…

How do concepts arise? What constitutes their anchors or bases? How are they used? Are they expressions of ourselves (in a physical sense) or utilized by ourselves as are tools? Is there really a difference between the these two uses? What gives us and our concepts their `reflexive’ quality? Why do we find this quality in both? What does this tell us about thought in relation to experience? Are we connected to nature by way of language or have we been disconnected by the same? Are we a part of a process that entails going to ever new levels and leaving behind and eventually forgotten all that went before? No different than what nature shows? Are we ourselves a moving continuum within the continuum of all that surrounds us? Or is this simply all that our conceptual apparatus allows? Relative illusion? Relative truth, fact or fiction? Again, are we bound by concepts or freed by them? Why does opposition, polarization, tension, etc. seem to be the only means propelling us to what and where we know not? Why can’t we conceive of any other alternative? Is this cage or vehicle?

We can go on and on with questions such as these, but this is not the primary issue at hand. Understanding the motivations and effects of human behavior and deciding what to do about such information, is. The relationship of language to experience is crucial to such understanding and will involve an interdisciplinary approach as must all knowledge ultimately. And, whether or not this conceptual apparatus is studied as a physical phenomena belonging to experience, or as a mental phenomena belonging to mind, does not concern me as these notions are themselves part of the conceptual apparatus we are trying to grasp. A starting point, in the sense of an `appropriate beginning’, can never be had as this is generally the `end’ sought. We seem always to be in a dilemma of this sort. To be able to define the quest is in some sense already to have the answer, although this is still a very fuzzy thing to conceptualize. Cage or vehicle? Unlimited limitation? And what of this “fuzziness” that is always with us?–“fuzzy” conceptions propelling us in “fuzzy” directions which, along the way, spew out, or turn into pieces of “clarity” here and there, ad-infinitum.

Perhaps we are missing the real point in our search for absolute knowledge and certainty. These are illusory concepts at best, and I suspect that, if stretched to their `logical’ conclusions, would stagnate or consume themselves. Think about `unlimited perception’ or `seeing without the restriction of perspective’. Are the limitations imposed by our eyes limitations? Or is such limitation the very thing that makes possible unlimited perception?

It seems to me that conceptual formations rest upon pretended “freezing” of life into imagined still photo’s. It is in this way that we are able to come to relative notions like `absolute’, `certainty’, and the like. Does this change our perspective of knowledge and morality in particular? `Relativity’, `Relative Certainty’ and `Certainty’. Notice the polar opposition (the `on-off’ switch) and also the synthesis taking place. Is this relevant to our understanding of self and world? Communism-Capitalism, Good-Evil, Up-Down, etc.

JULY 26, 1990

CLASSIFICATION

There is an old ideal which is taking new shape today which can be expressed as follows:

Greater human harmony might best be fostered through a combination of knowledge and acceptance of ourselves and others; that is to say, through greater awareness and acceptance of not only our own emotions and behaviors, but of those different from our own.

The point is that, for many of us, life is terribly confusing. It is confusing because we seem always compelled to having to respond to choices which are not clear-cut. That is, we are faced with not knowing which choices are appropriate, needed, to our benefit, or which will lead to good or bad consequences. We seem frozen or fused between conflicting alternatives. Our inclination is to think this a “human-made” difficulty, perhaps owing to the use or misuse of language and concepts, or to our own ignorance of ourselves and our place in nature. We try to reflect on the dilemma, hoping that by doing so we may finally disentangle ourselves from the knots we’ve tied–the confusion we’ve wrought.

We attempt to re-flect, re-view, re-member, re-construct, re-imagine or re-hope our way out of the dilemma. We seek out the gods of “intuition” and “revelation” to assist us, only the first is not quite reliable enough and the second not seeming to care. We increasingly feel that we are left alone or, perhaps, abandoned altogether. How could nature have wrought such thinking in us? How could nature have wrought such feelings? What `purpose’ could this serve?

We understand the world around us through observation and our use of concepts. We observe things which are relatively stable and things which exhibit a great deal of change–such as human behavior. How we describe such behaviors (group things into like kinds) will depend upon the aim of our classifications. When, for example, we describe someone’s behavior as being introverted or extroverted, we already have an understanding of the behavior beforehand and are looking to apply it.

Thus, finding out who we are is accomplished by means of definitions, concepts and classifications which attempt to describe human behavior or identify preferences. We usually refer to things by name. Oftentimes, simple recognition is sufficient to know that we are right. At other times, we require a more elaborate view, such as pointing to particular characteristics in order to make an appropriate identification. What, for example, will decide whether an object is plant or animal, mammal or fish? We look to identifying characteristics and make groupings of those traits which seem to be shared in common. We disregard differences, in other words and, in so doing, oftentimes run into the problem of overlapping criteria. Blue-green algae may appear to have both animal and plant characteristics while a whale may seem to be both mammal and fish! Sometimes we remark about “what puzzling creatures these are”, but this is to miss the point. It is not the things which are classified that are puzzling, but the process of classification. Nature did not present us with classifications–we did! Nature seems to be a uniform continuum, a constant blending of one thing into another, all without boundaries, ends, or clear-cut divisions.

How much of what confuses us is conceptual?

How we group things into like kinds will depend upon the aim of the classification. It would be a grievous mistake to suppose that the classification (or word “mammal”) somehow signifies the whale.

When we describe someone’s behavior as being extroverted, we must already understand the behavior

Extroverted behavior might also be described in any number of ways. We might call one’s behavior `excitable’, `loud’, `aggravating’, `showy’, etc. which may or may not be a part of our definition of extroverted behavior. When we seek to identify something as being something, we already understand what we are looking for. We have our definition, concept, classification, or mental image in mind and are looking to apply it to something. On the other hand, we may simply be looking, and from what is observed, we conclude that it is such and such, now drawing upon the same concepts which we already have in mind. Thus, we recognize such behavior because we wish to recognize it. We might just as well have ignored it, or simply not conclude anything whatever from it. But, such an activity as this is very much a part of our lives.

Temporary assertion of fact. “His behavior is extroverted”
Semi-Permanent assertion. “His behavior is generally extroverted”… a behavioral preference
Permanent. “He is an extrovert”

The two statements “He is a human-being” and “He is an extrovert” appear to be very much the same but are very different in fact. Characteristics of being human are much more stable than those describing one form of behavior among many forms exhibited by a particular individual.

Now, how do we know that we are right?

METHOD: Finding out who we are is accomplished by means of definitions, concepts and classifications which attempt to describe human behavior or identify preferences. We usually refer to things by name. Oftentimes, simple recognition is sufficient to know that we are right. At other times, we require a more elaborate view, such as pointing to particular characteristics in order to make an appropriate identification. What, for example, will decide for us whether an object is plant or animal? Mammal or fish? We look to identifying characteristics and make groupings of those traits which seem to be shared in common. We disregard differences. By so doing, we classify particular objects into general groupings or classes. Once in awhile we run into problems where are classifications seem to overlap. Blue-green algae may appear to have both animal and plant characteristics while a whale may seem to be both mammal and fish! Sometimes we foolishly remark what puzzling creature these are. But this is to miss the point. It is not the things classified that are puzzling but the process of classification that invariably leads us to such puzzlement. Nature did not present us with classifications–we did! Nature seems to be a uniform continuum, a constant blending of one thing into another without boundaries, ends, or clear-cut divisions.

NOTE: Nothing in nature is black or white but always on a continuum, blending from one side to another. Is the continuum even or a bell-shaped curve? What of Jung’s contention that the continuum is more like a camels two humps with a splitting of behavioral preferences in two opposing directions? How can this be? Or can human behavior be looked upon as a cell and is currently undergoing a division? Or does the splitting become part and parcel of our classification? Why do we get 75% Extroversion and 25% Introversion when we apply our concepts to human behavior?

Many different levels of usage in personal assessments

Common, obvious, information about oneself that is simply summed-up into a portrait that can greatly facilitate understanding of oneself.

AUGUST 4, 1990

I

DUALISM, OPPOSITION, POLARIZATION

What gives a particular phrasing of a question more explanatory power, depth or breadth, than some other?

We either accept the world as it is given
Or fight it because it is not sufficient

We either probe it and ask how such and such comes to be
Or question why it needs to be or why there can’t be more

We either seek to discover what its benefits are
Or seek to uncover all its ills

The devout deist may be on the acceptance side
Being self-assured that his vision of the way things are is correct

One does not doubt the environment–only what is said of it.
The atheist may simply challenge the beliefs of his counterpart

So is this is a battle between “acceptance” and “challenge”, “contentment” and “dissatisfaction”?

Can one be content while one is challenging?
Can one be accepting when one is dissatisfied?

What life offers is all there is to be had
Although one could hope for more in an afterlife

ARCHAIC BOAT DREAM
August 14, 1990?

AFTERTHOUGHT 2/23/96…

Following “Journey’s End,” I felt rather whipped and out of sorts for several months as I recall. It was an emotional drain, to say the least, and I didn’t feel up to much of anything, although I did try once or twice to continue my writing. But, from what I can see, it proved to be more of the same kind of writing I was engaged in prior to my poem. It was sometime in August, I believe, that I had a very important, highly symbolic, dream which I never wrote down. And yet, it impacted me to such an extent, that there was never any doubt in my mind that I would ever have to, so vivid did it remain. It wasn’t until my writing on December 28, 1992 (more than two years later) that I first made mention of it, together with another rather bizarre dream. From that point, the dream came up periodically over the next few years of writing with a solid overview or treatment of it made on October 8, 1994. Over the course of years that have passed since this dream, I always felt that its purpose was to provide me with a first significant step toward the journey my poem indicated I would be taking. Needless to say, “Journey’s End” proved only to be a depiction of the why’s and wherefore’s of my overall confusion and the dilemma I found myself to be in, and, of course, was also showing me the way out of it. So rather than serving as an end in itself, this emotional outpouring merely depicted the potential “beginning of an end,” and there were grave doubts as to whether I would be able to handle it. This dream, as it were, I believe to have been a “symbolic representation” which, like my poem, was intended to serve as a catalyst to future action. And, like my poem, it not only depicted the why’s and wherefore’s of my dilemma (in its own way), but also pointed to a way out, or at least to the next rung in the ladder. As it was, the dream ended with my seeing three beautifully carved mahogany doors standing on the rear deck of my shabbily built, very archaic looking, boat. Although I have realized more and more of this dream’s meaning over the years, I know that I have only scratched the surface. However, I am also confident that one day I will understand its fullest meaning, and on that day, I will know that I’ve finally made it across!

AUGUST 20, 1990

Language is living. Words can affect us no differently than the wind. We can utilize language and can be utilized by it. This sounds strange, but is true. Words (general concepts, specifically) carry us by their own momentum. If they are in the service of anything at all, it is our minds (or the workings of our brains) and to this we must plead ignorance, for while we may have an awareness of such workings, we know that we are not in control! As always, knowledge comes after the fact. We note what transpires, describe it, claim credit for it and go on with it, perpetuating this grandest of
delusions.

Concepts come to us through intuition. We receive them through awareness. We recognize them when they come. They create a means for understanding by providing a context which is but another conception that dissipates opposing notions by subsuming each within a new context which can become a home for both. A kind of satisfaction is reached, a integral whole, a completion of sorts. It may not last for long, but while we hold it in our minds, it gives both satisfaction and motivates us to attempt to assert or explain something. Doing this opens the door once more to other possible conceptions which enter our awareness through the door of intuition.

The source of all problems and strength is our struggle with nature; our personal struggles for survival and security. Beyond food, shelter and clothing, we want assurances that once obtained, they will be maintained.

What does family, community, nation and world ask of us?
To obey or nothing at all!

What does family, community, nation and world teach us?
That we are all confused and must find our way alone!

Under such circumstances, each of us comes to understand, at a very early age, the uncertainties that surround ourselves. We begin to recognize contradictions on every level and soon come to realize that `certain’ answers to them are not forthcoming. Rather, we are left to ascertain our own behaviors and soon learn to support these from a variety of perspectives and motivations.

What motivates us is crucial to an understanding of ourselves and the world at large. And we understand through a process of conceptualization; a continual refining (breaking down) of concepts into further concepts.

For example, we speak of physical and emotional needs as though these were different things. But this distinction most probably was derived from a concept of behavior which surely must have preceded it. But, what we must recognize is that separating a particular behavior into a physical and emotional component is not to fragment the behavior–only our concept of behavior.

Problems result when we disregard the varying contexts in which individuals and peoples are; the varying levels of needs, aptitudes, values and beliefs which people are working out of.

Mass confusion results which we can only sort out confusion through a process of simplification which is based upon blindness or a refusal to consider facts and circumstances outside our own spheres.

Unfairness results when we choose to exercise our wills or advantages over others (including our immediate families) in order to secure personal needs and wants.

Our personal and national families are held together by a similar need for self-maintenance and its dependence upon business and industry, government and law for sustenance. We find that we must become a part of a system in order to be sustained by them, and we compete amongst ourselves for whatever advantages avail.

Cohesion of families is dependent upon common interests and advantage. Ascertaining commonalties is always to our advantage whether we are talking about the advance of knowledge or the advance of civilization.

We come to know ourselves and the world through such commonalties and these can best be expressed as concepts or the usage of language, both spoken and written.

At bottom, we are all bundles of potential and actual motions or behaviors

We speak of animal behavior in a different way than we do the behavior of molecules or the so-called physical things which make-up ourselves.

At bottom, we are all a bundle of behaviors and emotions
Emotions are themselves behaviors
At bottom, language is an expression of emotions

Through repetition, we are able to express (convey) the emotions of others; that is, through altering context from an expression of ourselves to an expression of others. In such ways, we describe other behaviors

What do I need to do as an individual?
What ought I to do as an individual?
What does my special interest group need to do?
What ought my special interest group do?
What does my nation need to do?
What ought my nation do?

Competing levels of interest
What is the significance of utilizing concepts

What level are we on when we question whether or not we should safeguard our interests in the Persian Gulf at any costs?

What level are the Arabs on when they say that they will defend their interests, etc.

DECIPHERING CONCEPTS

SEPTEMBER 5, 1990

Our rational processes are crucifying us. They give rise to unending possibilities which are too difficult to grasp due to the confusion resulting from overlapping contexts. Too little a grasp of such processes is not only highly confusing, but dangerous as well.

Applying logic, organization, classification, etc. in thinking, or to understanding concepts in general, is to risk fusing a variety of different processes and usages. We must recognize what each is in order to avoid mistakes and confusion.

Usually, we jump into a swarm of concepts armed only with an immediate awareness of what it is we would like to accomplish. But concepts have histories, family ties and numerous uses within a broad variety of contexts; contexts which resulted from applications or usages different from our own.

For example, Jung spoke about “natural behavioral preferences” which we are supposedly born with; that if we proceed to develop in ways opposite these preferences, we will not realize our own best gifts, and will probably suffer some form of tension as a result of our misplaced preferences. Think about forcing yourself (or, more accurately, feeling compelled) to use your left hand when you are naturally right-handed.

This notion of “natural behavior” seems fairly clear to us because we know already what is natural for ourselves and what is not. Jung’s usage, on the other hand, suggests that one could behave unnaturally with or without having direct knowledge of it. While such behavior can be expected to bring about a certain level of difficulty, the individual may not be aware of the cause, or choose the behavior despite its difficulties. It may be valued by others (parents, society, etc.) and therefore “worth” the effort.

Whether the individual is immediately aware of the discomfort or not can make all the difference to correcting the situation. If yes, then he should welcome the possibility of relief. If not, then he should remain suspicious of all such claims, but maintain an open mind, until he can substantiate such claims for himself. This may be accomplished first by formulating a sound grasp of the concepts employed–the “oppositional behaviors” rightly or wrongly preferred by him–and try each on for size. The underlying assumption is that, whether aware of it or not, there is some form of tension or level of difficulty or annoyance which accompanies “unnatural behavior”, and that the absence of the same will in fact be noticed should the individual come to experience the difference.

We attempt to understand such notions (conceptual meanings) through a variety of processes or actions which could include: ordering, sorting, classifying, deducing, integrating, relating, juxtaposing, etc.

SEARCHING FOR SELF

SEPTEMBER 10, 1990

“Know thyself!” and “Be thyself!”
An awareness that one is consonant with nature
By acting in accordance to one’s nature
Not to do so is to cause tension and pain
The result of confusion and restraints
Imposed by ourselves or society
Through belief and law

Know Yourself!
Immediate awareness of emotions and feelings is not what is meant
But being able to accurately express the same! Understand what you are.
Expressions entail usage of concepts which are public and therefore general
One’s behavior must conform with one’s beliefs about himself
General behavioral norms for one’s type can be provided one
Where does the ultimate criterion of truth reside: within oneself or without?
What happens when one applies general concepts to oneself?
CAN THERE BE A UNIQUE REFINEMENT?

Be Yourself!
Act consistently with what you are, believe, desire, etc.
Must learn how to circumvent things in your way… including yourself!
Ultimate criterion for deciding what is appropriate and what not: self or society?

SEPTEMBER 15, 1990

Whomever attempts to understand me, attempts to understand feelings and emotions.

Whoever wishes to join me, wishes to join in the uncertainties accompanying intuition and knowledge and choice…

In the struggle of disentangling self from society in order to gain a “knowing” perspective…

Or finding another methodology and potential solution to this problem of diffusion and lost awareness.

But, then, these very remarks reek of confusion stemming from arbitrary choice in my usage of concepts and structure…

Why arbitrary?

Why do I not know beforehand which concepts would be primary or appropriate or necessary to my purpose?

Because I don’t know my purpose?

Why do I not know whether such concepts need to be “primary” or “appropriate” or “necessary”, etc.?

Because I don’t know an appropriate methodology for my purpose?

Does this suggest that we are compelled to think, to act, from ends rather than means? That if we first know our ends, we can decide our means and that to do otherwise is to give rise to confusion or nonsense?

Means having importance, perhaps, only in the Darwinian sense of “natural selection” or “natural preference”? [Jung?]

What gives rise to our notion (sense?) that we are both an integral part of nature and yet separate? That human understanding must necessarily deal with three of its conceived aspects: “self” distinguished from nature, “nature” distinguished from self, and “self and nature” in relation.

Is this “conceptual delusion”?

Digression:
What if Jung’s “natural preferences” (extroversion-introversion; sensing-intuition, thinking-feeling) are thought of in the passive Darwinian sense; does this mean that my individual behaviors (along with me) are undergoing a process of selection and rejection in accordance with environmental characteristics and demands? or that my introverted behavior is in a process of developing or evolving from those environmental characteristics affecting me most?

There is (conceptual?) ambiguity here inasmuch as nature may or may not affect us as a “whole”; that is, the same environment can affect two individuals in different ways (depending upon which aspects one interacts with–parts) or because the same environmental aspects may effect different outcomes in either individual (be received differently, mean something different, cause a different response, effect a different emotion–whole). Our conception of “environment” is at one and same time a “whole series of individual notions and characteristics”: a “whole” and “a series of parts”–parts which are themselves “sub-wholes” with parts!

What are we to make of these dissections, distinctions–transgressions of thought? My usage of concepts remains weak and certainly arbitrary. I can think of all sorts of offshoots or further distinctions. I can easily challenge myself, my thinking, my method. There is a growing suspicion that I am being led rather than leading; that “wily” concepts have taken on a life of their own [similarity here to notions of “inanimate to animate” and “animate to machine”?] and are no longer under my control. That such workings of concepts and thought may be the direct result of a “dualism” sensed in mind–between sensations and their objects, or from the special “awareness” derived from having two brains, eyes, ears, etc.? Whole or part? General or particular? Arbitrary or not? We might ask: Do our concepts take on the peculiar characteristics of mind in relation to body, self in relation to nature? Or do they represent the very process of having made such distinctions? Again, are concepts (conceptions) coming from nature (as distinct from ourselves) or from ourselves (as distinct from nature)? Because we are a “part” of nature, a part of nature is us. But, from this tiny perspective, ought we to credit ourselves with whatever is derived from the relationship? Again I ask: Are concepts ours or belonging to nature? Are you still able to laugh at this notion? Or do you begin to see how such “intersections” in thought can become one or two… depending upon perspective!

Is it MY intuition? [Remember Wittgenstein: “Is it MY pain?”]. If the intersection of Wittgenstein’s thought and my own gives rise to something new, is it MY thought or an extension of HIS thought working through me! Don’t we usually tip the waitress and the postman rather than the cook and the post office? And, in so doing, don’t we ignore the fact that the food was excellent and that other persons played a significant part in getting the mail to us? Why is this?

All thought and knowledge seems to progress in this way. Ignoring relations seems to be as necessary to knowledge acquisition as is noting them. Human nature (behavior, or any element in nature for that matter) seems always to seek out, blend or interact with, consume… what is most like it, complementary to it, supportive of it, or needed for its own well-being or survival. And while we may be somewhat uncomfortable talking about the “well-being” or “needs” of atoms and molecules, it has cost us dearly in terms of human understanding for having discontinued the practice! Just how primitive are “animistic” notions anyway–say, the “American Indian perspectives on nature” as compared to the “higher order” refinements we’ve made? Think about making a case for either!

The word “primitive” takes on new meaning as we begin to imagine a reversal of the terms application in this regard. We begin to suspect that modern analysis may be succeeding in “disenfranchising ourselves from ourselves” along with all of the good it has wrought. It can’t be denied that words open the door to ever new possibilities, be they nouns or adjectives, ascriptions or ….

as we continue down the road of analysis. We wonder notions of a separateness from nature? Can distinctions made in one context take on a new meaning if used in others–perhaps, unknowingly (to ourselves) taking on a life of their own as they “slip out” from the context of analysis?

OCTOBER 3, 1990

Why do we insist on hiding ourselves from others…
Pretending that we are society’s own;
That we are hero’s, brave and strong,
That good or bad we must belong,
That we are cultural entities.

And why must I always be given hard choices. It’s going to be a beautiful day today, a day to be outside, with nature. But I have had several insights. There is so much I want to write about… the need for knowledge integration, the need to believe that all differences (personal and cultural) are on the same plane and no one of them superior to the other… that all such differences have their place in the unfolding of nature… that unless we grasp this first, our chances for world understanding and peace will be lost… that scholars must capsulate their understanding of their own subject matter and integrate it with that belonging to other fields in order to answer world problems which are integrating by nature. No text books, please! If we want to be sociologists, psychologists, philosophers, etc. we will ask for this type information. We want to know what you know in order to put it to use. You can then go on your journey into increasing specialization–we will welcome your efforts. But you must realize that there are pressing problems on the surface which must be addressed. And you will benefit from our facing them.

I want to write about our need to reveal ourselves for what we are rather than continue our charade about being whatever it is we think others regard highly. There’s too much confusion from all of this pretense. Let’s reveal ourselves for what we are so that we can share compassion and fear and hopes and dreams. How will we understand the Jewish predicament? How will we understand the Arab mind?–what underlies its cultural diversity underlies our own. How will we identify with the shame and hope and anger and confusion that underlies their outward thrust. How will we understand why they are so willing to give themselves up to Islam or to a dictator or to specialization or simplification. These are not differences which we cannot understand, which do not effect ourselves. They are differences only in respect to effect, owing to their place, their time, their circumstances, and to their interactions with the rest of us.

China is hiding from us. She understands the pain which accompanies our behavior, the confusion which permeates our beliefs, aspirations and hopes, which for the most part are truly unknown–or, at least, unsaid. She understands us through feeling and not intellect, although intellect is providing the means to her present approach and, thus, taking her down the same road as we. If only she would stop to listen to her heart and mind and reveal to us what she sees–what she lacks. If only we would look at our knowledge, our science, our methods and admit to what we see–what they lack. In doing so, we may weaken the artificiality that separates Western mind from Eastern–the real Iron Curtain. In doing so, we might for once accomplish synthesis without pain–gain without bloodshed.

Why do we say we must have “common ground” in which to negotiate, in which to integrate. This “conceptual” awareness is properly speaking right; but, we ourselves are already that common ground we claim to be seeking! “Show us that this is so, Eastern Mind, or have you too shut the door?” We know that some of your members are going our way. We have been goading about the same. And, why do you wish to come our way? For riches, a better life, or because you have no choice while the “scourge from the West” presses on? You should know that in the West, the Southern half speaks of the “scourge from the North”; while within nations themselves, other means are found to localize “devils”. Northern and Southern Europe, Northern and Southern Italy, dialect to dialect, tribal origins within nations. Think of Yugoslavia and so many others as well. How many tribes comprise ourselves. Think of the Arab nations and those others who occupied those same lands at other times. Think about Africa. What good and bad has resulted from Shaka Zulu’s integration. How does all of this fit in with South Africa today?

“The Scourge” is nothing more than our intellectual selves–our objective, societal, increasingly material, increasingly separating “social” selves. Nature is pressing us hard, threatening to destroy us. She will not perish, only we. She is squeezing us in order to evolve. Opposition is her way. Our purpose belongs to her purpose belongs to whose purpose? Although we don’t understand it, we know we are a part of it, a defiant part of it at that. And we don’t want to lose this defiance. No, our ego’s won’t allow it. If we are the important aspect of nature and believe nature a most important aspect of God, then we are a most important aspect of God, which is certain to comfort us. And if we believe nature herself to be supreme, without any foreknowledge of God, then we remain supreme for the same reasons–ourselves like Gods. Pity us if and when we find this to be otherwise.

Evolution, change, reproduction, growth, maturation, progression, etc. seems to have begun with bifurcation, requires it, and continues to utilize it on a continuing basis. It permeates knowledge. Whether we look within the realms of philosophy, literature or science, it is everywhere dealt with. Platonic “Forms”, Hegelian “Synthesis”, Jungian “Archetypes”, or Blakes “Marriage of Heaven and Hell”–it is everywhere to be found. The same themes present themselves over and over again through literature and mythology, religion, anthropology, history and all the rest. This is why knowledge capsulation and integration is so important to us. How else will we grasp or ascertain which are roots, which threads, which continuous and which broken (tree or weave); which analogy or construct appropriate, which not; knowing when they are useful to us, and when they must be thrown away.

Nature is pressing us hard. She splits us without cutting us in two. She stretches us without breaking us. She allows us to see things we cannot touch. She is a self-loving temptress. She is beautiful and moving. She is selfish and cruel. She is strong and forceful. She is impartial and non-concerned. And because she is all these things, we are all that we are. We find all her characteristics belonging to ourselves, thus defined. [Is animism primitive!] We see her in us and us in her. Reciprocity is everywhere giving rise to knowledge, making further separation possible through definition. We love her as we love ourselves. We curse her as we curse ourselves. Bifurcation is everywhere. It propels us. It haunts us. It confuses us. It is us!

We see a flat earth and know it is round. We see solid objects and know that they comprise parts. We see more and less than what our eyes allow by utilizing special lenses. We re-configure earth’s materials into different-looking structures. We sent one of those structures to the moon and back. We extend nature as we extend ourselves. Nature extends herself as she extends us. Bifurcation is everywhere.

We sense and know that we are. We define ourselves to ensure the separation. We overlook the connections, all that we take in, transform and secrete, in favor of noting such “separations”. We accentuate our differences from the rest of nature, from the animals, from the primates, from other races, nationalities, cultures, tribes, families, and even family members, in order to draw attention to ourselves. And when this does not seem to be enough, we begin to separate ourselves from ourselves! Bifurcation is everywhere and it has a double edge.

We don’t willingly separate ourselves from ourselves, however. We do so only because we are at the end of a process and are compelled to go further. Our “psychological selves” are no help to us, they are not sufficiently understood as yet. Freud, Adler, Jung and all the rest have barely scratched the surface. They are playing with concepts, interchanging them, integrating them, putting them into new contexts, playing “what if” games in order to “force” a model, a notion, to fit. They are trying to understand why present day concepts and notions seem to be lacking. How must the mind be viewed in order to account for what we see? What kind of world had to be envisioned to account for a seemingly round horizon, the fact that the sun appeared in the east each and every day, crossed over to the west and disappeared, only to reappear in the east on the following day? “How did it get to the other side?”, we ourselves might have asked. Underneath? What if…?

When we found ourselves at our conceptual ends, we had no other choice but to reverse direction. If all that we required was simply motion, we might have been content with “spinning our wheels in place” while awaiting the coming of a conceptual apparatus to free us. But this is not the way of nature. No, we were compelled, instead, to reverse our direction–compelled to travel a road already traveled. Why?

Well, what has resulted? We have been traveling in reverse for some time now, not all of us together, to be sure, but nearly everyone has by now been told of the adventure, and also of its findings. Nearly everyone by now understands and believes that we are somehow both “individuals” and “social beings”. That nature and nurture both mold us. That we are different from nature and yet an integral part. That we are “free” to act all the while she “commands” us!

In such as way, we traveled a road to its end. Not finding anything there to compensate us for our journey, we felt compelled to travel it again in reverse direction. In other words, we began our journey as an integral (unknowing) part of nature, evolved a concept of “self” along the way, and finally developed a concept of a “natural” or “social self”. But, while this overlapping made such conceptualization possible, it did not rid us of puzzlement. On the contrary, it has brought deeper puzzlement as we are now in a position to sense the pull of equal forces. There is no turning around at this point. There is no road to re-travel. There is only a tormenting stalemate threatening to pull us apart, perhaps threatening to destroy us. A conceptual conflict between self and self, self and nature, nature and nature–pulling us apart, threatening to destroy us. What will it take to free us? What must we envision in order to make sense of what we see and feel! What must we do to make this synthesis possible? Does it really matter at this stage whether we are to be actors or spectators? Don’t we realize that this pre-occupation will lose all significance once the transition has been made!

Together and only together can the pieces be matched. Nature is tough. Nature is unrelenting, on-going frustration. We must withstand her in order to withstand ourselves. We must understand that what she gives us is all that we have and know. Continuing our many “pretenses” willing only prolong the agony, or, just maybe, will eliminate the problem altogether for ourselves. Nature has many other possibilities besides us. Nature is tough.

DREAMS

OCTOBER 8, 1990 (2:45 A.M.)

Something remarkable happened to me. I awoke from a dream at which has given rise to all sorts of notions which I feel I will lose if I don’t write or think them down on something substantial.

I dreamt that I was at a meeting (Wickes Lumber Company) brought together to determine or suggest my eligibility or ineligibility for a management position. Harold Greenstein (a former philosophy professor of mine in real life) presided over the meeting. I didn’t recognize any of the other six or seven persons in the room.

I was given a sheet outlining a personal psychological summary made up on me by the company and was asked to read it. I read it slowly and carefully, noting its depth and accuracy in evaluating me. I can’t remember the wording, but recall how accurate an assessment it was and marveled at their ability for having accomplished this without my knowing. The wording was superior to my own, well-written, concise, and on target. I was agreeing with all of it. I had to reread parts of it in order to comprehend it, but had no real trouble in doing so. I remember that it was on a single page in two column mode. I had gotten down to the end of the first column where it was testifying to a measurement of my aptitude in general areas, which I remember as being strong but nothing spectacular.

I felt that I could admit to all of what had been said so far. It was a personal and penetrating analysis of me but I wasn’t ashamed of it even though there were areas which were borderline normal behavior. I was measured on my ability to handle situations under stress or in response to an attack on my personal esteem, I’m not certain. And, although my response pointed to some problem, it was not serious enough and I did wind up handling it in a somewhat appropriate manner. What is significant here is that I remember the analysis as being a penetrating and accurate in-depth analysis superior to my own ability to sum myself up in this way and also that the circumstances or examples utilized were real situations which could very well have taken place at work (when I worked for Wickes Lumber Company).

At this point, Harold commented that my qualifications were highly complementary in many ways although he could not recommend me for a management position. I recall not getting the opportunity to read the second column and some mention of my willingness to sign the document when asked. I remember at first being quite willing but then reflecting that I should not as this information would be a self-affirmation of its veracity and could be used against me at some later date. My dream ended.

Again, what is fascinating to me is the knowledge that there is a higher order intelligence at work within me that I am normally unaware of. I vividly remember reading the material and noting how cleanly and precise it was written. I recall a few concepts having to do with relational measurements which I was vaguely familiar with but not at home with them. And yet, there was no doubt in my mind that its author did know how to use them. The structure of the sentence gave it away.

Is there an unconscious working mind within us? A portion of ourselves that also thinks? Is our conscious thinking a minor portion of thought? Is it limited in terms of memory (like a computer’s internal memory)–large enough to hold just so much information at a time? Is its primary job to bring in information through the senses for the unconscious mind to work? Is the struggle our conscious mind sometimes brings to bear, in trying to understand, simply the result of this limitation? Might conscious mind (our desire to go beyond sensation to understanding and control) represent an evolutionary process currently being undergone? The beginning of a separation from instinctual control? Or is consciousness always to be limited?–and must link up with unconsciousness if it is to ever achieve what it seems to want? Are our sensations recorded as they are happening and saved, only to be looked at at some later time by the unconscious? Does the unconscious receive sensations as they occur and act upon them as they occur? Just as we consciously gain information by abstracting and retaining broad-based themes in perceiving or learning (observing an action, reading a book, etc.), does the unconscious mind ignore or accept these assimilations as they were developed in conscious mind? Or might there be two minds, two separate intelligences working, one more limited than the other? If the unconscious mind needs to be present while all this is taking place, perhaps, sorting information as it comes in (formulating, conceptualizing), then when does it have freedom to explore its data banks? During sleep? Is sleep necessary for the unconscious to be free of sensations in order to do its work? Does this also afford the time to share information with the conscious mind? In the same way as we can rethink or reread or re-experience something, does the unconscious need free time to do the same; that is, look up information in memory storage, undergo all of the things that we do on the conscious level–think? Is the unconscious smarter–in a much better position for knowing? It seems likely. Does it share this information with our consciousness willingly or unwillingly through accidental leaks, dreams, insights, etc.? Or does it allow what it wants for some or another purpose belonging to itself alone. In other words, is consciousness a mere “tool” of the unconscious?–its bridge to the outside world? Might we imagine then that unconscious mind was conscious at one time?–that going “under” represents a necessary stage of evolutionary development?

Again, I cannot be mistaken about reading the information in my dream. If the language, style, and assessment was all superior to my own, then where did such knowledge come from? Is it the workings of an unconscious portion of my mind, or the workings of a “collective unconscious” more in the Jungian sense?–a collection of all of my prior ancestral and experiential history?

DREAM

October 2, 1990

Going on a camping trip. Left in car alone, forgot map, forgot Jane, brought no provisions, but considered that I would find my way somehow. Dream evolved… Large open field with others setting up tents and just talking. Jane with me. We were discussing where we would put the tent. We had nothing, however. Would I get a two person tent to meet our immediate needs now or a four person in case Monica and Catherine were to camp with us in the future. Both were appropriate in varying contexts and this perplexed me. I needed plastic to put over ground to keep moisture out even though my wife’s brother-in-law, Joe Schofield, was telling me that it was unnecessary. I knew better.

Left for home to get provisions… found myself scouring around in Mr. Ford’s house (my daughter’s high school choral teacher)… upstairs going through rooms which were old and dusty. Went into little room that extended into the eaves of the house with creaking floor boards that I could see through. Left this room and went downstairs thinking that I couldn’t take any provisions (tent, etc.) from here since he too would be going on this camping trip. Went downstairs and admired the beautiful rooms which were in amazing contrast to the upstairs. Considered that Mr. Ford might be home and think me an intruder. Moseyed around openly in the event that he was watching. Noticed a beverage vendor filling a coke machine across the room and considered that it would be alright for me to be there as well. Noticed fresh breads laying near an open kitchen counter (massive and beautiful was the counter in a horseshoe shape looking more like a restaurant’s). Thought a loaf of bread would be an excellent idea for the camping trip but didn’t want to steal it. Noticed someone at the cash register and considered that it would all work out.

While thinking of the camp, I disliked camping in the open field. I considered it much more appropriate that each of us be in a more wood-like setting where we could distinguish our settings from one another (different elevations, styles of tents, tree and brush surroundings). I considered our tent would be tall and set at the top most portion of the site on the edge. I also considered it dangerous to have the back of the tent exposed to an area which was not part of the camp. A bear could approach from behind. I considered tying ropes between two trees directly behind the tent, or a series of chains which might serve to protect us. I also considered the potential sexual advantages of having members place their tents in this private fashion–allowing discrete opportunities should they avail themselves.

Something moving outside the tent. Shots fired at me. I began shooting from inside the tent in a circular fashion with an automatic shotgun which proved to be effective. I had plenty of shells and could fire so fast that there wasn’t a great deal of fear. I must have got him. Next thing I remember is being chased by a whole tribe of individuals (black primitives dressed in grass skirts, spears, etc.), and my turning and shooting at them as I ran, wishing that they would leave me alone. It occurred to me that if I dropped my heavy gun, I could stop shooting them and simply outrun them. I did.

ANALYSIS

I’m familiar with some of the theme’s running through this dream except for the fact that it was Mr. Ford’s house. Don’t know how he got into this. Going off without sufficient planning, too hasty, making up for shoddiness by back-tracking, making the best of a situation by filling in the missing pieces as I was able, etc. is all commonplace to me and very apparent in my life. The open field represented dull conformity to me–society, perhaps. I remember (in my dream) noticing a little knoll on the ground 50 yards from where I was talking with Joe and considered how pitching our tent on this incline might prove to be an advantage to our sleeping–might serve as a pillow. The wooded setting I envisioned would allow individuality but not without its dangers. Being among and amidst the others would serve as protection. Remaining on the outskirts could be dangerous. But how else could I satisfy my urges without others knowing? [Could my creativity and desire for individuality be simply a means to this end?]

The house might represent my fear of doing without, living shabbily, etc. if I choose to follow my road. I loved the beautiful downstairs but wouldn’t want anyone to think that I want it for free. Guilt from not doing my share in support of our own household, or knowing that I could do much more if I concentrated my efforts here instead of thinking and writing, or concentrating on a business that no one seems to take seriously, including most of my clients! And, I’m growing weary of the more mundane portions of it and from the reluctance of individuals to understand the significance of the assessment portion… as well as my own concern over how little I know of psychology and that I may be opening a “Pandoras box”.

I don’t want family or society to think that I am lazy and taking advantage of my wife. And yet, I can’t help but know that she must suffer the consequences of my efforts or lack of effort in this regard. In my dream, I wanted approval or assurance that it was okay to be in the house–that no impropriety was intended–that I am willing to pay for what I take–that I am not taking advantage of my wife!

NOVEMBER 19, 1990

All knowledge seems to be tied to observation, distinctions, classification and models (or structures) based upon these.

An observation by itself is not a distinction–it is a whole. It comprises distinctions only because we have previously learned such distinctions through our various interactions with the environment. What is it that finally happens to us when we “grasp” the essence of the word “house”, and what that consists of, is not certain. But we do understand when we have it (or have “something”–we could be wrong concerning the appropriate “meaning”), and we can put it to proper use! If its use proves to be improper, we will come to know this through others.

BUT: Did we undergo a process of classification in achieving our understanding? Did this process necessitate that we already understood the notion of a word or sound “standing in for” or “referring” to things? Can our “understanding” be true for ourselves in a subjective sense but wrong or inappropriate if it does not conform to what others mean by the word?

PERSONAL ASSESSMENT THROUGH “TYPING INTERPRETATION”

Typing Interpretation has merit, is possible and can in fact further self-understanding.

Its major pitfall is that assessment instruments by themselves do not warrant credibility; that they in fact work best when a person already has a sound level of self-knowledge; that is, already fits easily within the very conceptual framework employed by the assessment itself. Easily classified persons have easily discernable characteristics.

BUT, the purpose of classification is to either limit or force characteristics into conceptual molds out of need. Eskimos have many words for snow based upon their need for refined distinctions over and above our own.

DIGRESSION

Scientific constructs based upon physical world (e.g. DNA Model or the computer system), might be representative of behavior. Presupposition being that evolution mirrors itself; that the organism tends always to “procreate and express itself” for whatever it is at any given time. That the DNA model is the organism “human” trying to express itself. That is, is a composite effort on the part of all such organisms comprising ourselves which at one time or another had to give up their autonomy for this greater opportunity. Much as “symbiotic” relationships might lead to an eventual incorporation of both organisms into one;–as a society of humans forms may itself undergo, it is possible to imagine that the impetus from “individual” toward “social being” may itself represent a higher construct in the evolution of mankind. That, perhaps, an actual blending of organisms will be achieved in order to create higher orders still (or, ultimately, a “single order”–a veritable God), thus entailing a giving up of “relative” autonomies along the way. It is all a question of mutual attraction, interaction, fusion and relative unites along the way.

BUT, each of these words is a concept in its own right; concepts (or models) which can be applied within new contexts, or to new things, much as tools can be utilized over and over again in differing situations and for various applications. Did having these already allow me to visualize my conception of a self-becoming “expressive urge to merge”?

AND, what of the other side to this conception–a reference to those things which repel one another–the “composition of opposition”, for example? Is a new conception in the process of being borne out of our by now old one together with our understanding of the concept of “opposition”. There may be a multitude of uses for this concept, but its finest one is to draw our attention to the reciprocal of whatever it is we are asserting, positing, etc. We are as much aware of this “creative” usage by now as we are its simple meanings and various uses. But we are also aware that our conception of “opposition” is a monumentally “powerful simplicity” that defies understanding; a bipolar simplicity capable of juxtaposing the entire universe, or all that comprises it, into “simple two’s”. And yet, it is a simplicity too great to conceive. It contradicts us,–beguiles, teases, and haunts us.

But what of its use; that new conception we were in the process of giving birth to? Does the “pro-creative”, “expressive urge to merge” have an opposite tendency? A “nihilistic” tendency to repel or disengage from that which one belongs?–an “expressive urge to disassociate”?–or, perhaps, an “unexpressed” urge to disassociate?

Think about all of the possible conceptual permutations that arise when employing this notion of “opposition”. Think about all of the possible uses which a binary-based system has wrought in our computers. We are heading for a troubling complexity which will probably wind up go everywhere which is, of course, going nowhere.

So let’s set this last digression aside and re-join the idea of a “negative force” which expresses itself as an urge to disassociate. Now this is beginning to sound like some very old and familiar stuff. It gives rise to such positive and negative dichotomies as “Good and Evil” or their personifications as “God and Devil”. Think about the role “opposition” plays in the sciences; in mathematics, biology and throughout all the rest. Opposition underlies so much of our conceptual processes that it is impossible to imagine any form of knowledge without the same. This truth seems so obvious as to almost warrant our ignorance of it.

And yet, “good and evil” are notions which have belonged to very primitive peoples existing a very long time ago. How might their conceptions differed from our own? Have we gotten closer to its simple meaning or further away?–a very biased question inasmuch as it presupposes that meanings go from simple to complex much as we believe things to; that there is (or had to have been at one time) a “simple essence” out of which our most complicated structures have grown; and that we need to first unravel the matter before we can be expected to reveal it.

This idea of a unidirectional process going from simple to complex may stand in the way of new conceptual understandings of our place and purpose in this universe. It may also shed light on the question as to how such a powerful conceptual tool as this (our conception of “opposition”) can, through unraveling, be seen to underlay so many of our structures currently in use (perhaps, all), and still go unnoticed by most–incomprehensible by all!

But what of our idea of two opposing “urges” at work in the universe: the urge to “procreate” (merge, fuse, unify–UNITY) and the urge to “die” (decompose, separate, individuate–DISUNITY?)? Or do both approaches lead to “unity”? Again, are we given a big picture (life as it comes to us) and find it necessary to unravel it in order to know–or do we begin with the simple and build knowledge? Is the “big picture” simple or complex? That all depends upon how many distinctions you can make.

Each of us comes into the world having to face the big picture which is the “simple picture” or nothing more than sensation. Later on, after much distinction noting and learning, we are able to come to consider that everything surrounding us is more “complicated” than what our understanding permits us to know. That there are further perceptions and distinctions (many of which may forever lie outside our physical limitations). We understand that the world surrounding us is “more”–not “less” than what we understand; that we remain less than even the whole composite of knowledge amassed to date. This is a given, it would seem.

BUT, we are in essence speaking of a “complex simple” which is not meant as a play on words. Without known distinctions, it is a “simple”; armed with distinctions, we know it to be complex; armed with our conceptual apparatus, we can project to even greater complexity!

But what is this “complexity”? A complex of distinctions, abstractions, relations, and possibilities emanating from them? When and how do things get simpler? Explanations, for example? When we carefully select from among our many distinctions and provide only these as “simple” explanations of what we know to be highly complicated matters. I suspect that all knowledge of necessity grows more complex as each level, distinction, etc. invariably gives rise to a whole host of ever newer possibilities.

Thus, are we concurrently undergoing the dual process of association and dissociation in order to increase and simplify our knowledge at the same time? Along these lines, there is a tendency to think of our conception of “individual being” as having preceded “social being” inasmuch as the latter seems to be a complex of ideas, trait characteristics and relations comprising the others. But, might not our conception of “individual” also be regarded as a construct derived from the “whole” (that is, from a notion of society to begin with), much the same as those distinguishing elements in a picture or observation? Or are both these conceptions missing the real point at issue? It is not because we fail to see things from an appropriate perspective that leads to “oppositional” confusion–it is because of our compulsion to think in an “either-or” polar directional manner. We must overcome our “conception of opposition” itself!

One approach to this difficulty, which may open the door to greater insight, is to grasp the notion of an “oscillating” process being undergone between two differing perspectives, one after the other, each contributing to the polar direction of the other. We speak of simple sensations after we have abstracted from them elements of other sensations as well as certain characteristics and distinctions made of the object perceived. We subtract from the sensation to get the residue we want. But to perform the abstraction, we first had to note the distinctions. Thus, it becomes possible to view a “simple object” only because we had formed earlier “distinctions” AND we were able to form those earlier distinctions only because we had the means for interacting with a simple environment initially.

Another, more radical option still, would be to attempt to grasp a “commonality” existing between two seeming things or processes which essentially are “one” and the “same” process viewed from two differing perspectives! A single line continuum whose polar ends can be seen to be adjacent one another by bending the line into a circle and joining them. Think about the DNA Helix as an explanatory model.

DECEMBER 10, 1990

I want and need to go into extended seclusion in order to experience and express (through writing) revelations (ideas, insights, pictures, constructions) which come to me or through me by way of intuition, imagination, dreams (day-dreams and night dreams), memories and impressions. I want an extended opportunity to experience and think on such matters without interruption. [Interruption of what?–Freedom from financial worry and distractions]

I feel that answers await me–feel that a realization of completeness, purpose or closure is within reach–if only I can submerge myself and overcome whatever obstacles stand in my way. [What obstacles?–psychological barriers in the way of an appropriate perspective. How will you know when you’ve arrived at one?–when a “sense” of completeness has been gained.]

But, because I must first earn sufficient money to allow this, I need to come to some form of “closure” to begin with! I need somehow to cling to the goal of earning money even if the manner I choose to earn it will not be in keeping with my future goals established in light of a more definite personal understanding. My actions may not be in the best interest of serving my clients in the best way I am capable of. I need encouragement… [I need to act!–thus the need for encouragement to do what I am disinclined to do–to force myself to it!]

I’m looking for encouragement… still looking for encouragement… like the “guess what it is I want” game I would play with my mother. Her only clue would be my moodiness, exhibited sense of self-sacrifice, martyrdom, etc. which she may not have suspected at first, but which I would attempt to get her to realize through my presence. Why couldn’t I simply ask for the money if that’s what I wanted? Why couldn’t I simply reveal what I felt? And when she finally guessed (many hours later) what it was that I wanted, why couldn’t I admit to it?–accept her offer to help? Why did I choose to deny what I wanted? “Now that you know my sorrow, Mama, experience my strength in withstanding it! Praise my martyrdom! Accept my sacrifice!” [Or, I can’t accept your offer, Mama, because it doesn’t satisfy what I want. You see, it was only a ploy to get you to notice me… what is lacking within me…]

I played a similar game with God. I would display my strength–my worthiness–through an act of bravery or faith. I would, for example, re-walk a fearsome path through a dark ball field late at night. “Witness my courage, my faith, Lord! Acknowledge my goodness! Acknowledge me!”

The game extended all through school. “Guess why I’m not going to do my homework teacher? Guess why I’m failing and don’t care!” Someone guess… please! No matter, the contrast between what you see and what I will become will be so great as to force you to acknowledge me. I’ll have my day.

“Guess why I don’t care about what grades I get Professors X, Y & Z? Guess why I’m not going to complete my requirements for an MA degree with only the thesis left?” Well, I can’t bear for you to think that I could only be concerned about grades. I’m in this for something much more important, much more worthy than this! But, then, how do I reveal this to you? How can you expect me to write a thesis based upon an insignificant part of an incomprehensible whole–when all I seek is unity! How can you expect me to do something so insignificant, so unworthy of praise or esteem. Don’t you see that I’m a “part” in search of a “whole”. No, I’ll hold out for the big prize. Besides, I can’t bear to reveal to you how little I’ve understood from my studies… and to what extent it all revolved around my personal need. So what is left worthy of attention and yet clever enough to disguise the fact of my limited, self-centered knowledge? I’ll simply turn my back on my thesis, burn another bridge, and move on to some new hoped for beginning.

And if someone does show signs of concern–of caring–and inquires as to what might be troubling me, why do I use the opportunity to build yet another monument to “strength” or “self-esteem” rather than receive what is there–what I want? Or is this a reluctance to display a weakness by disguising it as a strength? Why can’t I acknowledge this to myself? What shame could there be in wanting love?

My younger sister Carmen knew what I was feeling. Our minds were joined on this account. As young children, we felt the same; she acknowledging my pain in the only way she knew how. Perhaps it was as simple as this: If neither of us was getting love and personal attention–acknowledging us–then perhaps we came to conclude that neither of us was worth it! We had to rest content with a negative form of attention which we could acknowledge as love. We did this through a form of “transfer”. We always tried to get the other in trouble so that when punishment was forthcoming for the one, the other could acknowledge both the pain and the need for it, thus, sharing in an act of love! My sister and I learned how to create loving feelingswhen none were forthcoming.

I will never forgive you Papa for not taking us both to the opera. I will never forgive you for failing to buy me that new sled I worshipped each and every Christmas for far too many years. I will never forgive you for not caring! Even if you couldn’t feel, your actions might have made a difference. That one time you singled me out, I don’t know whether by accident or not, but that “cowboy gun” you brought home for me has been cherished and adored in memory ever since. It doesn’t matter that you didn’t mean it in this way–it’s how I wanted to receive it! But one time is not enough for a lifetime. I needed more.

But why, when opportunities avail themselves, do I not take them? Why do I still seek opportunities for love only to deny them when they are near? Does my fear of rejection keep me from taking the necessary steps and risks?–the final steps? Am I ever really near enough? Or do I stop short because I cannot risk being wrong, making a fool of myself, risking “single-sided” exposure?

Must one be loved before one can love (beyond the act of sex)? Is this what nurture is all about? To give each of us a solid start in life! And if none was forthcoming, does this mean that one will forever be incapable of true love? Is it ever too late? What stands in the way of success?

I am numb from confusion.

UNPUBLISHED THOUGHTS
1991

MARCH 10, 1991

I am so tired of hearing nonsense; puffed-up assertions and notions of every kind, claiming truths that rest more upon confusion than fact. Fact! What a laugh! Never have I had to read so much to learn so little. Authors who think aloud as they write, making declarations as they go, as though they knew what they were talking about. “Fess up” by God! and admit the real truth–you haven’t the slightest idea of what you’re talking about. Your riding the crest of a wave not of your making; hiding or maneuvering within system and logic; and oh, what safe havens they present. You can go on forever with your shallow spin-offs. But you are no more than the faintest of ripples from the big splashes that really counted.

[An emotional outburst which gave rise to the following thoughts]

Come with me on an excursion with no place and everywhere to go. I want you to see my world and then tell me what you think. I want you to observe what I am experiencing while I am experiencing it. Perhaps you will identify with much of it, recognizing similar experiences of your own. But my hope is that you will be able to provide me with an “objective” outsiders view. This is all I ask.

We could say that my world begins at the margins of knowledge and certainty; that is, at the point where we distinguish between what we know and what we suspect, accept, or theorize to be the case. This latter side is the world of concepts and theoretical constructs out of which “knowledge” supposedly grows. It is the world of definition, classification and structures of every kind; the tools by which we seek to explain the world and ourselves within it. But this “gift” of structure comes at a terrible price. By definition, it is a “selective” process entailing that we turn a blind eye toward everything we wish to disregard. Definition is made possible through exclusion. It is like my pointing to an object in order to get you to focus your attention upon it. I must shut out the rest of the world in order for this to work. Focusing has this characteristic about it, whether we are talking about language or perception. Strange as it may seem to say it: Without limitations, we would not be able to extend ourselves in any way. It is only through limitation that progression is possible! You’ll get the gist of this if you consider what would happen to normal vision if it were unlimited, or if we were without perspective. Theoretically, we should be able to see everything no matter what the distance. But in actuality, our vision would be blocked. Seeing everything is to see nothing. Now if you put this “concept” in opposition to a host of others, including such notions as `infinity’, `omniscience’, `omnipotence’, etc., these latter ones begin to take on a different hue. They may seem to diminish in importance and, indeed, in this new light, some might conclude that they are unintelligible constructs totally without meaning. But is this “conceptual light” a progressive light? Does it lead us further along the road to understanding? Or is it just another example of an intellectual process which we suspect is sweeping us into ever deeper confusion? How will we know?

Classification entails noting what things share in common and ignoring what they do not. Out of activities of this kind come our general notions, ideas and conceptions–or so we like to think. But, what if these notions sometimes conflict with one another as they did above? And what if there appears to be an almost endless array of oppositional viewpoints or perspectives emanating from “knowledge” of this kind, providing the basis for what seems to be an eternal `splitting of ideas’ toward indefinite ends? What if the resulting confusion gets so bad that one begins to have grave doubts about our ability to control the process? “Control”? Now here is a key concept that gets to the heart of the matter. For no matter how we view ourselves in relation to the world, our extreme egotism notwithstanding, it is all world first and foremost, and no amount of stammering is going to change this. We do not yet dare to take credit for it, although we’ll continue to try. Very few of us would care to admit this, but I feel that we move towards God to be God–an historical progression taking us through the stages of placation, emulation, and finally usurpation! Please don’t be shocked. I am not blaspheming God, or degrading our concept of God; nor do I wish to degrade humanity. I simply want to bring out some of the consequences of our models of thought. I don’t want to lose you at this point, but I’m afraid that I probably have. If you are confused by what I’m saying, it really doesn’t matter. Believe me, there will be many other points that you will be able to follow. The problem is simply that all knowledge is connected, has roots, and that thinking takes place by making use of general terms–or “conceptual wholes.” If I leave out intermediary conceptions (which include applications) necessary to understanding the present context, then you are bound to have difficulty. But, again, embroiling you in confusion is not my purpose. I simply want you to get the “gist” of the matter… get you to see how muddy the water can be without having to swim in it.

But let me present you with a personal problem which might shed further light on the subject. Since I find myself in this “marginal” world of trying to get in-between and outside of concepts and structures (which I fully realize are an integral part of me), how am I to continue this quest? Worse, since most of us are content with remaining inside our structures; that is, within the parameters of language, knowledge and thought in the way it is “given” us, without question, then who is left to sympathize with my plight? It won’t be academicians since they have a vested interest in remaining well within the structures or parameters of their respective disciplines. They are “products” of the same. Will they be sympathetic to someone who wants to examine the process and also the consequences of their having been structured in the first place? In whose structure will I be allowed to operate? In whose structure will I be allowed to gain credentials appropriate to my quest? And if my thinking already precludes what I need to study in order to be “credentialed”, how will I bear the burden of having to ride in this boat when it is the boat itself and the current propelling it that I wish to study. This problem has perplexed me for all of my life–from grade school through high school and college to the present. From this perspective–my perspective–everything appears superficial if it does not “connect up” with me. I consider it dishonest and futile to ignore these consequences. You might imagine what my feelings are regarding the education process. Don’t ask!

If I’m beginning to sound like a person in the grip of a “power complex”, I’m not. Nor do I consider myself more than of average intelligence. The simple truth is that I’m `foundation-directed’, suggesting, perhaps, that I am “introverted”. I’m certain that the world is filled with like-minded people with like-minded perspectives in varying degrees. While you might expect “extraverted” types to search outward and upwards, always towards the ends of knowledge,–seeking “spires” and peaks to further their visions and future possibilities emanating from them,–I instead look inward and downwards, taking things apart in search of origins. My quest is not to understand and appreciate what is wrought by those structures already in place (for I do appreciate them), but to diminish their importance whenever I note inherent conflicts, delusions, and gross inflation resulting from them. In such cases, I try to seek out a deeper, more comprehensive understanding which may shed light on their workings, directions, and inherent pitfalls. This “subjective” side of the equation of life is just as important as the all too acceptable “objective” side, as the psychologist Jung has reminded us. And yet, we tend to want to diminish it. While theorizing about the world is considered a worthy enterprise in the case of the physicist and astronomer, theorizing about “theorizing” (or about the elements comprising it) is a perspective which most of us prefer to ignore. It is the “ethereal” world of poets and philosophers or of the subjectively theoretical types–the Plato’s, James’ (William), Blake’s, Emerson’s, Kant’s, Schopenhauer’s, Nietzsche’s, Wittgenstein’s and Jung’s of the world. Indeed, read what Jung had to say about subjectivity and objectivity:

We must not forget–although the extrovert is prone to do so– that perception and cognition are not purely objective, but are also subjectively conditioned. The world exists not merely in itself, but also as it appears to me… By overvaluing our capacity for objective cognition we repress the importance of the subjective factor, which simply means a denial of the subject. But what is the subject? The subject is man himself–we are the subject. Only a sick mind could forget that cognition must have a subject, and that there is no knowledge whatever and therefore no world at all unless `I know’ has been said, though with this statement one has already expressed the subjective limitation of all knowledge.

So while subjectivity, like objectivity, also has its limits (precisely because it is dependent upon ourselves), to ignore either in favor of the other is to invite trouble. And trouble is just what we have. We can hardly get a sentence out of our mouths these days without inviting a countermand to it. We can’t even express our own feelings without imbuing these with all sorts of “objective” qualifications and apologies serving to push even the simplest of issues into deeper confusion. While these characteristics have been with us for a long time to be sure, the proliferation of knowledge has caused the soup to thicken almost to a point of stagnation. To ignore the “subjective” element any longer, is to invite certain disaster. It is to ignore at least half of understanding which might just be enough to do us in.

How can we notice so much “splitting” taking place in the world without also noting the prevalence of `opposition’, `duality’, `synthesis’ and similar characteristics. Hasn’t it occurred to anyone that we ourselves comprise bipolar or “dualistic characteristics”–bodies and brains. Hasn’t it occurred to anyone that whatever the relationship existing between “self” and “world”, it must be construed as a dual relationship; that all life forms (to my knowledge) begin with a single cell division and then multiples of two from then on. Isn’t it strange that the computer is based upon a simple binary system. If you consider the computer as a crude form of our own brains (as I am inclined to do); simply another extension of ourselves “on our way up to God”, no, it is not so strange. If you consider the evidence of oppositional theories in virtually all fields of knowledge, and consider the manner in which they oppose one another, synthesize, expand and extend themselves into newer forms, it is not so very confusing. What is confusing–is that we continue to ignore such events. Are you still with me? Are you getting the gist of what I am saying? Do you see my problem clearer? It is not simply a question of dealing with the world: it is a question of relating to it from “within”!

Why do I search so ardently? What exactly compels me? Have I observed the oftentimes flimsy foundations of knowledge and belief and simply want to shout this out to the world–to reveal the deception? And why would I want to do this? To set the record straight? To better refine or provide a more suitable foundation for knowledge? To bring attention to myself as someone worthy of attention? To find the means for better integrating myself with the world? “Yes” to all of these. But rather than closing gaps, I find that my personal journey has only widened them. The deeper my search, the further removed I become from everyone else.

So what is the answer? To find companions who wish to journey with me? Join with others who are interested in “enlightening” the world? Talk about a “power complex”! In any regard, it seems that the more I read in search of knowledge which applies to myself, the more I am told that it already resides in me; I suppose in the form of “external” and “internal” compulsions. They only need to be noticed and tended to. As to the rest of what goes by the name of knowledge, it may only represent irrelevant excursions into confusion or contexts of meaning which, so long as they rest outside my own sphere of comprehension, will never be of significance. It may very well be that one needs to exhaust one’s own mind first before one can appreciate the significance of another’s–or that one should allow oneself to be led to what is appropriate from “within”.

So you see, my plight may not be very different from your own. Whether we are extroverted or introverted, theoretical or practical, traditional or challenging, thinking or feeling, perceiving or judging types, dependent upon others or dependent upon ourselves, all of us are in need of relevant information concerning ourselves, others, and the world surrounding us.

Life imposes many demands upon us which must be met on a continuing basis. Personal success must be viewed in terms of having the ability to adapt to, oppose, or hold in balance, the everyday challenges of a highly complex society. To accomplish this, suitable information, knowledge and skills is required. Our individual experiences and “collective” knowledge of ourselves, society and the world at large, provides us with the means for compiling, disseminating or fostering the same while enabling us to evaluate and judge the degree to which we are meeting with success.

If we are successful, then we most probably are feeling good about ourselves and the world at large. If not, then we are most likely anxiety-ridden to a greater or lesser extent. If this failure to meet life’s demands goes on for too long a period of time, then we risk suffering the exaggerated effects of various “neuroses” which, today, are becoming more the “norm” than the exception. Again, what has gone wrong? The “objective” answer would be to point to the ever “accelerating world” we live in; a world moving so fast that it well may be outside our control at present. The multiplicity and changing quality of events outdistance our means for comprehending them. Unharnessed, they run rampant alongside the proliferation of knowledge and technology, creating an endless array of new possibilities and directions. “Which to choose?” has become our “cry in the wilderness” and we seem ill-equipped for the task at hand. Why?

Again, on the surface, the answer seems obvious. Life is leaving us behind. Try as we may, we cannot keep pace with “accelerated” change unless we are able to accelerate at the same rate! What is overlooked is just this possibility and also two other significant alternative. Keeping up with change is a way of maintaining the “status-quo”, so long as we have the means to do so. For example, keeping up to the need for making increasingly complicated calculations can be accomplished by means of a computer. In fact, the computer may even surpass the need! Years ago, you may have walked to work and in so doing had a familiarity with many things along the way. Today, you drive your automobile and you do not see Mrs. Smith’s dog or notice the huge knot on her large oak tree due to the speed at which you are traveling. What you gain as a consequence of lessening your travel time, is offset by your inability to focus upon all of the particulars you were previously accustomed to. This is an example of some of the “side effects” suffered from keeping pace. On the other hand, you may be taken aback by changing values, traditions and practices which our society is currently undergoing and will either choose to ignore them or attempt to understand them, perhaps, with a willingness to change too should they appear to be reasonable and advantageous to your own welfare. As instances of such changes unfold, you will be able to catch glimpses of them, noting broad outlines or forms taking shape. If you tried, instead, to concentrate on all of the many details emanating from them, you would be on an endless chase going nowhere. In other words, whether we choose to focus upon fast moving particulars, or upon stationary things while we ourselves are fast moving, is very much the same thing. Either attempt invites physical and psychological dizziness. If we insist on having it both ways; that is, holding on to change while refusing to let go of those things we are accustomed to, we can expect that we will have an accident–if not today–then tomorrow!

It is all a matter of correctly “anchoring our own perspectives”. Looking through the front windshield of a fast moving vehicle in order to find a lost object alongside the road is a correct anchoring. Looking through the side window would not be, even though, from another perspective (another context which we might have envisioned), it might appear to be a more “focused” approach. To ignore the fact and effects of being in a fast moving vehicle is to beg trouble, just as it would be to ignore the fact and effects of our living in an accelerating world. But this does not mean that we are going to crash into the future; that change will inevitably out pace our ability to keep up with it and will leave us all helplessly reeling. Whose events are these anyway? Nature’s? Well, in a manner of speaking, I suppose. But this “change” is our change; the direct result of our own conceptions and accompanying perspectives. As such, it must wait for us or cease to exist.

The mere fact that I am thinking and writing as I am may just be nature’s way of balancing the ticket. It has been said that Western society has been on a highly extroverted, outward-looking, so-called “objective” path for far too long, perhaps; a path which, as we already indicated, has all but ignored our “subjective selves”. How does it all work? Again, Jung offers us a picture of nature working through us in two opposing directions which he ties to the two fundamentally different modes of biological adaptation:

“The one consists of a high rate of fertility, with low powers of defence and short duration of life for the single individual; the other consists in equipping the individual with numerous means of self-preservation plus a low fertility rate. This biological difference, it seems to me, is not merely analogous to, but the actual foundation of, our two psychological modes of adaptation… It is sufficient to note that the peculiar nature of the extravert constantly urges him to expend and propagate himself in every way, while the tendency of the introvert is to defend himself against all demands from outside, to conserve his energy by withdrawing it from objects, thereby consolidating his own position.

I believe that Jung’s work is extremely important in terms of putting flesh on old notions and ideas that have been around for a long time. His conceptual insights were born out of extensive investigations made throughout his life. In addition, he had the courage to travel his own road and this road knew no academic boundaries. He followed his thoughts and inclinations into medicine and psychology, and into anthropology, mythology and the occult as well. But he went as an investigator and scientist and his work has all the markings of the same. Like his counterparts, he too thought out loud and it tooktwenty or more volumes of writing backed by a lifetime of investigation and experience to present a relatively few, though powerful, ideas. It is characteristic of thought and thinkers that even though the former is free (coming to us as a “gift” replete with application), rarely do we acknowledge the fact that we did not create the thought but feel that, since itwas created within us or through us, it is ours. We become enthralled with the thought and its application, and simply can’t wait to explain what we have experienced, and to apply it wherever it seems to fit. We jump from concept to application to explanation like children jumping from stone to stone. We are in the grip of a conceptual generating system which propels us until we are exhausted. Freud wrote thousands of pages in trying to develop his theories. At the end of his life, he summed it all up in his “Outline of Psychoanalysis” which took all of 124 pages.

So what are we to make of this? Obviously, the great books are not definitive explanations of anything whatever; not even of their author’s own thoughts. So should we read their works in order to join them in the problem of explaining and elaborating their findings? Maybe yes, maybe no. It all depends upon where we are and what we are looking for. I like ideas, the frosting on the cake. But I can’t stand forcing myself to read something which I feel is resting upon shaky premises or is not really at a level I am interested in. Even though Jung was guilty of making “conceptual leaps” like any other thinker, positing ever new notions to fill in the gaps as his thinking led him on and on, they were not leaps to himself, so long as he could not envision another alternative. But what of someone who could envision alternate perspectives? To such a person, many of his conclusions needn’t follow.

Perhaps, then, one would be better looking to the best of the “secondary sources”. These are the men and women who devote their lives to making sense of the “great ones”. In trying to understand them, such authors very often go beyond them in order to offer a complete and “rational” summary of what they had to say. Secondary thinking around a finite source tends to force closure, thus ossifying the original thinker. But no matter, the ripples extend through others until the ideas themselves are finally exhausted or else are usurped by another system. But enough of this digression. If biological adaptation is what we are all about; and introversion and extroversion representative examples of the same; and if a major source of our problems are due to too great an emphasis upon the extroverted and the objective, and too little upon the introverted and subjective; and that because of this, internal and external confusion is running rampant throughout the world,–then our knowledge is not nearly so “substantial” as we have been led to believe. What can be done about this? What do you and I have to offer in this regard? How can the obstacles in the way of our progress be removed? How can we properly identify, address and resolve these ultimate “personal issues”?

If someone is hungry, show her or him how to obtain food. If someone is without a job, show her how to obtain a job. But what if its more than mere hunger or a mere job that a person desires; do we have to see to this as well? Further adaptations to further refinements? Are needs, cravings and desires, only to be satisfied by degree? Needless to say, some will. But there are many others that will be ongoing, on and off again, minor and major. Some of these will do us harm if we are deprived for too long a time while deprivation of others will make little difference. So should we address those that are strongest? Should we, perhaps, prioritize them? This seems like a logical beginning. But which are most appropriate? I ask this knowing full well that some of the things which I desire, or feel a need for, may be totally inappropriate for myself or others; things which might be regarded as despicable, out of reach, or simply wrong. We began with biological adaptation, went on to personal extension of needs and desires, and wound up by considering their appropriateness either to ourselves or to others. Along with our refinements, physical, personal and moral issues arose which, far from clearing up the problem, have only led us into deeper confusion. The world comes at us and through us in a variety of ways. Life grows more complex as our knowledge and actions grow more refined.

Now consider what happens when we begin with general terms rather than specific ones in answering our need for identifying, addressing and resolving personal problems and issues. We might begin by asking: “What is it that troubles us most?”, and respond with: “Survival!” or “Meeting the demands of life!” or “Seeing to our physical and emotional well-being!” We understand already how confusion and conflict arises when we act upon or react to people and things in the world (including our own emotions, feelings and thoughts). When we are successful in satisfying these so-called “internal” and “external” demands of life, we lessen the conflict. When we are unsuccessful, conflict increases. If we continue to fail to adapt, we may eventually be consumed by the conflict or deprivation, perhaps resulting in various forms of neuroses, as was said earlier. Why is it that when we speak in general terms, all of this seems understandable and even obvious? Is this the power behind concepts? That they derive their strength and breadth of application, because of this quality? If we were now to further “refine” what we have just talked of, we would indeed once more enter the world of confusion. For what do we mean by “life”, “survival”, “physical”, “emotional”, “internal”, “external”, “deprivation” and “conflict”?

Indeed, we might even ask what it is about our conception of “nature” that allows us to speak of being “within” or “without”? Nature hits us from the outside and pulls us from within. We are a part of her at the same time as we are her. What is it that allows us to distinguish and thereby separate ourselves even while we remain a “part”? This is an important consideration because it leads us to having to deal with other “problem concepts” involving personal identity, free will, the possibilities of knowledge and moral responsibility, etc. For how did we come by our notions or conceptions of an “external” or “internal” world, a “personal identity” or “individual perspective”? What do such expressions as “Man is the measure of all things” or “Everything is relative to our own perspective” mean? Concepts appear to be everywhere at once; both a source of understanding and misunderstanding! And, yet, concepts not only underlay much of what we call knowledge and thought, they appear to be our “tools” for extending the same in spite of our obvious limitations.–a way out amidst, or despite the surrounding confusion. At the risk of taking you into this “abyss”, it almost makes sense to say that knowledge and confusion come together; that without our relationship to the world, it is all confusion or it is nothing at all; and that with relationship comes limitation, our only true source of knowledge. Without our particular makeup’s, the world could not come to us–could not take any form whatever. It is our makeup’s that force structure out of chaos through restriction. Now do we want to take credit for our own creation simply on the basis of our being? I know we would like to, and believing in an impersonal universe might just provide the means! Or do we still wish to regard ourselves as children of the universe, no matter how we envision it to be? Consider this:

If we are a part of a world which we do not suppose we created, then aren’t we obligated to suppose, out of ignorance if not humility, that it just may be “working”, “evolving”, “transforming” (or any other term you think appropriate) in the way that it must? Even a godless, accidental universe must be considered appropriate in or of itself. If it was accidental and non-personal (no creator), then surely nothing can be said to be wrong with it. But does this mean that concepts such as “good and evil”, “up and down”, “introverted and extroverted”, etc. are merely “relative” to ourselves or to our own “perspectives”–or that they are not relative? We seem to want it both ways: taking the credit for our individual perspectives while denying nature the same. We want to admit that “meaning” is relative to ourselves but still is not “contained” in nature. We want to believe that “meaning” is a special product of our relationship to an impersonal world which is inferior to ourselves.” The epitome of arrogance! Such thinking leads us deeper into our own confusion. We set logic aside and forcibly see what we want to see. So when I am digging a hole in order to plant a tree, I feel as though I am in control; that I am forcing nature into compliance with my need or goal. But to think this way is to ignore the other side of the equation; that, in order to remain consistent with our reasoning, we must regard our “needs” as conforming to nature–two conceptions or perspectives of a single event!

Which brings us to the essential point of all this. Concepts are as much a part of the world as they are a part of us. They arise out of our relationships within the world and maintain their “dual nature” throughout. This dualism opposes us to the world and therefore to ourselves. Thinking is a conceptual activity. We regard it as being conceptual because we perceive it to be and also because we have defined it as such. And we describe it as such because it is conceptual! While we can physically express the way in which the world impinges itself upon us through our actions and emotions, we can’t “mean” anything by this unless we have a conception of “meaning”.

It seems as though great ideas or “conceptions” simply happen at an appropriate time. They seem to build from the past, synthesize in single individuals, and then spurt forth as an almost “miraculous” thing. In this moment, and only in this moment is it in its purest form. Following this, it begins a long slow process of dissipation and finally death. Great ideas never get greater. They may lead us down different paths which ultimately may serve as the foundation material for new conceptions to come. But insofar as their “splash” is concerned, the ripples emanating from them invariably get smaller and smaller.

Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Jesus, Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Freud, Einstein, etc. were all “big splashes” as were so many others besides. But all of them played a major part in the demise of their own conceptions. They could not wait to apply their discoveries to the world. With great enthusiasm, each proceeded to explain their conceptions to others; trying to demonstrate their many implications for our knowledge and lives. Unfortunately descriptions of conceptions are never as strong as the conceptions themselves. (Think of the act of explaining the meaning of a word to someone). As a result of this, our explanations are tantamount to thinking aloud. Most great ones went on to writing volume after volume seeking to explain what began as a very simple idea. Why?

Great ideas have seemingly endless applications and it is these that we struggle with when trying to explain them. Great ideas come to us with an impetus to act. Or more accurately, come to us already applied, as though the conception were the application. Any application entails a relationship, while a relationship provides us with the ground for abstracting from it.

MARCH 14, 1991

Intuitions come into consciousness already equipped with its sense or application.

I may simply enjoy the revelation and then go about my business

I may keep my consciousness free of other thoughts to allow further intuitions to come into mind which may or may not be associated with the first. This episode may involve intermittent daydreams that begin with imaging or sub-vocal talking and then cross a threshold where consciousness seems to shut off entirely

With application comes thought which is either directed toward the usage of the intuition to external things or else

[consider this futile… perhaps should just let myself go rather than to describe my processes]

Life is so complicated. Too much to hold on to, to know. Too thick and death comes to soon. For what? What compels me to having to sort through this confusion? Got to call about my income tax, do Monica’s letters. Afternoon appointment today (God, I have to get some resumes typed before it all builds up on me). Frank and this new guy with the single page. Monica’s opera this Saturday and brother Guy’s birthday on Sunday. Dread this. Facing family. Embarrassing. How can I tell them what my problem is. It’s no excuse. I’m selfish, pathetic, and taking advantage of Jane and kids. No future, no money, no retirement. Only struggle so far with nothing but struggle in the future. Don’t visualize success. Don’t believe it because my struggle is internal and unrelated to outside even if this gave rise to it. Want to apply it, but application is difficult, especially when (image of Pa)… loss of thought.

[Noted check in front of me] Got to put money in the bank. Jane needs money to pay bills. I can give her $200 but she doesn’t know about my borrowing $800 to get through. She thinks we’re making it. I feel compelled to deceive her rather than hurt her and myself. Seminar. If only I could go ahead. But can I? What to offer? Am I going where I don’t belong? Haven’t resolved psychological issues myself. Not convinced of theories or value as yet. Too many questions, offshoots, etc. to assert some benefit to others. If only I can get to the bottom and then work up something on the surface to begin with. Can’t take people out on a boat when I don’t know how long it will stay afloat or whether we will be running into reefs along the way.

[Insight] Tell people the truth. It’s a boat that may have leaks. It’s a personal journey of my own which may confuse rather than help them. No guarantees. No certain foundation. Workings of my mind may be very different from theirs and my explanations and understanding may not be strong enough for the task.

But something has to be done. Much too much confusion in our lives and world. Can’t we begin to sort it? Some due to stressful circumstances which entangle and engulf us. These cause psychic disturbances–normal everyday entanglements. Stress, anxiety, etc. caused by accidental circumstances, inability to adapt to new situations. Knowledge and skills play a large part in equipping us for life. Education is important.

But the ways in which we relate to the world [intuition] are varied and oftentimes come into conflict with our social consensus from which we derive our oughts and ought not’s, methods and applications, opportunities, etc. [blank] [intuitive recognition of this going no where, futile]
[2 minutes–intuition…ought to apply thinking to what I’ve just said… get it in some order for use]

[Reread this to begin process but at end thought of need to hone in on my strongest preferences–Introverted Intuition]

How can I make use of my introverted intuition and pull myself out of the entanglement of doing things I don’t wish to do? [intuition]. Structure and credentials the problem. Lack of skills in a particular direction. Lack of knowledge in a particular area. Paid too dear a price and cannot fit anywhere. Kidding myself? Cowardice or fear of failure steer me or real interest or compulsion stemming from what I am? Embarrassing if the former.

But, even if born out of personal need, disequilibrium, suffering, etc. is this still not me [intuit. Write something like Descartes]? Doesn’t this merit something? Poet, writer, philosopher. But each of these entails knowledge which I lack. How can I get a job? How can I gain the luxury of exploring myself without interference?

No one gets paid for introspection unless one produces something of value to others. Writers and artists create out of knowledge, technique, and talent. I haven’t the knowledge of subject matter, language, artistic talent, etc. to apply myself in this way. My knowledge remains close to its starting point because I am interested in sources and foundations and refuse to be swept into territory which I find is irrelevant to me. I may be enthralled by ideas as ideas and potential applications, but when they are extended by those holding them, I find such extensions and directions much too arbitrary and questionable. They lead me astray into territory which is not justified by my own thinking. [I could be an excellent critic but this seems so wasteful. I would rather be a creator]

I have never seen a job advertisement calling for “creators” or “introspectors”. In what direction does my introspection take me? To the foundations of knowledge and belief, emotions and problem-solving in life. Do I envision a literary usage [what if I am inflating my potential way out of proportion to what they are?–how embarrassing!–But if I could just recognize an avenue, I would be willing to risk knowing]

I am preoccupied with myself and world by not knowing myself and world
I am reluctant to join or fit into life on its terms
I tend to cling to my individuality or self-centeredness at any cost to myself and others
I refuse to give the world its due and the world punishes me for this stance
My own body punishes me for this stance
I cannot come to terms; establish an equilibrium; a truce based upon give and take
I am compelled to know and search–not to enjoy and receive
Knowing entails searching and is never-ending. I receive endless intuitions which give rise to thoughts about applications for the world.
But I am not happy.

Life has overwhelmed me. I keep accruing more and more and seem unable to shed anything. I keep thinking that the answer to dealing with the outside world must be found within. That here is where my foundation rests. Surely this is right if I am introverted. But can I rely upon intuitions and those things supposedly coming through the door of the unconscious? Is this as significant as the external world. How should this be viewed? From the historical Jungian model of my whole history working through me? Difficult to envision this model. Several different ways of approaching it. Is the “collective unconscious” finite or still growing by receiving additional material? Does it live by passing on from generation to generation? Must it remain hidden for the most part? Does it control consciousness through its subjective coloration of everything perceived? Why does it hide from consciousness? Is the introverted perspective really an objective looking in or simply a case of the unconscious being in the drivers seat? Then is the `world outside of perception’ in the drivers seat for the extrovert? Is it the world which colors the extroverts perceptions or the unconscious, no differently than the introvert? Then why would the unconscious direct the extrovert outward while directing the introvert inward? In other words, the world does not pull the extrovert outside himself but rather the unconscious pushes him outside! Jung speaks of the unconscious being oriented in either direction to explain the difference but this makes the world seem altogether too passive.

There is no inside or outside–it is all world. The unconscious is as much a part of the world as those things we regard as being external to ourselves. It is more accurate to speak of the “external” as being “everything that is not me”, only this seems inconceivable because we can’t help but feel that we are a part of everything. There is nothing beside me, but I am within everything. I am the center in every respect. Relative concepts won’t clear things up. Would be better to ask how it is that we are able to ask such questions and why, since the conceptions inherent in them invariably break down.

Illusory knowledge, then, is in my way. It is the enemy that stands between me and the world I wish to integrate with. For myself, it represents a deviation from my truth. It may be someone else’s anchor, but it is not mine. And if someone directs me towards it rather than where I need to go, he commits a sin against me and humanity. Our collective knowledge tends to solidify at a particular level, quality or perspective. It groups together what is considered “acceptable” and understood by most and ignores, for the most part, what it cannot understand. It is mostly an “external” or “objective” orientation which restricts inclusion of internal abstractions and visions. At most, these are considered novelties originating in the minds of bizarre eccentrics or the insane. But, so long as one is outside this structure, then one is by definition in the realm of the senseless or the insane.

Oftentimes it is we who are “incapacitated” while trying to understand the visions of a Blake or Dali. We can’t be sure what they themselves have grasped, nor readily understand whatever significance it may have for the rest of us. More often than not, we leave such matters to the “artists” themselves who seem more able to identify and appreciate whatever their meanings. And, of course, this varies from person to person within the small minority.

APRIL 2, 1991

USURPATION

“Application” is the gift of “Intuition”
A “power” belonging to revelation
A “form” for replication
A “credit” for ones “Self”!

Am I artist or thinker? or in Jungian terms, Thinker or Feeler? All of my thinking, imaginings, intuiting and sensing seem to revolve around my own person in relation to the world. I am never without a sense of wanting or incompleteness which fluctuates between hope and hopelessness in a seemingly unending, unyielding stretch of time; a time which I know must come to an end. Coming to this end is embittering as there is a sense of loss through sacrifice which I see as conforming to life’s purpose. Had I known that this would be to no avail, I would have fought this tendency with all my might. Only faith propels me on; a faith which seems grounded in duty or in the hope of reward. But duty to whom? And reward in what sense?

I am not looking for an afterlife. I am looking for the meaning of life. Life does not seem to be sufficient as it is. It does not seem to be sufficiently satisfactory. In fact, it doesn’t seem ever to be satisfactory and this leads me to believe that there is an imbalance in myself. Have I substituted opportunities for relative satisfaction by holding out for those which are outside of life; not there to be had? I feel petty and foolish, even embarrassed by talking this way. What kind of ego inflation is at work here? Who do I think I am? If relative or sporadic happiness and contentment is achievable by others, why do I not participate in it? Why is my course different? It seems such a waste.

What is nature doing through me to warrant my discontent? Or is this something I want to believe in order to justify my attitude and direction? Either way, would nature be playing tricks on herself? The problem, as always, boils down to our having to envision nature in “contradiction” or ourselves as pitifully inadequate to judge; that is, that because it comes down to contradiction–we must be wrong! And, furthermore, that our sense of whatever it is we envision, conceive, or think must be “right” or “appropriate” since it exists in nature! But, this would entail that our best reasoning is no higher or lower than our greatest confusions, or that knowledge can never be other than arbitrary, subjective, or forever relative to what we make of it. If we are at the mercy of nature (fate), we are at the same time compelled to oppose this very notion. Our concept of “freedom” appears to derive from what is in fact a case of judging from one perspective, and wrongly derived from an “illusion” of the case, by another. This illusion, of course, derives from opposing concepts of “determinism” or “fate” and seem to be rationally on par with the former.

So now we have two opposing, though equally “rational” concepts which proponents of each would not deny, although they would charge that the other is “illusory” or, at most, “rational within a mistaken context”. The words “mistaken context” are attempts to return a sense of disequilibrium to the problem. It is only during such times that we can “feel” a sense of being right. Of course, this is because it is all a matter of perspective, and disequilibrium allows us to ignore one in favor of the other. It is almost a law of nature that a given concept have an equal though opposing counterpart if it is to exist at all. In philosophy, it is called the “law of intelligible opposites” and claims that without such opposition, concepts could have no meaning whatever–could not have been formulated. How could we have a notion of good without bad, God without devil, up without down, etc. And yet we must ask: How exactly does a formulation of a single concept occur in this “dualistic” sense? What is it about nature, or ourselves in relation to nature, that makes this appear to be necessary? What “purpose” might it serve?

Although it seems unlikely that we will ever be able to escape our notion of a “purposeful” universe, or of God in essence, we do have the means for deluding ourselves into believing otherwise. In terms of religious notions and precepts, it is easy to disregard these on the basis of their own internal inconsistencies and misapplied logic. But in terms of trying to separate notions such as cause and effect, creation or purpose from our concepts of self and existence, it is only possible by a brutal disregard of sense. It is not enough to assert that there is a sense to saying “that there can be a cause without an effect or an effect without a cause”, simply because we can assert it! It is not conceivable in the same sense that a finite or infinite universe is not conceivable. We can disallow rationality in order to allow a nonsensical notion, but we can’t then call it a sensible construct in some new sense of the term.

APRIL 5, 1991

BONDAGE

I’ve got to escape you but there is no place to escape to. You’ve held me hostage from within, for fifty years, while society pummeled me from without. Your intuitions have always been quick to uproot my thinking whenever it seemed bent on something external. Why? Why bother at this late stage? The deed is done. I can’t go back. I am well beyond any hope of ever fitting outside. But this is not because society would not forgive me; society is always forgiving so long as one is willing to prostrate oneself before it, admit to the overwhelming helplessness which one feels–the very lifeblood of society. “Conform to us!” it cries to me silently from within, not knowing the extent of my difference. Or is it a voice from within that cries “Conform to it!” Although I have snubbed its structures, challenged its values, revealed its tenuous nature at every opportunity–I have never done so openly–I am too respectful for that.

Who is pulling and who is pushing? And why can’t I know the difference? Inside-outside, outside-inside, it’s all a matter of perspective.

APRIL 24, 1991

I enjoy design; an architect of ideas which can be used to express or describe human nature and the world we live in.

I want to integrate harmoniously with the world and other human beings
I want to add quality to my life and the lives of others through creation of new knowledge and understanding, systems and designs which can simplify, titillate, amuse, intrigue, please and satisfy. I enjoy pleasing others or seeing others pleased by something which I have done or contributed to.

Probably a compensatory reaction to not ever having been able to please my father. Nonetheless, anything I do for others never seems to be quite good enough. It must always be better or more. I am jealous, perhaps, of the successes of others who have managed to create and please. I always find it necessary to criticize their work or to suggest improvements which would have greatly enhanced the same. I see great achievements all around me, but rather than strive to join them or emulate them, I demean them, instead, looking toward greater “possibilities” for all humankind. Why isn’t satisfying one or another ever good enough? Why do I work below my capabilities? Why aren’t I reaching or striving for more? Why am I not willing to risk failure? Rather than this, I continue with lesser achievements and crude outlines of greater “visions” of things which are so difficult and complex as to never go beyond form.

I must force myself back into the world. I need to find an escape from, or a means for “harnessing” my intuitions and thinking to a goal and then concentrating on attaining it. I must admit to my needs and tend to them on a piecemeal basis. I must recognize opportunity and reach for it. I must lay a groundwork of success and proceed to build upon it. Good intentions are nothing unless they represent failed attempts to succeed.

What is it that I enjoy doing most?

Design, creation and beautification of things: Home and Landscape Design and Building, a unique miniature golf course, travel service, nursery school, life planning system, etc…. so that I and others can enjoy and make full use of them in simplifying or making life more pleasurable than it is.

Enjoy the beautiful aspects of nature: animal behavior, natural and artificial beauty, a wondrous view or creation of a “Disney world”, a wonderful fairy tale, a playground. Want to create and share with others.

Enjoy writing: creating a play, presenting a vision, a new way of looking at something, a system that simplifies or explains life… that can be shared and appreciated by others.

ALL OF THE ABOVE IS NOTHING IF IT IS NOT DONE FOR SOMEONE OR IS NOT APPRECIATED BY SOMEONE OR MANY

WHAT FRUSTRATES ME?

The differences that exist between human ideals and the facts of life, human motivation and nature’s way. We are in a struggle with nature and therefore with ourselves. There are tensions which result from either knowing or not knowing, we aren’t sure which. Our goal is to increase happiness and to lessen tension. Only opposition seems to be the driving force of life. All good and bad comes from the push and pull of …

INTERESTS

Want to create beauty in physical world! Landscape Design (Reserve for Home), Enroll in writing or art classes?

I enjoy “self expression” through “application” or “creation” of new things and ideas; beautiful, harmonious, clever, enlightening, enjoyable things or ideas which can be put to practical use.

The arts intrigue me because they are titillating; expressing human emotion or new ways of looking at things; or combinations of beautiful sensing elements which go beyond normal sensation and experience. The arts elevate us.

The sciences are fascinating because they describe ourselves and our world. They extend our sensations by means of material inventions and conceptual tools. They help us to create machines out of thought and then successively put thought into the machines themselves, thus replicating ourselves or the natural elements we find surrounding ourselves. They extend our capabilities for successfully competing with nature with the final end of controlling it.

I would like to write a book, a play, a song–design a landscape, house, village,

There’s nowhere for me to go
For every place is loneliness
I carry it with me wherever I go

I try to find a happy place
Or happy things
Outside myself
Where I must go

But all I find is loneliness
And know that I’m at home

APRIL 25, 1991

Our physical characteristics have definite limitations which can only be extended by apparatuses or conceptual and theoretical means. Our limitations are not definite, however, but represent ranges and degrees which end in what appear to be definite parameters. For example, we can only see so many colors or hear only so many sounds from a spectrum of light spectrum or range of sound levels. We can see only so near and only so far, etc. In other words, our sensations have ranges or limitations just as our bodies do. We can only lift just so much, run just so fast. Now why should such obvious things be important to note?

Because we tend to confuse and these physical characteristics, or ranges, continuum, or parameters defining our limitations–for imaginary “mechanisms” supposedly at work in their stead. While we would not be inclined to say of a runner who can’t exceed thirty-five miles per hour that there must be a “repressing mechanism” preventing him from attaining greater speeds (and that there also exists a “motive” for not wanting him to do so), we are very much inclined to do this in other, more abstract contexts. In psychology, the “theory of repression” conjectures such a mechanism by which a force is exerted to make us forget undesirable things or traumatic experiences. This, of course, is at the heart of the theory of the “unconscious” and psychoanalysis itself. While the term “unconscious” denoted the contents of what was repressed, the repressing factor, according to Freud, was also unconscious. Thus, the unconscious repressing factor pulls our memory of a traumatic experience out of consciousness and makes it unconscious. The unconscious has the ability to make things unconscious. Why? What motivates it?

To make matters worse, the `ends’ of these natural continuum seem invariably to lead to the positing of “oppositional” concepts or to opposing usages.

IDEA: Write “The Birth & Life of Concepts”, tracing ideas from their intuitive inception through their divisions, noting the oppositional nature of these divisions and formulating a theory of “concept formation and progression”. Then predict where a newly formed concept will go, wind up, or die. Know beforehand the type of death concepts will meet with.

May 2, 1991

I enjoy thinking and writing on abstract, conceptual and theoretical levels. I feel compelled to do so because of a need (which I presume I share with others to a greater or lesser degree) to integrate myself more fully with the world, and also because I wish to make a contribution to others or to society as a whole. I feel that I can achieve these several aspects of my single quest by presenting alternative and highly fundamental views relating to our present-day foundations of knowledge and belief, and also to applications of the same in our everyday practices. I assume, perhaps naively, that a closer proximity to truth will prove to be better (in the long run) for the whole of nature, and not merely for humankind or worse, for the benefit of certain individuals only.

And so, at the risk of sounding arrogant or foolish, I feel compelled to relate my feeling that I am on the fringe of formulating an important new conception relating to our view of the world, or more specifically, to the way our concepts are formulated, what their parameters are, why they need to be (limited), and why such limitations serve as the lifeblood of concept formation, usage, and knowledge progression. My view is not to be found in any one discipline or structure presently in place that I know of. Rather, its rationale crosses and borrows from numerous ideas found in many disciplines which I feel is appropriate for any broad-based conception. From how many sources were Darwin’s ideas derived? And how many areas of knowledge remain untouched by evolutionary theory today? Now I am not claiming that my vision is as powerful and all-encompassing as evolutionary theory, but I do know that it will require knowledge and assistance from a number of fields–from the arts and humanities to the social and physical sciences. I would like to be able to pursue this needed research both as a means to ascertaining whether or not my theory is unique, and also as a means for acquiring evidence for it.

I have literally “stolen” the time for such thought from personal and family obligations, thus presenting myself with what seems to be a never-ending conflict. The problem is unrelenting inasmuch as my personal (thinking) characteristics continue to stand in their (my) own way. (Talk about support for a belief in dualism!) For example, I have not been able to attain appropriate credentials or personal credibility because of what amounts to a perceived lack of knowledge due to my sole preoccupation with “knowing”. Thinking does not entail knowing, nor does it entail that the “right” kind of knowledge is being assimilated. Because my thinking seems always to have as its primary subject matter, “thought itself”, I have been forced into an adversary relationship with the existing structures of knowledge and life, and this means people. Thus, in a manner of speaking, my interest in serving society feeds upon itself, forcing me outside the very thing I require for support from within. My personal passion and quest for an outside perspective is construed as unforgivable–seen as some sort of antithetical response to civilization and life–a negation of everything we have built and those who have done the building. But, of course, it is not. It is only an attempt to re-examine what is natural to ourselves, or more accurately, perhaps, what has “naturally” been taken too far by ourselves–taken too much for granted. This is my only purpose–my only quest.

Despite these obstacles, over the years I have been able to amass numerous introspective and extrospective observations which have served both as catalyst, as well as evidence for, my various conceptions as they arose and integrated with one another. While these processes of intuition and thinking have not as yet come to complete fruition in terms of providing me with a unified theoretical perspective, I have nonetheless been able to distinguish many levels of thinking and applications along the way; applications which I feel could appreciably add to existing structures and practices presently in place. In such a way, my personal writing has oscillated between my quest for the former and my wishing to see something of value accomplished during the process. I have tried to apply some of this ancillary thinking in forming a business which I felt might serve my financial needs while allowing me the freedom to write. Unfortunately, its benefit or value is either not understood or else is considered not to be of value. Changing these perceptions would require better interpretation and marketing means–“business” sorts of things–which are as bothersome to me as are the other mundane or routine aspects of my business. While I would love to see my ideas applied for the betterment of individuals and society as a whole, I feel reasonably certain that my major preoccupation will remain at the foundations and not the applications. Thus, my dilemma remains.

How can I gain enough personal time to satisfy my personal interest in writing while earning enough money to pay the bills and to fulfill family obligations? Working for someone else takes away time but could involve me in areas conducive to my interests. Working for myself may give me more time but involves me in aspects which I dislike. However, if I were successful, I would be able to afford having others do this work and might be able to enjoy the more favorable aspects of developing programs and then seeing the fruits of my thinking applied through significant services. Now that would be fulfilling! But what is preventing me?

There seems to be a gap between my perceptions and those of others, perhaps stemming from the fact that my interests are not broad-based or necessarily common. It may also be due to the fact that my approaches to services are by definition “untraditional” inasmuch as I am always looking to better existing practices. Sometimes this can be accomplished through enhancements, sometimes only by taking an altogether different approach. If the general populace is reluctant to try different approaches to resolving a problem, say, finding a job for example, (or if employers are reluctant to accept different means to the same), what can be done to clear a path? While correct interpretation of the means is certainly necessary to understanding, sometimes attitudes, prejudices, uncertainties and fears win over reason. Thus, it may be necessary to always be positioned on the “crest of the wave” (never too far behind or in front of it) to be most effective. Politicians know this, but it would irk me to no end if I were forced to abide by this. And yet I know I must. But will I?

May 3, 1991

TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR OUR OWN UNDERSTANDING

In business as in life, if one is relying upon others to understand, one must not be too far behind or ahead of what might be considered “common understanding”. Those who are considered authorities write the “gospels”, while those who are in the business of developing programs and offering services in light of these, play the part of “disciples”. Yes, deviations do occur from time to time, when it seems safe to do so and when there are others in agreement. But such changes rarely, if ever, amount to differing perspectives and approaches.

For example, the “gospel of job hunting” according to Bolles (noted expert in the field of vocational counseling and author of What Color is Your Parachute), is replete with excellent advice, resources, and practical applications of all kinds. It is full of wisdom for those who choose to read it, are able to understand it, and are willing to work their way through its numerous exercises. But despite its obvious value, it still remains “general wisdom”–designed to communicate general rules and general applications to a general audience. While the book seems to be dealing from an individual perspective, it is illusory at best, since most of us are really uncertain as to what constitutes our respective individuality. Most of us are not simply in need of information, but in need of “knowledge” about ourselves and our world. Bolles’ pathways to finding a job presumes that each of us is already a repository of ready information about ourselves–that each of us already knows what we are like or what motivates us–and that such information only needs to be drawn out of us, assembled and put to sound practical use.

Off hand, I would say that only a small minority can and will accomplish such a feat. I would say further, that in all likelihood, those who exhibit confusion about themselves or life in general, will not be in a favorable position for coming to grips with their situation. Worse, they may even stand to further complicate circumstances rather than ameliorate them, merely by embarking down a road which “seems to be appropriate”, but really is not. General knowledge, in other words, can easily lead us astray from our particular case. As such, it is fraught with danger.

A current trend in the vocational literature these days is for writers to acknowledge the importance of psychological factors as these relate to individuals. An example of this is an excellent little book by Steve Kravette called “Get A Job In 60 Seconds” (Bantam Books). Again, he offers excellent information regarding how one should approach and conduct themselves in the interview in order to win the job! But the approach assumes too much when it shows you how to get from point A to point B. The job-seeker is given a set of steps and rules which must be followed if the whole process is to work. But what if some of this goes against the grain? What if an individual does not want to imitate a certain posture or stance, or doesn’t hold a particular view or value–what then? Well, if one cannot meet Kravette’s “ideal applicant”, then perhaps some form of soul-searching is in order. Perhaps one is being held back by a fear of failure, a lack of initiative, a true desire to become all that one “ought” to become. And Kravette suggest a few exercises that may enable a person to find out.

Needless to say, anyone who cannot fit the mold will probably not benefit from the advice given. And anyone who does fit the mold, probably does not need to read the book! So what value is there in this general approach to assisting individuals? As I said, I suspect very little for those that need it most and, at best, very useful information for those who do not.

The fact is that our personal psychologies will always stand in the way of general approaches to knowledge and application. Everything is subject to personal interpretation while personal interpretation is subject to whatever our personal makeup happens to be. Don’t ask for one’s own certainty of knowledge and beliefs, because these may run the gamut from the strongest, most rigid conservatism, to the most passive, accepting liberalism. Where each of us is located within this continuum will say a lot about what comprises us, but the “self-help” or “how to do it” literature rarely takes this into account. This is not altogether true since what is taken into account is generally representative of the “norms” and “values” held by society. In other words, writers assert what are considered to be unquestioning values and ideals in formulating their views, while those who do not conform to the same are invariably seen as “lacking”.

But we are all individuals sharing both common and uncommon characteristics, knowledge, beliefs and circumstances! While some may be closer to “societal ideals” than others, there is no shame in being further removed. And it will be these persons who will be most in need of assistance. No, our job should not be to “get them on track” but to recognize where there is value and where there is trouble in such differences. While society requires commonality for cohesiveness, it does not need automatons. We have computers for that. But, in many ways, our practices continue to perpetuate this very thing. As a result of this, there seems to be a growing need for understanding “personal dynamics” in order to create environments where different personalities can work together in harmony. Rather than attempt to create the “Kodak Woman” or the “Xerox Man”, for instance, these industries, if they are smart, had better begin concentrating on creating the “Dynamic Woman” or the “Dynamic Man” who can not only sincerely appreciate differences in others, but knows how to relate to and put such differences to best use.

Which brings me to the major point of this essay. While I may seem to be advocating that we pay closer attention to the realm of personal psychology, I do so with special qualifications. You see, in my view, the subject matter of psychology has been treated in a highly deceptive manner for too long a time. Under the guise of being either too complicated for the lay person to understand, or too dangerous for the lay person to use, it has all but succeeded in removing itself from ordinary usage–from life, in other words. Make no mistake, there are great differences between “normal behavior” and “abnormal behavior” if one chooses only to look at the extremes. But there are really no clear-cut lines drawn between the two. Besides, one can start from the other end and rightfully claim that there are also great differences within the “normal range” of behavior, and, furthermore, that this realm ought to remain in the personal domain. To be sure, we need highly trained professionals who understand and are able to treat abnormal behavior, just as we need highly trained professionals who can assist us in the normal range as well. But recognize also that what should count as appropriate knowledge and training for such professionals, is anything but clear.

Life is complicated and confusing to say the least. Attempting to understand human behavior is a very tough quest, and one would need to understand a whole host of other things (outside the field of psychology) in order to fill the bill. Things like social and cultural differences (ethnic, racial, etc.), knowledge and facts characteristic of a particular area, occupation, personal history, and on down the line. How can we ascertain which type of knowledge and training will be most conducive to assisting which types of individuals, in which types of circumstances, exhibiting which types of behavior?

The point is this: human behavior is far too broad a topic to be pigeon-holed by what have become known as “specialties”. We have the clinical, experimental, social and personal psychologist, and many others besides, each trying to narrow the behavioral field of study by attaching certain elements of psychology to certain methodologies or based upon certain schools of thought. Beyond this, we have cross-disciplinary studies: philosophical, anthropological, sociological psychologies, etc. And in every case, the supposition is that these are legitimate boundaries circumscribing such efforts, and, underlying this, that those who are so specialized are “experts” who, presumably, are in a better position for knowing more about us and the world surrounding us than we are. Well, maybe some of them do. But because they might, we shouldn’t just decide to leave the job of describing, explaining and deciding things relating to our personal natures up to them. As a result of such thinking, individuals have given up more and more of their personal freedoms, and accompanying responsibility, and have instituted (and have sanctioned by law in most cases) the “professional” to act in our place. In this way, only dentists are qualified to drill and fill holes in teeth; only doctors can be held responsible for what nurses generally do at least 80% of the time. While doctors and lawyers presumably protect our health and welfare in such ways, other professionals insure it, borrow it, and oftentimes enslave it as well–through compulsory insurance, loans and indebtedness, educational credentials and professional licenses, costs and fears of catastrophic illness or crippling lawsuits. To be sure, these are all called “rights” and “privileges”, but to the discerning eye, they are highly sophisticated, protected schemes. Such “freedoms” come at a very dear price to freedom. The poor are played against the rich and the rich against the poor in order to milk the middle for all its worth. And its worth is growing less and less.

Now I am not advocating that we dismantle those systems presently in place. I am, however, suggesting that we do look to their workings (their true workings and where they are leading), and where we see negative or unfair consequences resulting for the long term, that we do something about it. These practices and systems are not as difficult to understand as they are to change. And this is the problem. Controls are increasingly going to fewer and fewer individuals, while knowledge of the same, is increasingly being withheld from us by such means as knowledge and specialization, credentials and licensing sanctions, educational curriculum and intent, law and politics, etc. While such standards, like any standards, can be seen to have a valid purpose (the guarantee of professional competence and protection from abuse from those who are not), the results of instituting them do not always lead to such ends. Human nature being what it is, most people will reach the goal by the most expedient means available to them, and this, more often than not, results in the direct opposite of what was intended. The student learns how to pass the test, the teacher does what is necessary to gain needed credentials… The focus is no longer on knowledge but the standard. Notwithstanding this, a great number of otherwise qualified individuals will be shut out from vocations which they may have been highly suited for. Is it fair? Is it fair for example, to use the single criteria of “highest grade” in civil service job selection? The goal of fairness has been usurped by a “standard of fairness” which amounts to next to nothing in terms of true job qualifications for a great number of jobs. So why not determine where it is strongest and when some other criterion might be strongest? Why legislate a single one for every job? A client of mine, who is a natural backwoodsman, conservationist, environmentalist, nature lover, lover of outdoor sports, with an excellent personal demeanor and ability to communicate with others in a highly professional manner–can’t get a full-time job in conservation primarily because he can’t score higher than 87 on the civil service test! I tell you, it’s a cruel world out there. And what makes it cruel is not only ignorance, but a reluctance on the part of all of us to aright the wrongs we see.

Again, human nature belongs to humans. We must never stop striving to understand more and more about ourselves and others. The importance of this “subjectivity” has been down-played for too long a time, and as a consequence of it, life is growing increasingly out of reach for far too many. It ought not be regarded as the sole domain of psychologist. It is our subjectivity! And it is we who have to live our own lives. While normal human behavior may be wrought with confusion and frustrations of every kind, rather than seek out experts “to show us the way”, we would be better off learning (with their help, if needed) to walk our own way. It is not as complicated as one might think because we ourselves represent the parameters of our own understanding. By paying closer attention to our individual psychologies (personal makeups), we will find better means for simplifying it which, in my opinion, is tantamount to understanding it. Self-knowledge is the strongest approach to avoiding neuroses, and, in the last analysis, can only come about by our own efforts.

May 3, 1991

PERSONAL ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS

Like every field of endeavor, there are high points and there are low points; there are areas in which we are confident about what we are doing and confident about the results of our efforts, and there are areas where we are filled with doubt and uncertainties. While our tendency may be to concentrate upon and accentuate the former, we would be remiss if we did so without explanation of the latter.

Personal assessment instruments (psychological profiles, vocational interest, values and aptitude surveys, etc.) are notorious for coming under fire. Most of us seem reluctant to confirm their validity, and we can generally cite a number of good reasons as to why we feel this way. While I am not an expert on assessment profiles by any means, my usage of several of these in my consulting practice has given rise to a number of observations which I would like to share. It is important to note at the outset that there are literally thousands of such instruments in use today, representing a vast multiplicity of use and differing methods. For this reason, my remarks may not pertain to large number of these. On the other hand, since my remarks will be seen as something akin to a philosophical investigation, looking more to the trunk rather than the branches, perhaps they will have greater relevance than what I imagine. In any regard, my sole familiarity with survey and assessment instruments has involved usage of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (Consulting Psychologists Press), The Personal Profile System (Performax Systems International), and several general type survey instruments measuring vocational interests, values and aptitudes. This is my sole basis for the following remarks.

Psychological profiles, like all survey and assessment instruments (I believe), rely upon a set or system of concepts underlying them. It is important to know at the onset that the system does not work like a doctor’s stethoscope, probing here and there to discover new facts about the person . The facts are already contained in the assessment while the job of the instrument is merely to measure the degree to which an individual conforms to it. Think of an algebraic formula. Even though the answer to X + 2 = 7 is already contained in the equation (inasmuch as X does have a value even if unknown), it is a system that allows new material to enter it. Like a machine, it is able to take in certain kinds of material in accordance with its design, only rather than merely reshaping it, the algebraic equation transforms the unknown(s) into knowns.

We use language and concepts in similar ways in everyday life. We have systems comprising memories of various past uses of language which we draw upon continually when, for example, we recognize `apples’ and `trees’. By knowing beforehand what apples and trees look like or constitute; by having our systems already in place in this regard, we have little difficulty in making such identifications. But this is not always the case. There may come a time when an object appears to fall somewhere between what we would call a tree and what we may call a shrub, or between what we may call an apple and what may appear to be a pear. Like all concepts, there is a “fuzzy zone” where objects simply do not fit as snugly as we would wish. It is located at the outer edges of our classifications where overlapping of characteristics must occur. “I know that the whale is a mammal but it sure looks like a fish!” This is because the whale’s characteristics fall between the fish and mammal _____ (?). Similar classifications are undergone by all of us even if we are not consciously aware of the ongoing process. Because they do not represent a “classifying activity”, such delineations take place without our awareness. They are integrally bound up with learning to use language.

As was said, assessment survey instruments rely upon already established systems of underlying concepts which represent its purpose, or what the instrument purports to measure. These clearly defined base concepts may have been abstracted from larger theories into pieces of information or particular characteristics which are thought to define them. They then `blocks of information’ which represents to in order to understand beforehand which characteristics will be representative of them. In the final analysis, these characteristics must be stipulated in order to make it a closed system. We cannot have a valid assessment instrument based upon “suspected meanings”. And so, on the basis of prior knowledge, which may result from other forms of assessment, such as analyzing a given word together with its “intelligible opposite”–defining “introversion” by comparing and contrasting it with “extroversion” as an example. Delineation of meaning, as well as further refinements of definition, is made possible by the fact that these concepts are opposed to one another. In order to have clear-cut meanings, concepts must be driven to their outermost limits. Clarity thus becomes almost synonymous with extreme polarization. Unfortunately, this is the very thing that gives rise to a major source of criticism suffered by all such instruments.

A participant will invariably fall somewhere “within” the concepts employed by the instrument. Not everything “implied” by the concepts or questions used in the instrument will seem to fit. If forced to choose between two or more options, none of which really fit, one might understandably begin to doubt the credibility of all such measurements. “If only a part of a given concept or definition is applicable to myself, or more than a single answer fits me, then why should I allow myself to be `defined’ by `forced’ responses?” This is not an easy question to answer to one’s satisfaction, let alone the fact that there are even more troublesome issues underlying this one–issues which have to do with the very nature and foundations of knowledge itself. So let’s begin our answer to such questions by attempting to define some of the characteristics of the assessment instruments themselves. While there are all types of instruments in use, each with a different purpose and method, most all of them rest upon the same or similar conceptual or methodological foundations. For my purpose, I want to stick closely to those which purport to define behavioral or personality characteristics.

What I’ve noted from my usage of several of these instruments, is that they tend to be `conceptually hierarchical’, meaning that they are each built up from the elements of concepts to the concepts themselves, or from concepts to some system or theoretical construct representing the real application of the instrument. In any event, what is important to note is that the person taking the assessment always has ultimate control over its final outcome. The `deciding factors’ or `first-level interpretations’ always rests with the participant.Because of this fact, it is crucial that the instrument and the participant be in full agreement as to the meanings of these first-level concepts and questions. Take an assessment like the Myers-Briggs for example. It attempts to measure individual preferences along a continuum of extroversion and introversion among other things. Now since these are major concepts whose characteristics and definition may not be agreed upon by everyone concerned (and are in fact tied to definitions proffered by the psychologist C. G. Jung), the instrument breaks down their refined meanings into smaller elements. These then are presented to the participant as single word characteristics (in word pairs), or are contained in question form. Where the instrument and participant interact, great pains have been made to ensure that there is no lack of mutual understanding regarding the meaning of the terms used or the questions asked (even though the participant may not be aware of what is being measured or what use is going to be made of it). But, then, how is it possible to ensure this? Couldn’t an individual lack a clear understanding, have the wrong understanding, or simply have a different understanding of all such meanings? The answer is affirmative. All these things could go wrong and not only this. It is also possible for an individual to believe that something is true of himself which simply is not the case! How, then, is a successful assessment instrument to deal with such circumstances?

If someone wanted to know how many people liked camping and passed out a questionnaire with the single question: “Do you like to camp?–Yes or No?”, we could expect yes or no answers. But those who exhibit frustration by being forced to a yes or no answer may wish to remark that they have never gone camping or may be unclear as to what is meant by the instruments view of camping (that is, are aware of several varieties of camping). It is also possible that those who answered with a clear “yes” response may have answered wrong if they were guessing, or wanted to believe themselves “campers” when in fact, deep down, they really didn’t care for it at all. Those who answered negatively may have done so for all of the same reasons. In other words, all of the things we discussed as possibilities could have occurred in the simplest of questions.

A good assessment instrument does not try to hide such facts but, instead, acknowledges them, taking such possibilities into consideration when designing the instrument; that is, when choosing concepts, framing questions, or deciding methodology. But what must be noted is the very important fact that no assessment asks a single question. Rather, they ask many questions, oftentimes utilizing different formats within the same assessment. An individual would have to be “consistently inconsistent” in order for the assessment to consistently measure inappropriate responses. For not all concepts will be misunderstood, misapplied, or otherwise misused in the context of what is intended. By asking the same questions over and over in varying contexts, accuracy is successively approximated on a step by step basis until a definite pattern begins to emerge. This does not mean that an individual cannot purposely alter the outcome should they so desire. They can always do this, even if the results may not always come out in the way they intended.

So rather than view assessment instruments as a “forced conformity” to various forms of “pre-constructed conceptual boxes” (which they are in fact), we would do well to remind ourselves that this happens to be the way of all knowledge. We perceive, learn and know through concepts and systems of concepts in every walk of life. Our responses to any form of question are subject to the same inherent dangers as those which are cited in criticisms of assessment instruments. What really bothers us, if we are bothered, is our reluctance to believe that anything significant about ourselves can come from a system–that a form of “machinery” can know us! We fear being trivial, or fear the loss of what could be regarded as a convenient “multi-purpose cover” which is probably the best protective device in our personal arsenals. And when we are not in fear of such instruments (or knowledge about ourselves), it is most likely because we are desperate for the same as a potential aid to current difficulties we are suffering, or because we have a strong sense of self-esteem and look forward to any new perspectives about ourselves which we may have missed.

While we should acknowledge the pitfalls inherent in all such instruments, and especially in the interpretation of their results (which is a problem area all by itself), we would do better to view them as systematic attempts to elicit and measure personal information or characteristics based upon pre-established concepts or theories which serve as a basis for general classification and comparison. We attempt to discover the degree and ease of an individual’s fit. A strong fit implies a general ease and conformity to whatever concepts are employed, while a weak fit generally implies a difficulty in knowing or deciding. There can be any number of reasons underlying one’s inability to fit the instrument, and one’s inability to fit the instrument must not be construed as pointing to anything other than this fact. Rather, it should serve as a basis for further investigation into the matter. To be sure, in some instruments (like the Myers-Briggs), showing a slight preference for a given trait over its opposite is itself an important fact which Jungian theory attempts to account for.

But it bears repeating over and over again: There must be evidence underlying the application of any concept. To say someone is bold, or loving, or introverted, is to say that there is evidence for believing it to be true. Assessment instruments do not come by such evidence by observing the participant. Rather, they ask the participant to supply the needed evidence. Ideally, then, the observer will: a) know pertinent facts about themselves, b) know facts which are true, c) be able to recognize the most applicable or appropriate fact from among several choices when presented, and d) be clear about the meanings of words and questions phrased.

And this is only the half of it. What is true on the participant side is also true on the instrument’s side. Just as the participant needs to correctly understand the “intended” meaning of the words and questions in the instrument, it is doubly important that the questions appropriately reflect and measure what the instrument “intends”. So you see, there is ample room for errors on both sides of the equation.

UNPREPARED

May 9, 1991

It seems as though everything I want to do is untimely. Yesterday, I went to Wayside Nursery to look over their stock. On the way, I thought of stopping at Antonelli’s because I wanted to ask if they could do an 50,000 checkup on my car rather than leave it to the dealer who I am sure is going to cheat me by extending labor hours and finding all sorts of chargeable extra things to adjust, replace, etc. In this way, I could find out if any warrantable things were wrong and then take it into the dealership for just those things.

Antonelli’s was busy when I drove in and so I postponed it until my return trip. While at Wayside, I took notes and prices on all of the plants that looked interesting to me, although I wasn’t in a position to buy any since I wasn’t sure as to where I would put them and so was unprepared. Besides, there may be better pricing of certain plants at some of the other places that sell nursery stock: Wegman’s, Central Tractor, or other nurseries which I hadn’t visited yet. One of those nurseries I would have to visit anyway in order to have a load of compost or mulch delivered to my house. This was way up in Greece, but I decided to drive up right then and there. While there, I might be able to compare prices.

On my way to Greece, I would be passing East Rochester, the location of the dealership where I bought my car. I thought that I might stop there and ask what their hourly charge would be. I also thought that I could talk to their accountant, Cliff, who took advantage of two hours consultation from me a month or so ago. Maybe he could make certain that I would be treated fairly if I talked to him. But the timing didn’t seem right. I should know if Antonelli’s could do the preliminary check first, and so I drove by on my way to Greece. Maybe I would stop on the way back.

I got to Greece only to discover that the nursery I was looking for was no longer in business, but was replaced by an Agway which had nothing of what I was looking for. Why didn’t I telephone. Maybe I could stop and see my sister while I was here, but I would stop and get a sandwich first. I passed restaurant after restaurant and also my sister’s house thinking that I should be getting back home rather than risk spending too much time there. I would get a sandwich on my way or in Canandaigua. Since I’m in Rochester, however, I thought that I might cross town and check out a lawn and garden statuary place which used to be over in Webster. But on the way, I changed my mind since I wasn’t ready to buy any and I already knew the general prices, and maybe this place was closed too. I would have to fight traffic crossing town for nothing. So I jumped on the expressway and started on my way home.

Going past East Rochester, I thought again of stopping at the dealership but found myself going past it. Getting off the thruway at the Canandaigua exit, I passed a Printing Shop where I’ve been meaning to stop for some time now to check on the price of business cards, stationary and signing. But I wasn’t really sure of what I wanted. Really unsure as to what my business really ought to be concerned with for that matter. So I passed it by on my way into Canandaigua. Coming into town, I also drove past Antonelli’s since I was too hungry to spend any time there now. I would come back later.

Arriving home, I quickly ate something and then thought about my having to mow the grass since earlier that morning I found that I couldn’t spread weed killer on it since the grass was too long and dampened the fertilizer and weed killer in the spreader. I would have to mow and then try again the following morning. So I spent the remainder of the day mowing the lawn. I got a call from a guy who I did a quick resume for a week ago. He owned his own dealership a short while ago and was looking to get away from the business. He offered to go over my car with me at his side in exchange for some additional services… writing a cover letter, making up some extra copies of resumes, etc. “Nothing heavy” he said. I told him it sounded good and that I would call him today to set up a time.

This morning, I discovered it was going to rain and so I would not be able to spread the lawn fertilizer and weed killer. Instead, I was reminded that I should spray a couple of pest nests I noticed on the apple trees the other day when I was digging around them. Sipping a cup of coffee and looking out on my backyard, I couldn’t help but notice how still the wind was. This would be an excellent time to burn that large pile of branches that I built up out back on the back property. Since it’s going to rain, maybe now would be a “safe” time to ignite it since I wasn’t altogether sure of just how large it would get. So a half hour ago, I went out back to set fire to it but gave up on it since it was sprinkling and the pile itself seemed already damp from the morning dew. I came into the house, instead, and here I am in my office.

I considered that I really ought to call a few customers who I have left hanging for over a week now. Need to set up a time to go over their diagnostic assessments and then get on to their resumes. But I am reluctant because I’ve been trying to write in order to sum-up my feelings on assessment instruments and other things which I need to do in order to push the business–if I’m going to push it. I am reminded of the business seminar I finished last week and all of those consultants waiting in the wings ready to help me to build my business. Unfortunately, I can’t make a move until I am certain about what it should be. Do I really want to offer “personal assessment” seminars, “outplacement” and “assessment” services for businesses? How do I decide?

My personal writing is gnawing at me all the while, knowing as I do that I would prefer to be left alone to develop my thinking. On the other hand, as I am saying this, I know instinctively that this is not entirely true; that I may not really wish to be alone, and that developing my thinking may not really be the most primary consideration. But here it ends and regurgitation begins. My feeling is that I must somehow sum-up at the point where I find myself–now. What new thinking may alter my circumstances? Will it take me closer to my truth? What must I shove aside in order to progress? Am I really progressing when I do so? Why does a “foundation person” seem to be without a foundation or logical progression in ordering even the simplest of tasks? Why am I always too late or too soon or not prepared to accomplish things? What is wrong with my sequencing ability? Does this have to do with my ignoring root causes? Are these root causes to be discovered in my personal emotions and feelings which continue to be ignored or unfed?

If my thinking seems to be hampered in undertaking ordinary tasks, how might such hampering affect my theoretical reflections? Is this thinking also out of sequence? Am I deluding myself in believing that I am relevant and that my thinking is getting closer to the truth? Worse, are my thoughts traveling in circles (regurgitating just as I sometimes do in a physical sense

MEMORY, DUALISM, CONSCIOUSNESS
June 5, 1991

Intention, choice, control, purpose, etc. are words suggesting an ability which we supposedly possess for self-initiated action. “Free will” is another expression which opposes the cause and effect “determination” seemingly invoked by nature. Where nature and we intersect or relate, there we wish to pay tribute to our “uniqueness” for being a part and also separate of her. Unfortunately, when this all too narrow view is accepted, we belie logic in opting for a double standard, and must suffer the consequences. But this, we seem more than willing to do.

We gulp hard, for example, when we try to cling to the belief that “lesser animals do not think, learn or behave as we do”, claiming, instead, that “primitive instincts” help them to maintain a certain semblance to ourselves. In order to remain consistent with the view, we are forced to continue the deception, thus further weakening a cognitive structure which is already straining under the weight ignorance as well as attitude–namely our strong predilection toward egocentricity. For example, we might simply refuse to see the good and bad usage of tools by monkeys, or effective and less effective building skills of quite a number of relatively sophisticated home-builders, beavers, bees and termites, or certain species of birds who can be seen to “weave” their nests, etc., choosing instead to attribute such differences in talent to the workings of weaker and stronger instincts. In other words, we will go on in this vein rather than admit to ourselves that such differences might be the product of good and bad learning, or, God forbid, some form of primitive reasoning! Why is this?

The ancients puzzled over much the same things as we do today, and they seemingly were just as predisposed as we to want to elevate our stature at nature’s expense. But it is doubtful that common persons living closer to nature felt this way. Like primitive cultures existing today, it is doubtful that they felt a need, or could even conceive of a perspective which would serve to sever themselves from nature. No, such thinking resulted from a relatively few number of individuals and was passed on down for general consumption. The biblical interpretation of creation and “the fall” placed human kind outside of nature or God. Because of Adam and Eve’s transgression, we were told that we must suffer the burden of freedom; that we must henceforth earn our salvation by choosing good over evil–and all of us know just how difficult a task this can be. Regardless of how or when this garment of “uniqueness” or “human freedom” began to be woven it seems clear that the garment is presently a tattered weave. Too many broken threads resulting from too many years of ill-logic or general disregard and disbelief. Only rather than try to uncover why it is that we seem bent on staying the course, or what cognitive price such obvious excesses have cost us to date, instead, in near desperation, we fight to protect the delusion. We cry that morality itself is at stake; that without such “uniqueness”, we would not be “free” to choose between right and wrong; that it would make no sense to blame or hold one accountable for one’s actions… But, intuitively, each of us either suspects or already understands this to be chimerical; that whether or not this conception of “uniqueness” lives or dies, we will continue to act or not act responsibly and will continue to be lauded or punished for the same. History is replete with examples of ideas supported by a delusion of power and significance which the necessities of life simply ignores. But we must not conclude from this that there is no such thing as “freedom” in this regard, or that there may not in fact be a dualistic relationship between ourselves and nature. We must, instead look for an explanation which would explain and satisfy both perspectives–from a new perspective.

Life seems to have backfired on us currently. There are many who hunger for knowledge to guide and give purpose to our lives. All of us crave recognition and respect from our fellow humans, and, deep down perhaps, all of us want to contribute in some way to the betterment of all. But life often curbs and suppresses such idealism for the sake of adapting to the realities of the day. On the other side, urging for the greater or broader demands of life can also be heard, rumbling dissatisfaction from within which try to force us in directions we may be reluctant to travel. What results from this is that some of us seem to be closer to the workings of life or nature, the realities of the present, while others find themselves being pulled or stretched in opposition to this reality–and this without understanding what it is that compels them. We can’t be sure if nature is pushing us outside from within, or pulling us outside from without–pushing us inside from without or pulling us inside from within. Our categories for thinking on such terms seem screwy and our sense of “inside” and “outside” seems to come apart. Insofar as our “dualistic” relationship with nature is concerned, we seem hard put to maintain the delusion. More obvious to us is a growing sense of futility regarding all knowledge, and it is this which is fostering the nihilistic, general apathy toward life we are currently witnessing.

My thinking has led me to conclude that our suffering can be attributed to a short-sighted perspective which nature seems ready to do something about. The delusionary prejudices fostered by such a perspective and its accompanying attitude, most certainly has played, and continues to play, an important role in nature’s unfolding; but it is a role which I feel is presently in transition. The dizziness of uncertainty is about to change through a new perspective that will allow us to join (in a single picture) continua, abstractions and manifestations of opposition from every walk of life, and will, above all, teach us to accept and appreciate the general uncertainties and messiness which must accompany knowledge. Our current shortsightedness or one-sided perspective will end at the same time as we come to understand our “dualistic” natures in terms of nature and not in spite of her. Our facade of arrogance will fade as we begin to understand and appreciate that this new dimension elevates us in a way we have never known. Part of this appreciation will acknowledge how nature has been our saving grace over these many years, a force which has both propelled and protected us from our relative ignorance and relative knowledge; a power that has continued its sway in spite of our ignorance; a power which we share in, for a purpose we will always seek to know.

The world is given us always. We can take what it offers as it comes, or resist one thing in favor of responding to some other, or be frustrated from not knowing which to attend to, or do nothing at all. But we are always responding to something which occurs to us, in us, or through us! Our seemingly “purposeful” activities are never the result of a spontaneous behavior which can be said to `originate in us’ in the sense of our knowing that we put it there. We speak as though we can perform this remarkable feat of creation because of our unique relationship to nature–but, again, it is a very limited and extremely arrogant perspective which ignores the whole picture. This is not to say that we are without purpose or that there is no God. These notions will reemerge in an even stronger and brighter light. Only to understand why this is so, we must first examine how it is that we come by our conceptions, and then attempt to understand what role they may play in the formation of knowledge, or of consciousness itself. Beyond this, we probably cannot go, although saying this will not stop us from continuing our search for the mind of nature.

How does our sense of a dualistic relationship with nature arise? How can nature think upon nature, folding over herself in order to create an awareness of self–a consciousness–memory? Yes, it is undoubtedly memory which makes this possible by lending continuous support to our sensations through prolongation. It provides us with the illusion of stoppage within motion. This is the `buffer’ that forms consciousness as we understand it, but this buffer has been extended by other means as well. Consider the following:

When we are able to produce a picture of something that happened previously, (literally through imagination or by expressing an intention or motivation by means of words; that is, after the fact), we have, in a manner of speaking, stopped the world by “freezing” a moment in time. Now if we delude ourselves into accepting what appears to be obvious–that this stoppage is in some way “real”–musing too long over a picture that captivates our vanity, we soon begin to attribute its power to ourselves. We begin to believe that the power somehow resides within and, perhaps, emanates solely from our “selves”. This ever-present sleight of hand continues to beguile us and leads us deeper into a confusion which has run rampant for too long a time.

Without memory, there could be no knowledge, for knowledge is little more than a systematic compilation of sensations in its final analysis; that is, its existence owing to memory, and only following its after effects. We would not be far wrong if we equated consciousness with sensation. For without memory, there could be no awareness of duration or repetition (not even the illusion of repetition), thus no anchor for description, definition or system; no reflection of any kind, much less, a `purpose’ for the existence of anything at all. But, with memory, we are able to abstract those exotic conceptions which hold us captive. One such conception is our idea of a “purely mechanistic world”; a machine-like world that runs on a basis of cause and effect (like clock work), only without a maker, and without reason. So how does talk of “purpose” or of a “maker” get into the picture? Well the issue seems to force itself. Since we could not have formulated this conception without a sense (or illusion) of separation made possible by memory, (we would simply be a part of the machinery without opportunity for stoppage or perspective), we are forced to conclude that either “awareness” is an integral part of nature’s unfolding (without regard for our benefit necessarily), or that `our conceptions’, though important to nature from some other perspective, may be utterly insignificant in terms of our own.

This raises all sorts of philosophical and psychological issues regarding levels of awareness and understanding. It tugs at our egocentricity, reminding us of the extent of our limitations and of potential consequences we do not wish to face. We are reminded of the limitations of our senses, or of the fact that the world may be quite different from the way it appears to us; that our particular sense of awareness may be but a single perspective out of potential zillions; or, worse, that even all of what is potentially within our understanding, may not open to us. We seem to be conscious of a much larger “unconscious” world which we know is working upon us in spite of, or despite our particular views of the matter. We feel defenseless against powers which are seemingly out of our control and, perhaps, it is this that we wish to compensate for when we try to forcibly assert our “essential” natures while blatantly denying the obvious. We fight for supremacy and are willing to create it if necessary. In so many ways, we continue to accept the pictures without crediting the camera producing them–as if we needn’t account for it at all. And again, it all seems so natural for us. Thus, through a long process which began with placation, grew into emulation and, now, boldly presents itself as usurpation, we humans have reached a stage of contempt never before known; a contempt which compels us to accept the delusion of power rather than face the reality of irrelevancy which we increasingly fear.

Now it may seem futile to some to try to ponder nature’s course in this way. To be sure, we can talk of various levels and characteristics of existing things, or of differing levels of understanding contingent upon the same, or might even conceive of the possibility that all such things are working toward a common goal, or for a definite purpose regardless of individual perspective. But, we can’t, it seems, know whether or not this is the case, and it is this that bothers us most. We simply cannot answer what we seem capable of asking. (Could we conceive of it being any different?) Only, rather than rejoice in the opportunity to witness and participate in the unfolding of nature, many of us would rather curse it. What might this forebode for future generations? Are we losing our hold on life? Or are we in the throes of a clumsy transition to yet another dimension of it?

Most assuredly, we will not reach out for what we don’t want, or move away from what we no longer wish to avoid–death, for example. But something is missing from this pitiable picture. It almost seems a nonsensical state of affairs to suggest that nature may finally be through with us, that we served her purpose without ever knowing it. Such thinking no doubt is a direct result of significant changes occurring within the psychological and cognitive spheres of life presently, but, again, what do they mean and where are they headed?

Denial, negation, opposition, continuum, characteristics, perspective, parameters, relations, boundaries, etc. are all words that remind me of my finiteness or limitations by virtue of being myself. But, again, I want to draw your attention away from the obvious in order to look at an alternative view. This picture informs us that all such limitations are really strengths; a perspective of “unlimited” possibilities borne of limitation–by virtue of being limited! Think on this for a while. If our vision were not limited by certain characteristics of our eyes, or of the world at large, would vision be possible? No. Unlimited vision would produce blindness as I suspect unlimited knowledge would produce ignorance, or unlimited power, powerlessness. Nature’s power and energy seems to derive from self-imposed forces or, more accurately, perhaps, from self-denial.

As I indicated, the delusions we hold regarding our sense of power over nature results from a “dualism” or sense of “separateness” made possible by memory. I call these “delusions” because they represent an incomplete picture from the perspective I am trying to present. But from its own perspective, it is already complete, and this can be altogether confusing. Language does not seem to be permitting in this regard since I feel compelled to turn words inside-out in order to describe my perspective. Maybe my usage of “delusion” is inappropriate when we consider its ordinary meaning. But how can I describe a “misconception” as being `just another conception from a different perspective’? Or should I speak in terms of `limited’ and `broad’ concepts? But what if we choose to deny the whole picture in favor of clinging to the more limited view? Would we not be deluding ourselves? Again, language beguiles me. Worse yet, I don’t know whether I should be thankful for its containing what might prove to be nonsensical excursions into confusion of my own, or to curse it for limiting me where I have a perfect right and obligation to go.

Why would nature provide us with memory that makes possible conceptions which exclude memory?

“Separation” is to act or be acted upon in a way which is different from one’s surroundings while having a perspective of the same. Sensation and memory allows us this imaginary perspective of separateness or difference; a sort of “buffer” providing the illusion of being able to jump off and back on the moving train of natural events. Without memory, the different sensations we experience, as well as the different thresholds within each, would cease to exist. (Does the falling tree make a sound when there is no one there to hear it?–Who cares!) What does it matter if we are able to “abstract” a conception of a sensation without memory if we have to throw out awareness? And only memory can account for awareness and, therefore, for a perspective or sense of “self”. Are such abstractions to be regarded as dangerous to life, or necessary to the creation of the illusions propelling us?

And what should be said about my own conceptions? Are these merely owing to my relationship with nature; that is, owing to my “subjective” viewpoints based upon my particular makeup and the manner in which it gives rise to memories, conceptions and thoughts within me? Or are these conceptions “objective” views of the workings of nature made possible through such gifts; that is, in the manner of perceptual tools received in order to get the job done? This smacks of the so-called “problem of perception”, not knowing whether or not we are perceiving the real world.

Instead of asking why it is we negate what makes negation possible, perhaps we should remove ourselves from the picture and ask why nature negates nature?

Another source, though less obvious, might be found in our inability to explain what we supposedly “know” to satisfaction. For example, without words like “instinct”, “unconscious”, “force”, “function”, “waves”, “infinity”, etc., much of the physical and behavioral sciences would be inexplicable. If we removed from the scientific lexicon all theoretical-type words implying the existence of a substance or content where none can be observed to exist, or were we to remove all words implying the existence of “non-substantial” entities posited because of observable effects belonging to related things, or simply because it serves to fill a gap within a theory–science would be muted. And wrongly so, since such conceptions, no matter how shabbily they may appear to fit within varying contexts, are the very life-blood of knowledge. For this reason, all such notions must be welcomed for the duration–or at least until the final death knell is sounded by a more cogent view. But this is not obvious and requires further explanation.

Concepts may also be subsumed by other theories or simply die a slow death from increasing disbelief or disregard without an apparent replacement. I consider it a mistake to assume that “certain” knowledge or facts are more important or beneficial to the construction of knowledge than the less certain. All have their place and this means that superficiality is as necessary as our strongest and most certain knowledge in the broad scheme of things. Elevating one over the other is a value judgment and is prejudicial inasmuch as it ignores or severs whatever part of the picture it does not wish to see. I can conceive of a perspective regarding concept formation whereby a weak notion or concept could be the seminal beginning of a great idea or system. To say that it is not worthy of praise because of its crude character at the onset is to hold that the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow is more important than the means necessary to find it. It is perhaps a contradiction to expect that knowledge could ever begin with certainty. Indeed, we intuitively understand that the very opposite must be the case.

JUNGIAN NOTES

JUNE 11, 1991

GENERAL OUTLINE OF THE JUNGIAN DESCRIPTION OF TYPES

Two attitudes and four functions, etc…
Differentiation means…
Libido means
Development of functions
Explanation of compensation, opposing tendencies, Problems resulting from an appropriate function being taken over by a secondary one or least favorable, usurping its rightful place (pp203, 204)

Two Basic “Attitude” Types: Introverted and Extraverted, distinguished by their direction of interest or the movement of libido toward the object.

The introvert’s attitude is an abstracting one; at bottom, he is always intent on withdrawing libido from the object, as though he had to prevent the object from gaining power over him. The extravert, on the contrary, has a positive relation to the object. He affirms its importance to such an extent that his subjective attitude is constantly related to and oriented by the object. The object can never have enough value for him, and its importance must always be increased. (P179)

The two types seem to be distributed throughout society at random, says Jung, and their origins can be found in the biological adaptation existing between subjects and objects in nature. In nature, every relation between subject and object presupposes the constant modification of one by the other through reciprocal influence. This is what adaptation consists of:

… There are in nature two fundamentally different modes of adaptation which ensure the continued existence of the living organism. The one consists in a high rate of fertility, with low powers of defense and short duration of life for the single individual; the other consists in equipping the individual with numerous means of self-preservation plus a low fertility rate. This biological difference, it seems to me, is not merely analogous to, but the actual foundations of, our two psychological modes of adaptation… The peculiar nature of the extravert constantly urges him to expend and propagate himself in every way, while the tendency of the introvert is to defend himself against all demands from outside, to conserve his energy by withdrawing it from objects, thereby consolidating his own position… The one achieves its end by a multiplicity of relationships, the other by monopoly. (Ibid. pp. 180-181)

Jung cannot explain why it is that individuals exhibit one attitude or disposition over the other, only that such capacities for adapting do exist under normal circumstances. However, Jung warns that under abnormal conditions, when, for example, a parent’s own attitude may be extreme and forces itself upon the child, it is possible that the child will “falsify” his or her own natural preference . This may lead to a neurosis latter on and can be cured only by getting back on track and developing the appropriate attitude.

EXTRAVERTED TYPE

ATTITUDE OF CONSCIOUSNESS IN THE EXTROVERT

Everyone orients themselves in accordance with things supplied by the outside world, but the things in themselves are not wholly decisive. Two people often see the same thing differently, the one, perhaps, allowing himself to be oriented by the object by subordinating his subjective view somewhat (the extrovert), and the other subordinating the object to his subjective view by interposing the latter between himself and the object (the introvert).

The extrovert subordinates his inner life to external necessity. Consciousness looks outward because that is where the extrovert expects to find the essential and decisive determinants of actions–people and things. They tend to adapt to actual circumstances, their interests and actions generally coinciding with the prevailing demands of society. But “adjustment” is not “adaptation”, Jung warns, and this is the extrovert’s greatest limitation. Since the extrovert owes his normality on the one hand to his ability to fit into existing conditions, but also must tend to his subjective needs and requirements to be normal, something which he is not so inclined to do, then he risks suffering certain functional disorders (nervous and physical) to compensate for this extreme attitude. Initially, then, such disorders may be seen to be operating in a positive vein, serving to force the extrovert into involuntary self-restraint.

Compensatory action (whether complementary or altogether destructive) is a major theme in Jungian psychology, and is a part of the attitude of the unconscious which we have yet to discuss. When things go awry for the extrovert, the resultant neurosis is most frequently hysteria with its classic characteristics of exaggerated rapport with persons, and adjustment to surrounding conditions which almost amounts to imitation. Other characteristic tendencies are to make oneself interesting, produce an impression, be easily influenced by others, or exhibit a general effusiveness which can lead to fantasy.

The hysterical character begins as an exaggeration of the normal attitude; it is then complicated by compensatory reactions from the unconscious, which counteract the exaggerated extraversion by means of physical symptoms that force the libido to introvert. The reaction of the unconscious produces another class of symptoms having a more introverted (my emphasis) character, one of the most typical being a morbid intensification of fantasy activity. (Ibid. p. 186)

ATTITUDE OF THE UNCONSCIOUS IN THE EXTROVERT

Since the attitude of the unconscious is compensatory to consciousness as outlined above, we can expect that there to be an opposing introverted emphasis upon the subjective within the unconscious; that is, upon all those needs and demands stifled or repressed by the conscious attitude. Jung reminds us that we are not machines that can be remodeled for any purpose of our choosing, but carry our whole history with us whose elements it would be wise not to ignore.

Because these elements belong to the past and have existed from the very beginning, the unconscious demands of the extrovert will have an essentially primitive, infantile or egocentric character to them. The more they are ignored or repressed, the more infantile or archaic they become. Like instincts, they can never be eradicated by arbitrary measures but must require a slow, organic transformation of many generations. Sometimes this egoism characterizing the extrovert’s unconscious attitude can go beyond childishness to ruthless behavior, thus losing its original compensatory character and appear in open opposition to the conscious attitude. The resultant catastrophe may take an objective form or subjective. As an example of the former, Jung cites a case of a man who worked his way up the ladder to become owner of a flourishing printing business which began to consume him. In compensation, memories of his childhood delight in painting emerged from his unconscious. But instead of treating it an outlet, he channeled it into his business by embellishing his products in an artistic way. He succeeded in suiting his own primitive and infantile tastes, but after a few years, went out of business. He went too far and fell victim to his own unconscious demands.

The catastrophe can also be subjective and take the form of a nervous breakdown when, for example, the influence of the unconscious paralyzes all conscious action, bringing about a split in which the subject no longer knows what he really wants and nothing is of interest, or else wants too much at once and has too many interests, but in impossible things. Thus, suppressing infantile and primitive demands for cultural reasons, warns Jung, can easily lead to neurosis and to the abuses of all kinds.

It is an outstanding peculiarity of unconscious impulses that, when deprived of energy by lack of conscious recognition, they take on a destructive character, and this happens as soon as they cease to be compensatory. Their compensatory function ceases as soon as they reach a depth corresponding to a cultural level absolutely incompatible with our own. From this moment the unconscious impulses form a block in every way opposed to the conscious attitude, and its very existence leads to open conflict. (Bid p.190)

THE EXTROVERTED ATTITUDE IN RELATION TO THE OTHER FUNCTIONS

It is important to note that a normal extraverted attitude does not mean that a person is always behaving in an extraverted way. There are other on-going processes taking place which involve the mechanism of introversion. Behavior can be said to be extroverted only when the mechanism of extraversion predominates, and in such cases, an individual’s most differentiated function is employed in an extroverted way, whereas the inferior functions are introverted. Thus, the superior function is the most conscious while the lesser functions are in part unconscious, and far less under control of consciousness. This is the territory where things simply “happen” to one. The least differentiated functions of the extrovert will always show a highly subjective coloring with pronounced egocentricity and personal bias, thus revealing their close connection with the unconscious.

Since there is a constant influx of unconscious material which can come into consciousness at any time, it is sometimes difficult for us to know which behavior belongs to which attitude. Oftentimes, which behavior is noticed is directly related to the characteristics of the observer. Judging types, says Jung, generally seize upon the conscious character since judgment is chiefly concerned with the conscious motivation of the psychic process, while perceptive types see the unconscious character more readily since perception attempts to register the process itself. Thus, when a person appears to us as both extroverted and introverted, we need to observe which function is completely under conscious control and which have a haphazard and spontaneous character to them. The former is always more differentiated while the latter seem to have an abnormal or somewhat pathological character about them.

EXTROVERTED THINKING

As a consequence of the extroverted attitude, thinking also tends to be oriented by the object or by objective data. Even though thinking is fed by both objective and subjective data, (objects of sensation as well as ideas) it is always external criteria that proves to be the valid and determining one. To judge whether thinking is extraverted or not, we must look to whether the criteria underlying it comes from the outside or inside. We should also notice the direction such thinking takes in drawing its conclusions, for whether or not it leads back and forth from objective perceptions to ideas abstracted from the same, or to subjectively sanctioned ideas borrowed from the outside, extraverted thinking always winds up back in the objective world.

Because in our age and society it may seem that there can be no other kind of thinking outside of treating objective facts or general ideas–that is, no other kind of thinking other than extroverted thinking–Jung offers a brief glimpse into the introverted intellect, attempting to show us a kind of thinking neither oriented by immediate experience of objects nor by traditional ideas.

… I reach this kind of thinking in the following manner: when my thoughts are preoccupied with a concrete object or a general idea, in such a way that the course of my thinking eventually leads me back to my starting-point, this intellectual process is not the only psychic process that is going on in me… that this very thinking process which starts from the object and returns to the object also stands in a constant relation to the subject… Even though my thinking process is directed, as far as possible, to objective data, it is still my subjective process, and it can neither avoid nor dispense with this admixture of subjectivity. Struggle as I may to give an objective orientation to my train of thought, I cannot shut out the parallel subjective process and its running accompaniment without extinguishing the very spark of life from my thought. This parallel process has a natural and hardly avoidable tendency to subjectify the objective data and assimilate them to the subject.

Now when the main accent lies on the subjective process, that other kind of thinking arises which is opposed to extraverted thinking, namely, that purely subjective orientation which I call introverted. This thinking is neither determined by objective data nor directed to them; it is a thinking that starts from the subject and is directed to subjective ideas of subjective facts. (Ibid. pp.194, 195)

Thus, Jung argues for the existence of introverted thinking by pointing to our constant awareness of a subjective self, whether or not that subjective self appears to be stronger or less strong than the objective data we experience. Indeed, both types of thinkers are each aware of their individual orientations; each understands already which direction is most captivating to themselves.

Extroverted thinking is no less fruitful or creative than introverted thinking, it merely serves other ends. However, each type of thinking senses the other as an encroachment on its own province and each tries to subordinate and explain the other in terms of its own data. Introverted thinking appears as arbitrary to the extrovert while extroverted thinking appears dull and banal to the introvert. Unfortunately, it is not possible to put an end to this conflict by making a clear distinction between the two, says Jung, and even if it were possible, it would be dangerous since both orientations are one-sided and of limited validity so that each needs the other.

When objective data predominates over thinking to any great extent, thinking is sterilized, becoming a mere appendage of the object and no longer capable of abstracting itself into an independent concept. It is then reduced to a kind of `after-thought’… a purely imitative thinking which affirms nothing beyond what was visibly and immediately present in the objective data in the first place… Conversely, when it has an idea for an object, it is quite unable to experience its practical, individual value, but remains stuck in a more or less tautological position. The materialistic mentality is an instructive example of this.

THE EXTROVERTED THINKER

Extraverted thinking is normally positive or productive, says Jung. It has a progress and creative quality which leads to the discovery of new facts and general conceptions based on empirical material. It is usually synthetic inasmuch as it constructs new combinations and further conceptions uniting material in different ways. But, it can become stagnant and regressive if it fails to retain its prior place in consciousness. In that case it loses the quality of a positive, vital activity and becomes plagued by useless afterthoughts and broodings over things past and gone.

Thinking can be said to be appropriately externally-oriented if it is the primary or superior (most conscious) function within the individual, and if reflection and actions are produced by intellectually considered motives. It is so oriented if there is a constant endeavor to make all activities dependent upon intellectual conclusions which, in the last resort, are always oriented by objective data (be they external facts or generally accepted ideas). For the extraverted thinker, then, objective reality, or an objectively oriented intellectual formula, becomes the ruling principle by which all things are measured. It tends to become a universal law which the thinker feels must be applied individually and collectively everywhere and always. Everything that agrees with the formula is right, everything that contradicts it is wrong. If something in his own nature invalidates the formula, then it must be considered an imperfection, a failing, something to be eliminated.

The influence and activities of extroverted thinkers are generally considered most favorable the further we are removed from them. The closer we get to them, the more we feel the unfavorable effects of their tyranny when extreme. “Usually it is the nearest relatives who have to taste the unpleasant consequences of the extraverted formula, since they are first to receive its relentless benefits”, says Jung, but also reminds us that, in the end, it is the subject himself who suffers most. Since there never can be an intellectual formula which could embrace and express the manifold possibilities of life, such thinking will invariably lead to the inhibition and exclusion of important ways of living–activities based upon feeling (aesthetic activities), or irrational phenomenon (religious experience and passions), etc. Sooner or later, the disturbing effects of repression will make itself felt; if severe enough, in the form of a neurosis. Usually the individual will modify his formula before this happens, thus creating a sort of safety valve, but the tendencies and functions excluded by the conscious attitude will nonetheless be kept in an inferior, undeveloped state.

To the extent that they are unconscious, they become merged with the unconscious contents and acquire a bizarre character. Feeling is most repressed by thinking and forced to comply to its aims; but only up to a point. If the repression is successful, feeling opposes conscious aims and produces effects which run counter to them. The guardian of public morals may suddenly find himself in a compromising situation, employing means calculated to bring about the very thing he wished to avoid. In keeping with the formula, the conscious attitude may become more and more impersonal, sacrificing anything and everything–health, social position, family–for the sake of the ideal. While the world may admire his humanity, his own children may think him a tyrant. The more his feelings are repressed the more rigidly dogmatic he becomes. The critic is demolished with personal invective while no argument is too gross to be used against him. Thus, the formula gains ascendancy as a kind of religion, assuming a quality of absoluteness.

But by this time, says Jung, all the psychological tendencies repressed by consciousness have built up a counter position in the unconscious which gives rise to doubt. The more the individual tries to fend off the doubt, the more fanatical the conscious attitude becomes, for fanaticism is nothing but over-compensated doubt. This development ultimately leads to an exaggerated defense of the conscious position and to the formulation of a counter-position in the unconscious absolutely opposed to it. As was suggested earlier, if the effects of the unconscious win over consciousness, thinking loses its place to an inferior function, and will then assume a negative character in its inferior role. In fact, says Jung, “whenever a function other than thinking predominates in consciousness to any marked degree, thinking, so far as it is conscious at all and not directly dependent on the dominant function, assumes a negative character.” (Ibid. p.204) With the creative element lodged in another function, judgment will show itself as shallow and confined, not imparting anything of value to experience. It may sometimes appear to have a positive aspect to the dominant function, but if one looks closely, he will find it only to be mimicking it, supporting it with a logic not proper to thinking.

EXTRAVERTED FEELING

Oriented by objective data, the object being the indispensable determinant of the quality of feeling. Feeling is in harmony with objective values (the traditional or generally accepted) because it seems fitting and not because it feels subjectively right. It is an act of adjustment to exterior criteria. Extraverted feeling undergoes a process of differentiation to denude itself of its subjective trimmings. One dresses, goes to church or theatre because of its social or harmonious benefits.

But these salutary effects are lost as soon as the object gains ascendancy. The force of extraverted feeling then pulls the personality into the object, the object assimilates him, whereupon the personal quality of the feeling, which constitutes its chief charm, disappears. It becomes cold, `unfeeling’, untrustworthy. It has ulterior motives… one suspects a pose, or that the person is acting, even though he may be quite unconscious of any egocentric motives. Over extraverted feeling may satisfy aesthetic expectations, but it does not speak to the heart; it appeals merely to the senses or–worse still–only to reason… It has become sterile. (p208)

Worse yet, if this process is allowed to continue further, Jung warns, a contradictory dissociation of feeling results with everything becoming an object of feeling valuations, while innumerable relationships are entered into which are all at variance with each other. The subject seems to disappear from the picture altogether, devoid of human warmth and leaving the impression of being put on, fickle, unreliable, and in the worst cases hysterical.

EXTRAVERTED FEELING TYPE

More obvious characteristic of feminine psychology, and mostly found among women. The “suitable” man is loved–age, position, income, size and respectability–not because such a woman is shrewd, but because such a man meets with her reasonable expectations. They make excellent companions and mothers. Thinking may be strong but never is allowed to take precedence over feeling. What does not accord with her feelings is simply not thought. But, when the importance of the object rises to an extreme, feeling loses its personal quality and becomes feeling for its own sake. Since life is a constant succession of situations, personality gets split up into as many different feeling states. To an outsider, such displays of feelings no longer appear as personal expressions of the subject but as alteration of the ego–a mood. Depending upon the degree of dissociation between the ego and the momentary state of feeling, signs of self disunity will become apparent–extravagant displays of feeling, gushing talk, loud expostulations ringing hollow, making it apparent that some kind of resistance is being overcompensated. The slightest alteration can call forth an opposite pronouncement, leaving the observer unwilling to take her seriously. This in turn leads to wanting to reestablish rapport through redoubled efforts, thus, establishing a vicious circle causing a more pronounced appearance of the unconscious as it surfaces.

Thinking becomes a slave to feeling

June 17, 1991

Strongest compulsion within me is not simply to understand the world but to successfully integrate with it. Everything in my life seems to be subordinated to this end. My preoccupation with intuiting and thinking about the world stems not from a love of experience, learning and discovery, but rather from a strong, impatient compulsion for achieving an ideal that works.

I am realizing more and more with each passing day that I have had a life-long compulsion for wanting to discover and conform to an ideal that works. I have an ideal of a just, intelligent man; a man who is worldly, kind, above petty animosities, and yet able to compete effectively without sacrificing principles and values. I love imagining that such idealism is achievable and can work. I love to imagine that such ideals could serve all of human kind; that they are achievable and necessary to personal and social integration. That they can serve as guideposts to what is important in life. Integration of humans with one another and with their environment seems the most worthy of goals that should preoccupy us all. All else seems subordinate to this. Understanding the world we live in, the various cultures, species, physical characteristics of earth and universe, all seem little or nothing unless such information is used in the support of this overriding goal. For me, things are not important in themselves, but only for whatever use can be made of them.

I am unaccepting and intolerant of the way things are. I cannot balance the positive aspects with the negative and remain neutral. I seem to be forever dissatisfied. I feel large voids within me. I am not fulfilled. I am lacking. I am in need. And I can’t pinpoint what it is that will fill me. I try to carry too much and then resent the burden of doing so. To lighten the load is to be accepting of less than the whole; it is to relegate my need, my goal, to an inferior status.

My father is uncomfortable with expressing feeling. He too searches for integration through knowledge and thought. While his may be a natural preference (I am not certain), mine may be forced as a result of his attitudes and general relation to myself and other family members. I remember him constantly competing with us, showing us up or revealing our ignorance at every opportunity. And so I look to thought and knowledge as a resource to serve me as well as others, who I perhaps wrongly assume are like myself. In any regard, I don’t know whether my compulsion begins within or without; whether it can be rightfully thought of as nature forcing me to her bidding, or myself trying to force nature to do my bidding. Whether I am reaching for a father substitute through society or for a general sense of self-esteem, it amounts to the same thing from either perspective. But both are nonetheless perspectives which we don’t understand.

So I am a searcher. So what! Am I obligated to search in order to remain consistent with myself. I can only presume so. And if I try to deny my compulsion, restrain it in some way in order to satisfy other expectations imposed upon me–will I suffer for it? I presume so. But, even if I am a natural searcher, what of my thinking? All thoughts and ideas can have a feeling counterpart says Jung. So what is true of the thinker is true of the feeler in this respect, even though thoughts can be expressed more easily than feelings. One needs to be highly descriptive or an artist to do justice. Subjective feeling, in order to communicate with others, must find an external form acceptable to itself and also capable of arousing a parallel feeling in them. How should I communicate my feelings with others? Why should I communicate them?

I do not wish to be cruel to others. It is simply that I have higher expectations of them and also myself. I hate being disappointed by behavior that is less than my ideals. And so I criticize and chastise knowing that I am also chastising myself while cursing the unknown. It is not that my relationships with others is not important to me, it is just that I know they will be inferior to my ideals regarding what they should be.

It is so important to me to remain truthful to the ideal, that I over and over again sacrifice the ideal because the means may be less than it. I will not curry someone’s favor because this behavior seems less than ideal, even though I recognize it as a means to reaching a goal or personal integration. The end never justifies the means. And if I do behave in a way calculated to solicit someone’s attention, if I succeed in gaining it, I simply deny that I ever wanted it in the first place. The end never justifies the means. So how can I utilize a proper means to a proper end?

Where did this elevation of the ideal come from? Extreme compensation or substitution for father ideal? Only the greatest achievement is sure to win his praise. And what if this flops? Is this what I’m risking by not going ahead with certain goals? Or am I exaggerating the effects my father’s behavior had upon myself? He too was looking for self-esteem, having suffered the humiliation of being an unwanted immigrant. He overcompensated by building an arsenal of positive facts about his heritage, reaching for the glory that was Rome, the Renaissance, and everything else which would serve to elevate his own personal self-esteem and to stave off his shame. He came from the poorest part of Italy; from the poorest part of his small village; from the poorest family within the village. His father died when he was a very young boy and his whole life hinged upon hanging onto his mother and elevating his brothers. He became the patriarch of the family; the organizer, visitor, etc. And his preoccupation with history, thought and the arts seemed bent upon this one goal.

So is my ideal a continuation of the burden that is my father’s? Do I sense a responsibility to be great in this regard? To bring pride to him or attention to myself? Must I earn his respect in this way? Regardless, I am what I am for whatever reason. And I need to do what I must because this is so.

But why do I hesitate doing what I know I can do. Why am I not promoting my business, doing seminars, writing articles and books? Why am I not in the outside world making a mark and doing some good? Why is my energy sapped? Why do I not seem to know where to begin? Which avenue to pursue first? Why am I held prisoner? Incapacitated? Frozen in my tracks?

====================
I have a preoccupation with knowledge, not specifically with knowledge in the sense of what is known to us, but knowledge in the sense of ideas underlying it and its degree of accuracy. I am interested in making knowledge more precise, explanatory, accurate and workable. I can’t help but critique systems and ideas I come across with an eye out for improvement. I am suspect of most systems because I sense in them an inability to express their contents without also admitting of a multitude of exceptions. I take issue with the practice of admitting such exceptions as integral parts of the system, simply because we don’t know what else to do with their persistent presence. To ignore them is to invite criticism, and so we integrate them in order to acknowledge and sanction them, thus staving off criticism. We seem to have no other alternative but to live with this practice, but there are other recourse open to us in my opinion.

For example, we could openly acknowledge this dilemma, admitting our suspicion that our concepts and descriptions, models and systems, and explanations and conclusions drawn from them, may lack (or ought to lack) serious credibility because of the limitations we experience in both formulating and presenting them. We could also admit to the stop-gap measures we feel forced to take because of it, and give up the pretense that all is well with knowledge and the learning which follows it.

Why is this important to me? Because true and certain knowledge must be considered superior to uncertain or delusionary knowledge. While certainty may remain an unattainable ideal, forever relegated to a relative status, consistency within our frameworks is achievable, even if only for a brief time. The point I am trying to make is that certainty has its high points and low. When knowledge is certain, it is because it fits absolutely within a given framework, frame of reference, model or system. Two plus two absolutely equals four within our base-ten system. We could prove it by showing how it is consistent with the system. But, of course, we can’t prove that our `proof of consistency’ is absolutely certain by pointing to itself. We are forever forced to corroborate it with some other system, or simply by reproducing the results over and over again. But within any system of classification,

July 10, 1991

Life should be looked at as a sliding scale. We should not waste our time cursing the elements comprising the machinery of which we are a part; but rather, understand, accept and foster it in a way that is becoming to ourselves and to the whole of creation as we know it.

Let us not beguile ourselves by the existence of evil alongside good, for example; or by the facts of opposition, suspicion and doubt existing in much of what we profess to know or wish to do. No, let us seek to understand the workings of the mechanism so that we are able to raise the whole continuum; taking its outermost parameters upwards; making the lowest and highest ever higher. But what is higher? And who will tell us?

What the “good” call evil, the “evil” call good; what the “evil” call good, the “good” call evil. Thus, it is possible to view two opposed individuals as representative of both good and evil by virtue of a given perspective or individual orientation. Not by either of their perspectives, mind you–but by virtue of a third perspective, encompassing both. By taking the broader view, we are able, (through a form of synthesis I suspect), to arrive at a “conceptual awareness” which may rightly be called “higher”. In any event, having reached it does seem to weaken if not dissipate much of our original confusion. Why is this?

One thing which immediately comes to mind is a sense of relativity (futility for many) regarding our beliefs. As this new awareness tends to make our former notions of “good” and “evil” seemingly dependent upon individual perspective, it can easily lead us to suspect whether any perspective could ever be correct. We may begin to doubt that such notions have any degree of “substance” to them at all. Unlike rocks and trees, conceptions of “good” and “evil” are not clearly definable, much less capable of being pointed to. And when we do point, we find that our opinions and assertions must always stem from one perspective or another–if not our own, then someone else’s–thus, always leaving the door open to opposing beliefs.

We may come to conclude that only things can be known “objectively”; that is, can have agreed upon, verifiable meanings which are based upon clear definitions or descriptions of what it means to be a particular thing. And when we attempt to define and describe human behavior in like ways, we immediately sense that there is a certain ambiguity between perceptions of things and perceptions of actions, character or personality, etc. These latter ones seem to be of a different order entirely. A person running may be running toward something discernible, or away from something discernible, but we cannot always discern which it is by the action alone. A person might be running to do good or running to do evil (have it in his heart to do good or to do evil), but we may not be able to discern which it is. Looking at the broader picture, seeing outcomes, and accumulating after-facts may lead us to draw general conclusions about one’s personality and character; and these may in turn enable us to predict and interpret a present or future behavior correctly. But, again, we cannot always discern whether we are correct or not.

It seems as though explanations can never be definitive so long as they remain far removed from simple definition. In this regard, understanding the dynamics of sensation, perception (comprehension), expression, description, classification and explanation, may very well be the best means for reaching the heart of the matter. These intermediaries existing between sensation and explanation might each be looked upon as differing “levels” of understanding as well as obvious sources of confusion. More importantly, if and when we begin to understand the dynamics existing between these various levels, (the workings of the mechanisms driving us all), we will have gone a long ways toward guaranteeing that sense of individuality or “freedom” we feel is slipping from our grasp. Retaining our history in this way (by means of our accompanying awareness of where we have been, are now, and may be headed) will allow us to continue our climb to ever higher levels.

But there are obvious pitfalls standing in our way. As it is, we seem to be moving further away from such understanding rather than closer; further away from an appropriate perspective large enough to encompass our integral relationship to nature; instead, be it out of ignorance or the absence of courage, we foster the prevailing confusion by allowing further alienation from the comfort of a “world view” or broad-based understanding. We sever or further disenfranchise ourselves from the roots that nurture us.

We continue to deny our humanity while clinging to the new God, “Science”, what is deemed to be an advanced “methodology for life”–our best hope for guidance. We choose to overlook the fact that it is a “piece-meal” methodology which promises much, but in the end, leaves us wrenching and hungering for an essential wholeness it seems unable to deliver. Our denial of what is essential to ourselves must rank as the greatest sin humanity can commit against itself. The suppression and subsequent absence of such facts continues to undermine our own best chances for survival. It allows an already pompous attitude to naively presume that it has freed us from unnecessary superstition, and that it alone deserves to stand over the carcass of God as a more fitting replacement. We have been freed to follow its truth!

It is as though technology were denying science; application, theory; action the need for explanation. It is as though we were being informed that these latter constituents needn’t be considered as either forerunners or necessary ingredients to a proper explanation of the former–that we can simply ignore or abstract them from the picture altogether. And yet, these so-called “nonessential” elements persist to remind us that we are, and the world is, much more than our abstractions; much more than the pinhole glimpses science provides. Only, rather than admit to something which our guts tell us is undeniably true, we, instead, force a conformity which we know to be a blatant lie!

We must come to grips with this willingness to ignore truth for the sake of maintaining a delusion. It is a complicity born out of a desperate need for a methodology that will satisfy us. In the absence of anything better to take its place, we are willing to trade truth for disquieting delusion. We will somehow make it work for us. I can’t help but think of automated car washes in this regard; where workers are posted at either end, hand-washing and hand-drying in order to make the process work–make the machine credible! Why not simply admit that the technology is insufficient for the task; that there is more to washing a car than even expensive machinery can handle; that its absence altogether from the scene would have little or no effect upon the whole process? Why are we so willing to `attach ourselves’ to limited and limiting things? Why protect and safeguard what may be wasteful or even dangerous to ourselves?

Such is the sorry and wasteful state of humankind at present. As important as science has been, and continues to be for all of us, we demean it (and ourselves) whenever we elevate it to a status it does not deserve. We continue only to delude ourselves whenever we withhold the larger picture–the whole truth–for the sake of a movement (or methodology) we pray will prove to be a positive progression in the end. We withhold the truth to save the delusion to ensure that we will not be left empty-handed. But, again, it is a faith undeserved. Rather than admit that the new “savior” is ill-equipped for the task at hand, we choose, instead, to cling to the hope that we are wrong. Feeling that we have no other choice, we deny with words what we know is painfully apparent inside each of us;–that we have a pressing need for integration with the world and with one another; that we long for meaning and purpose in our lives to replace the detachment and piece-meal understanding wrought for so long a time by a misplaced faith in the power of science; that we desperately need to feel whole and complete, and that no amount of “abstracted” or “forced” simplicity will ever suffice; that faith may be more important to us than knowledge, and that to serve us, it must be whole even while knowledge may remain relative. Without a complete faith–a true faith–our humanity dies.

July 10, 1991

All our perceptions and knowledge are dependent upon a finite number of sensing characteristics, each allowing a finite continuum of perceptual possibilities. This is our cognitive machinery, for better or for worse, and it is here that we need to return when run into a snag–the machinery itself.

We should look at life as a sort of sliding scale or continuum. We should not waste our time being perplexed by the elements comprising its cognitive machinery, but rather, understand, accept and foster it in the way that we find it to be; in a way that is more becoming to ourselves and to the whole of creation as we know it. We should move to higher ground.

Instead of allowing ourselves to be beguiled by the existence of evil alongside good, for example, or by the facts of opposition, suspicion and doubt we find in most of what we profess to know or wish to do, we ought to concentrate upon raising the whole cognitive continuum, ever upwards–making the lowest and the highest, ever higher. But what is higher? And how will we recognize it?

What the “good” call evil, the “evil” may consider good; what the “evil” call good, the “good” may consider evil. Thus, it is possible to label two opposing characteristics as being representations of the same thing–as being both good and evil in this case. Not by virtue of either perspective, however, but by virtue of our having posed a third perspective encompassing both. From this higher ground, the broader view, we are able to note the relatedness of either view to a given perspective. This `overlapping dualism’ gives rise to a “conceptual awareness” that could not have been possible unless either view had existed and unless both had something in common.

Having reached this new awareness, our original confusion at once seems to lose a certain significance, but also raises new issues at the same time. We might begin to sense a certain futility regarding the establishment of personal beliefs and knowledge which can be held to with some degree of certainty. We might conclude that all such notions are relative to a given viewpoint, perspective, or arbitrary basis established in light of the same. Even if two or more persons share a particular perspective–believe it to be `objectively’ correct and having `substance’ in this regard–still, the cognitive mechanics of the situation force us to regard it as relative. We could always imagine another perspective which might run counter to it.

At this point, we may begin to suspect that something is awry. While it makes perfectly good sense to believe that personal beliefs may be grounded in personal as well as group or community perspectives, we are not so sure of this “objective” sense of absolute knowledge and belief. How did it arise?

The fact of the matter is that it is a philosophical concern which has arisen by resulting from blindly following from resulting from came from me. And I got certainty We may come to conclude that only things can be known “objectively”; that is, can have agreed upon, verifiable meanings which are based upon clear definitions or descriptions of what it means to be a particular thing. And when we attempt to define and describe beliefs and behavior in like ways, we immediately sense a certain ambiguity between perceptions of things and perceptions of actions, character or personality, etc. These latter ones seem to be of a different order entirely. A person running may be running toward something discernible, or away from something discernible, but we cannot always discern which it is by the action alone. A person might be running to do good or running to do evil (have it in his heart to do good or to do evil), but we may not be able to discern which it is. Looking at the broader picture, seeing outcomes, and accumulating after-facts may lead us to draw general conclusions about one’s personality and character; and these may in turn enable us to predict and interpret a present or future behavior correctly. But, again, we cannot always discern whether we are correct or not.

It seems as though explanations can never be definitive so long as they remain far removed from simple definition. In this regard, understanding the dynamics of sensation, perception (comprehension), expression, description, classification and explanation, may very well be the best means for reaching the heart of the matter. These intermediaries existing between sensation and explanation might each be looked upon as differing “levels” of understanding as well as obvious sources of confusion. More importantly, if and when we begin to understand the dynamics existing between these various levels, (the workings of the mechanisms driving us all), we will have gone a long ways toward guaranteeing that sense of individuality or “freedom” we feel is slipping from our grasp. Retaining our history in this way (by means of an accompanying awareness of where we have been, are now, and may be headed) will allow us to continue our climb to ever higher levels.

But there are obvious pitfalls standing in our way. As it is, we seem to be moving further away from such understanding rather than closer; further away from an appropriate perspective large enough to encompass our integral relationship to nature. Instead, be it out of ignorance or the absence of faith and courage in ourselves, we foster the prevailing confusion by allowing further alienation from the comfort of a “world view” or broad-based understanding. We sever or further disenfranchise ourselves from the roots that nurture us. We continue to deny our humanity while clinging to the new God, “Science”, what is deemed to be an advanced “methodology for life”–or our own best hope for guidance through it. We choose to overlook the fact that it is a “piece-meal” methodology which promises much, but in the end, leaves us wrenching and hungering for an essential wholeness it seems unable to deliver. Our denial of what is essential to ourselves must rank as the greatest sin humanity can commit against itself. The suppression and subsequent absence of such facts continues to undermine our own best chances for survival. It allows an already pompous attitude to naively presume that it has freed us from unnecessary superstition, and that it alone deserves to stand over the carcass of God as a more fitting replacement. We have been freed to follow its truth!

It is as though technology were denying science; application, theory; action the need for explanation. It is as though we were being informed that these latter constituents needn’t be considered as either forerunners or necessary ingredients to a proper explanation of the former–that we can simply ignore or abstract them from the picture altogether. And yet, these so-called “nonessential” elements persist to remind us that we are, and the world is, much more than our abstractions; much more than the pinhole glimpses science provides. Only, rather than admit to something which our guts tell us is undeniably true, we, instead, force a conformity which we know to be a blatant lie!

We must come to grips with this willingness to ignore truth for the sake of a maintaining a delusion. It is a complicity born out of a desperate need for a methodology that will satisfy us. In the absence of anything better, we are willing to trade truth for disquieting delusion. We will somehow make it work for us. I can’t help but think of automated car washes in this regard; where workers are posted at either end, hand-washing and hand-drying in order to make the process work–make the machine credible! Why not simply admit that the technology is insufficient for the task; that there is more to washing a car than even expensive machinery can handle; that its absence altogether from the scene would have little or no effect upon the whole process? Why are we so willing to `attach ourselves’ to limited and limiting things? Why protect and safeguard what is wasteful or even dangerous to ourselves?

Such is the sorry state we find ourselves to be in at present. As important as science has been, and continues to be for all of us, we demean it (and ourselves) whenever we elevate it to a status it does not deserve. We continue only to delude ourselves whenever we withhold the larger picture–the whole truth–for the sake of a movement (or methodology) we pray will prove to be a positive progression in the end. We withhold the truth to save the delusion to ensure that we will not be left empty-handed. But, again, it is a faith undeserved. Rather than admit that the new “savior” is ill-equipped for the task at hand, we choose, instead, to cling to the hope that we are wrong. Feeling that we have no other choice, we deny with words what we know is painfully apparent inside each of us;–that we have a pressing need for integration with the world and with one another; that we long for meaning and purpose in our lives to replace the detachment and price-meal understanding wrought for so long a time by a misplaced faith in the power of science; that we desperately need to feel whole and complete, and that no amount of “abstracted” or “forced” simplicity will ever suffice; that faith may be more important to us than knowledge, and that to serve us, it must be whole even while knowledge remains relative. Without a complete faith–a faith true to our feelings and knowledge–our humanity dies.

July 22, 1991

DREAM

I dreamt that someone was informing me of a movie being made in Sicily. I was amazed at the likeness of what was supposedly the set, but soon found myself flying over head [without any apparatus] and noting to this individual that this really was Sicily. I could see from the landscape below that I was right and nearly bumped into some of the rooftops, which for some unapparent reason, resembled more of an English or Russian city. I seem to remember steep roofs, steeples and I think Byzantine shapes–totally unlike any Sicilian land or cityscape.

I next remember myself still flying, only with two companions, Paul and Josephine Costa, two former schoolmates of mine who were both born in Sicily and came to this country when teenagers. I said to Paul: “There’s proof we’re in Sicily, you can see the grave yard where your relatives are buried”. We stopped there and Paul asked to see the remains of a relative (his grandparent I presumed, and I seem to remember the grave next to my own relatives). Two Italians brought out a coffin and opened it. (I recall this being a customary practice and thought nothing of it). However, the coffin proved to be empty upon opening it and when Paul asked why this was so, these two gentlemen brought out a living pig, cow or goat (I can’t recall which). They then proceeded to open a large flap on the side of the animal and there was Paul’s ancestor laying flat and long-wise along the length of the animal, albeit in a shortened form. It strikes me that the image of the man was primitive and not a very true to life caricature. The men then giddily remarked that the bodies were used in this way to “fool animals into thinking they were pregnant, and thus causing them to produce more milk”. They were rather proud of this move and remained in a giddy state.

I next remember the three of us in the air overhead. I remarked to Josephine (who was not very happy about being here) that Sicily probably had changed quite a bit from the time of her departure. She seemed reluctant, but finally admitted that it had (I presumed for the better). We were going to fly to her parents (or other relative’s homes) which was a good distance away. I don’t know why the body of an ancestor appeared in one location (which I believe was the hometown of my own father and mother) and why we were now traveling to some other location to reunite her with family. I do remember soaring much higher than they were and asking that they join me. I felt that we could better navigate with the broader view of the terrain. But they didn’t.

Soaring is not new to me. I have had numerous dreams over the years in which I can manage to get off the ground (oftentimes with great difficulty) by flapping my arms rapidly and very slowly managing to lift off, but sometimes finding it easy to soar at very high altitudes. When barely able to lift off the ground, it is usually to escape some hazardous situation which has befallen me. This ability has been a nice comfort to me over the years. When I’m soaring high, my only concern is about wires overhead. These are not typical telephone and electrical wires on poles at house level, but wires about a mile off the ground that oftentimes present a problem for me. I’m always trying to avoid the danger of bumping into and becoming entangled in these, which happens from time to time, though never in an injurious way. I’m always able to free myself from them and able to rise higher. My primary reason for soaring so high is to gain a better perspective of where I am heading. I sometimes travel long distances, too far for navigating close to the ground, and in such cases, have to rise ten to twenty thousand feet I suspect. At any rate, I’m high enough to see whole cities and mountain ranges at a glance. I’m generally afraid of soaring so high, but it seems necessary. Besides the wires below give me courage to remain well over them, and make my final descent always somewhat fearful. They never fail to crop up just at the right elevation.

Getting back to the dream, we arrived at their relatives home town and visited. I remember being welcomed and getting along favorably with everyone. There were other things that happened there, but I’ve forgotten these.

July 25, 1991

Human beings have a capacity for so-called “inner experience” (memory, dreams, day imagery, feelings, thinking, talking, and so on). Only, depending upon one’s perspective, these inner experiences may also be looked upon as “outer” inasmuch as humans are members or parts of nature like everything else we experience. Yes, and very often our outward behavior gives our inner thoughts, feelings and emotions away–but not always. So when we speak of “inner experience”, we really mean no more than that such experience’s are “ours”, and that they are in this sense “private” experiences, both occurring and contained “within” ourselves.

While all of this may make perfectly good sense to some, others will find it to be confusing at best. They will point to the fact that we are integrally connected to things in the world and that it makes little sense to sever these connections in favor of distinguishing separate entities; that is, “ourselves”. They will say that there is no “inside” or “outside”, “up” or “down”, etc.,–that all such terms are relative to a given perspective which gives these words their respective meanings. Change the perspective and the meaning changes with it. So to their way of looking at it, ours is a particular point of view made possible by a particular perspective–a purely “subjective” point of view representing but one of numerous other possibilities.

We are continually forced to qualify our concepts by means of refinements amounting to a blending or “re-constitution” of the very same notions we abstracted in the first place! And so Jung at first gives us two attitudes (Extroversion and Introversion) which turn out to be nothing in themselves. They can only be understood in terms of four elementary functions which provide us with a window to understanding them. Although these functions are separate, we need to distinguish between their passive and active characters. Thus we can have active or passive sensations, intuitions, thinking and feeling. What is active is more or less “willed”, “conscious” and thus, a product of our “Ego’s”. What is passive simply “happens to us” and thus hits us from without (the environment) or from within (the unconscious). Unfortunately, we can distinguish variations in introverted or extroverted thinking which force us to make still further distinctions. We now find that there are several kinds of thinking which might be called: “intuitive-thinking”, “sensing-thinking” and “feeling-thinking”. But we already abstracted these concepts in order to gain an understanding of their correlatives in human behavior. Our concepts refuse to hold their ground. The very characteristics we threw out in formulating them, spring back at us now, demanding to be acknowledged. What have we gained? What has taken place?

To my way of thinking, the primary problem and irony surrounding thought and knowledge, is simply our lack of understanding either. How we “learn” and what we “know” defies explanation for some unknown reason. We seem to be in need of a marriage between epistemology and psychology. The problem begins with the most rudimentary attempts to relate personal experiences to others. It gets magnified a thousand times as we invariably become more and more entangled in the very abstractions and accumulation of facts sought to resolve the original difficulty. The irony, of course, is simply that we credit ourselves for all of this; credit ourselves for having “created” and “amassed” a knowledge which we seem only able to comprehend in a rudimentary way. It is a “partial” or “limited” knowledge at best and we don’t bother to question why this is so. Instead, we acknowledge our limitations and contradictions and resign ourselves to the fact that we must make do with what we are given. But we hang on to the illusion! We hang on to the belief that at least some of us are in “control” and that there no shame in giving them the reins. And so we cope.

Perhaps we need a modern-day Machiavellian who will dare speak the truth. In the final pages of their book “Human Behavior” (Harcourt, 1967), Bernard Berelson and Gary A. Steiner offer this summary view of humanity.

The Image of Man

… How might we characterize the man of the behavioral sciences? As we have seen, he is a creature far removed from his animal origins even in such instinctual matters as sexual or maternal behavior; a creature of enormous plasticity, able to live in a wide range of physical environments and an even wider range of cultural or social ones; a creature who simplifies reality in order to cope with it effectively; a creature subject to a variety of complex “forces” from the outside and the inside, such that almost nothing is caused by any other single thing; a creature who is subject to the probabilities of influence; to whom everything he is familiar with seems natural, and most other things unnatural; a creature who can adapt to a variety of experiences if given time and social support.

He is extremely good at adaptive behavior–at doing or learning to do things that increase his chances or survival or satisfaction. He is also, it must be stressed, extremely good at adapting his attitudes and expectations and perceptions to what external reality demands of him.

When he cannot achieve “realistic” satisfaction, he tends to modify what he sees to be the case, what he thinks he wants, what he thinks others want. For example, again as we have seen, he tends to remember what fits his needs and expectations; he not only works for what he wants but wants what he has to work for; he sees and hears not simply what is there but what he prefers to see and hear; he will misinterpret when correct interpretation is too painful; he seeks out congenial groups in order to be comfortable about his actions and his opinions; he is skilled in engaging in private fantasies and “defense mechanisms” in order to lighten the human load; he tends to believe that the people around him agree with him more fully than in fact they do. Animals adjust to their environment more or less on its terms; man maneuvers his world to suit himself, within far broader limits.

The point is that nearly all of these findings, all except a few that deal with near-physiological aspects of behavior, put the individual in direct touch with other people–not only for facts and beliefs about the actual nature of the world, but also for what he has learned to want, to value, to consider right and good, to worship. Again, as examples, support from the small group around one is often more important than the larger issues involved; in political affairs one votes with one’s friends as well as for the candidate; from religion to etiquette, what one’s peers agree is right is typically seen as indeed right; even a person’s perception of himself rests on how he is regarded by others.

So behavioral science man is social man–social product, social producer, and social seeker–to a greater degree than philosophical man or religious man or political man or economic man or psychoanalytic man, or the man of common observation and common sense, for that matter. The prime motivating agents stressed in the traditional images of man have been reason or faith or self-interest or impulse. The behavioral science image stress the social definition of all of these. In these pages, the individual appears less “on his own,” less as a creature of the natural environment, more as a creature making others and made by others…

July 26, 1991

BEGAN AS SUMMARY CLIENT ASSESSMENT, BUT I WAS DIVERTED FROM THE OUTSET BY GOING INTO SUBJECT-MATTER I ORDINARILY WOULD NOT SHARE.

It’s difficult to sum-up a person’s general characteristics, let alone how these relate to one’s life at the moment. There will always be correlations overlooked which could have proved more significant had they been noted in the first place. Nonetheless, it is possible to both describe and relate general characteristics to your life, so long as you don’t regard these as certain or final. Always understand that these are conceptual undertakings and, as such, I suspect that we are more led by them than in control. But this is the way of knowledge that has been given us and even “conceptual entanglements” probably have their role to play. Only my inclinations tell me that if we get to the point of entanglement or gross confusion, it is probably because we have hung on to the concept for too long a period; made too much of it, or simply stretched it beyond its original purpose or inherent capability from a structural point of view.

Concepts result from abstractions and are also its victims. In our eagerness to apply our new found “insights”, we attempt to apply them universally to anything and everything we can get our hands on. We recognize the explanatory power contained in them (because their immediate application comes simultaneously with the awareness of meaning) and from that time forward, we begin to envision more and more “uses” which can be made of them. Everywhere we look, we see circumstances which our concepts can serve. Only the more we apply them, the more we see that there are other factors which are being overlooked. As a result of this, we are then forced to further modify or “refine” our concepts in order to take such characteristics into consideration. But this amounts to “stretching” them beyond their original scope, and “scope” is a key factor here.

This is the way all knowledge progresses and you can see it at work in the minds of all thinkers, both great and small. a “relationship” that, if noted They gain an originally brilliant insight–“evolution”, “relativity”, “unconscious”, etc.–begin to apply it in differing contexts to immediately to stretch their originally brilliant insight in order to fit existing circumstances and, after a time, succeed only in diluting their original meanings with the meanings of other concepts related to them. They dissolve, in other words, so that there is no longer any real distinction between the one and the other unless one backtracks to the original, most polarized and rigid meaning. In such a way, our original notions finally become more a nuisance than benefit. But rather than question how it is we got to this point, we seem content to remain stalemated. Our “refinements” have dissolved into one another and we await a new conceptual beginning…

FURTHER DIVERSION
Consciousness is awareness of immediate things; moods, surface memories, things to do, etc. One carries old things as well as new. Not everything is suppressed in the unconscious. One might carry old memories on a daily basis, “living in the past”. Some live “in the present” and some “in the future”. All three live in us at once although in varying proportions according to ????

What determines where we are; what compels us; what interests us;

What is “WHAT”?

“WHAT” is an abstraction. It recognizes that there are “ANSWERS”

It presupposes that there is …

RELATIONSHIPS PRESUPPOSES DUALISM
Misleading. Instead of supposing a one-to-one relationship between things and ourselves, awareness may be grounded in a “three-way” relationship between one thing in relation to another thing in relation to ourselves; that in order to establish a relationship between ourselves and a thing, there must be the presence of another thing by which to distinguish it.

ONE MUST KNOW THE WHOLE OF NATURE BEFORE WE CAN KNOW A PART
No. Judgment is discernment or abstraction born out of relations. We are forced into relationships by existing circumstances which are presented to us by nature. To know is already to have judged. Judgment is discernment.

MEANING DERIVES FROM RELATIONS
Relationships build into complex wholes
An ear or eye alone is meaningless, out of context
Minerals without life?
Concepts are an “awareness of the significance” of relationships existing between things [image of triangle appears]
Can one have an awareness of relationships existing between things w/out first having an awareness of relationships between things and oneself?
[remembrance of a dream I had several days ago–what appeared to be a “primordial image” of “putting a dead man inside an animal”]
There must be a three-way significance that ties in with the delusionary quality of my image; that is, men tricking the animal into believing itself pregnant in order to get more milk from it.
Putting a dead body into the place of a fetus…
Attribute a relationship to nature which fools nature?
Nature puts a relationship into us which fools us!
Who does the animal represent? Ourselves? Are we being fooled or laughed at by whom?
Who is getting what they want from us by misleading us?
The animal is aware of the presence of a baby within it.
Or the animal is not aware of its presence. It simply acts as though it were pregnant.
The men responsible may be relishing the fact that they were able to manipulate a situation to their advantage.
In my dream, the animal appeared oblivious to what was going on and seemingly no worse for the wear.

The image of the “triangle” came to me when I was considering how an “awareness of a relation” results, and the “primordial” image appeared when I considered whether or not we could have such an “awareness between things” without first having an “awareness between things and ourselves”. I need to anchor myself here.

I need to place both images into a third perspective somehow.

The animal may or may not be: a) “aware” of the object inside it, b) aware that the object is a dead man, c) aware that the object is one of its own offspring, or d) aware of the fact that it is giving more milk than usual.

The gentlemen are aware of the nature of the object inside the animal, the effects it is having upon the animal, and the fact that they are responsible for it. They are not, however, in a position to know how the animal perceives the situation.

So who are they laughing at? The animal or nature?
If the animal, then they must think it has been “fooled”.
If nature, then they must be relishing their power over it, at least in this respect.

The animal needn’t be aware of anything whatever, but it seems right to suppose that it is “falsely” aware of its own off-spring inside it.

The perpetrators are definitely aware of the body, the relationship the body has to the animal, and the results of this relationship.

They used their “prior” knowledge of the relationship existing between pregnancy and the production of milk to their advantage. They fooled the body into thinking itself pregnant at all, or else pregnant with its natural off-spring. It seems right to assume that this was not a “real” pregnancy but, perhaps, merely a good usage for what would have been wasted under normal circumstances.

IT ALSO SEEMS LIKELY THAT I’M GETTING NOWHERE WITH THIS THINKING; THAT I AM, PERHAPS, “REFINING” ALL SENSE OUT OF THE ORIGINAL NOTIONS OR “SIMPLE IMAGES”. WHY CAN’T I GRASP A “SIMPLE SIGNIFICANCE” IF IT BE SO?

July 27, 1991
Thoughts on a previous dream 7/22/91

Could it be that the unconscious is represented by the laughing Italians and we, the innocuous animal? That the unconscious is able to work its own purposes through us while we remain totally oblivious to it all? That it is able to make good use of death by passing it along in this way? That compared to it, we are like dumb animals that can be easily fooled? That the laugh is on us (i.e., our “conscious” selves–ego’s) for believing as we do that it is “we” who are in control–“we” who are the “suppressor” of all that we don’t wish to acknowledge?

Why reveal this to me? In my dream, there was absolutely no reluctance on the part of the two men to withhold what they had done. On the contrary, they were delighted to show us what they had accomplished [Image of my father and myself in same relationship].

Does this extend to me personally? Was my dream a reflection of my relationship to my father, or is my unconscious trying to relate the model to other contexts? Is it trying to educate me? Direct me to an appropriate awareness of what is taking place?

It is true that my father delights in such situations, and as such, he would certainly be represented by the laughing Italians. He delights in fooling children as well as adults. But how does this relate to me? Because he has always “set-up” and competed with all of his children in this manner? Is my unconscious trying to warn me that he may be in the process of “setting up” his last final “hurrah” (he’s almost 90) in this vein, so even after death, he will have a last laugh? Who cares! I don’t. Anyway, my father only “half-delighted” in mocking his own children–there was always a certain solemnity in him as though he wished we were able to turn the tables on him–and so I doubt that he would do this, though I wouldn’t doubt his temptation. But thank you for the warning, if that’s what it is, I sincerely appreciate it!

So what are you trying to reveal to me? [No, I’m not crazy. It’s simply easier and perhaps more accurate to “personify” my unconscious in this way since it does in fact seem to have a personality and program of its own]. Are you friend or foe? Are you here to assist me or “mislead” me?

In my heart of hearts, I have always believed in a unity of purpose guiding us all; a benevolent source of meaning which seeks to credit rather than discredit us. I suspect that cruelty, humiliation and demoralization exist as a means to achieving their opposites; that we grow by overcoming them in the Nietzchian sense. Struggle is food. Out of despondency grows strength, etc.

Why should suffering be used as a means to achieving its opposite? Put in this way, it seems negative and leaves the impression that it could have been otherwise. If we re-phrase the question to asking: Why has the world been set-up to evolve through oppositional means? or Why must we experience `pain’ and `no pain’ (on and off) before we can appreciate the difference?, we begin to see that such questions are nonsensical–that we can’t even pose such questions as these in an intelligible fashion. Instead, we are forced to acknowledge a “system” which undoubtedly works, and which we must, upon reflection, acknowledge that we cannot conceive of any other to replace it. In this way, we reveal an abstracted “state of consciousness” which grips us, and which is given the illusion of life only because it is able to disregard half of its meaning. If we piece the whole picture back together, it will reveal the impossibility of the abstraction existing on its own–though not the illusion. And because we are given to the same, we must suppose that all such illusions, ignorance, partiality or prejudices on our parts, all have role to play in this great unfolding.

Is this what my unconscious is trying to graphically represent for me. Are my ideas in this regard the result of both a conscious and unconscious effort working together? Is consciousness only aware of itself while unconsciousness is aware of the workings of both? Or are both unaware of one another which forces us to bring up a third unifying mechanism?

Even as I write these words, I “sense” that there is a significance to them which is not fully grasped by me. Is it the power of language? The power of words and sentence formations which sweeps us along a rate faster than our own ability to comprehend what we are writing? Is this an illusory quality of language? Or is this an evidence that we are aware of only a part of what is motivating us? I think it prudent to consider that both possibilities are real.

July 30, 1991

Our reluctance to accept personal responsibility for righting social ills is disheartening, to say the least. Rather than face a truth which is blatantly apparent to each of us, we choose, instead, to submerge ourselves into a comforting kind of delusion, a delusion which is taking its toll.

I watched a news segment this past Sunday purporting to deal with the subject of “media violence” and its effects upon society. As usual, the same all-to-familiar conclusions resulted: that media can influence our value system, can encourage violence (by providing means for both committing and avoiding such acts), and that something needs to be done about it–not merely in the media, mind you, but within the family unit, school, and any other social unit of an educational nature. Yes, you may have already guessed what this comes down to: “Our energies must be directed toward the `proper’ education of youth–for they are our future!” And to this I say: “Bull!”

Pardon my language, but this approach is no approach, and it incenses me when I consider that you and I both know it! If we had the courage to admit it, most of us (and I include myself) are either cowards in fact, or else act as cowards whenever we attempt to place our yoke of individual and social responsibility around the necks of our children. This is not merely belittling, it’s downright disgusting!

If we were on a battlefield fighting an enemy possessing advanced weaponry, a better strategy, or simply had a stronger willingness (or freedom) to fight the battle on its own terms, and we were taking a beating as a result of it,–would it be more prudent for us to acknowledge our situation and do something about it, then and there?, or should we suffer the situation (that is, continue to bleed) all the while we discuss how a similar situation “might be” averted by a future generation?

This latter course seems preposterous when viewed in this way, and yet, what most of us are given to doing is even more preposterous. Not only are we reluctant to fight–we’re reluctant to acknowledge the battle! Instead, we reach out for the safety and comfort of a delusion which our “collective mentality” is only too happy to provide. Yes, under its guise, and in the name of “objectivity”, we have the means at our disposal for placating fear, buttressing hope, and when all else fails, for saving face!

The problem is that we have heard all the “answers”, and they all seem to be “objectively” reasonable; so much so, that every counterpart to every argument and idea inevitably leads to a stalemate–stopping us in our tracks. Out of sheer frustration (due to ignorance of our situation) we grope for illusionary solutions which may serve to pacify us for the moment. The “rebirth” notion (looking to youth as a means of escaping the deadlock of our confusion) is just such a solution.

“We must make the world a better place for our children!”–“They must not repeat our mistakes!”–“Better teaching and better quality education is what is needed!”–“More education, more hours, more days!”–“More science, less liberal arts!”–“Strengthen the family unit, the economy, social and political structures!”–“Return to basic values!”… and on and on, ad nauseam! Again, I say “bunk” to most of this–not because such solutions lack merit, but because they lack an appropriate (or complete sense of) direction and context. At bottom, they represent pitiable, hopeful clinging to the illusion that the present can be restructured by the future. I understand that current thinking would call it a “restructuring of the future by means of the present”, but this sort of thinking is half-baked. This is not intended to be derogatory, but a literal statement of fact. You see, we are all very much accustomed to dealing with “half perspectives”. Indeed, it may be the real, untold story of civilization. In any case, half a perspective can only reach a semblance of meaning–only “half answers” which by now, should be only too apparent.

Don’t we wonder why it is that problems and ideas tend toward polarization;–again, why they tend to have equally tenable (equally “objective”) counterparts? Think of all the examples that can be cited: “Free choice–Pro Life”, “Communism–Capitalism”, “Supply Side Economics–Demand Side”, or any number of “Yes-No” type conflicts dealing with a death penalty, euthanasia, free will, God, busing, and a whole host of other “conceptual issues” abstracted to the point of opposition. You would have thought that we would have questioned why thinking proceeds in this manner and tried to deal with the problem from this perspective. But no, our preference has been to avoid the issue altogether.

You may have surmised by now that there’s something larger at stake than the “mere” resolution of problems. There is. It goes by any number of names including: personal freedom, personal psychology or individuation; peace, harmony and love; balance of nature and survival. Above all should go the name of “relationship”, what must begin and end with ourselves. But then, herein lies the crux of the problem. We are so accustomed to pretense that we are able to forsake our “subjective reality” for the illusion of an “objective reality” (for many, the “only” reality), that we choose, in effect, to abstract “ourselves” from the picture–out of life, if you will!

We must come to the realization that society’s fight (“our” fight) is, at bottom, a “personal battle” which must be fought within the hearts and minds of each one of us. There are no purely “objective” hiding places where we can dispose of problems or deposit wishful and imaginary “contents” and “solutions”; no media, no home, no school nor youthful mind to relieve us of this burden. No, our children will continue to emulate what is here to emulate–and what is here to emulate will continue to be the direct result of our own attitudes and behavior! If they seem unable to grasp our full intentions–unable to achieve our fullest expectations–perhaps it is because we have short-handed them by giving them only a “half-reality”. At any rate, we should be thankful that their “failures” are not illusory, otherwise, we would be without an “objective” means for assessing our own. And above all, we must come to look upon the practice of expecting our “children” to succeed where we “adults” have failed, not only as misguided–despicable as well!

The sad part of all this is that most of us will continue to avoid the burden of personal responsibility, (of “freedom” if you choose), even while life continues to smack us on the head, forcing us to heed its own reality through suffered consequences. Yes, even though it continues to beg us not to forsake “our knowing” for the illusions of a “collective mentality” claiming to know what is best for us, many will continue down this path. But if some of us can manage to strengthen our courage and regain our sense of “two parts” to the equation of life, we will have learned to avoid those “liberating influences” deluding us into believing that we can shed burden and responsibility by ignoring ourselves. Life all but cries out to us to correct this inequity; to balance the ticket by reestablishing a long-lost equilibrium which has been all too hazardous to our health. Above all, it dares us to face the inevitable truth about ourselves–that we are all “out on a limb”, ignorant of how we got here, and too ashamed or cowardly to admit it. But, then, maybe there’s no one left to admit it to.

August 4, 1991

The world is as confusing as we, and yet we look to the world rather than to ourselves for answers. [Letting myself go so in order to write whatever seems to come into consciousness (word by word) no matter how nonsensical they may appear]

…As though it were possible to acknowledge any precept obliging the eradication of perennial problems. As though it were an unseemly point to know whatever is necessary in the span of time.

Outer world confusion
Inner world illusion
Consciousness is not a goal
Nor a seemly source to soul

Who can say what, if the treasures surrounding us were as difficult as we might imagine them to be? Who can remake progress? Who can annunciate the development of acknowledgement? Wherefore art the lambs of God speaking to brethren from aghast the fields of demagoguery? Mammon said “Whosoever bleats the lamb strikes the Lord, but whosoever strikes the Lord renounceth all.” And I say that this is trash!

Unsure as to whether this last sentence is my own conscious reaction to what I am doing or an extension of this activity I’m engaged in which might be akin to passive day-dreaming. It kind of woke me up. I feel somewhat silly doing this no matter how open I am to such possibilities that the unconscious can be allowed into consciousness if willed. Some of the above sounds pretty good–meaning that I can “make sense out of it”, but this is the point! Am “I” making sense of it? Some of it appears ridiculous grammatically speaking (“aghast the fields of demagoguery” or “bleats the lamb” and one wonders if letting go in this way is no more than to allow the sway of patterns of language to take hold without structured, conscious thought. Nevertheless, I’m going to give it another try.

Unsure of myself. Given over to illusion, no conclusion, rhymes galore, to the floor, wavy Davie, sedentary rock, a kind of mockery, a kind of clockery. “Wherefore art you now Raymond, lost I presume? Let this not shock you, but I am mammon. I am good for you, a devil no, whatever I do, a devil no; livestock displayed this tale to me:

A long time ago I came upon a child wrapped in swaddling clothes. Do you recognize who I mean? Flowers bent the breeze and camels talked whereof cameth this child. I of course knew naught for I am only mammon, the sweet tongue of the Lord. Over against the darkness, I shone bright but the glow blinded the ignorant and the swayed. Only He knew me as I was and He did not know me. I loved the child Jesus, and sought his grace. He sought me not and I could not not see his face. Long years have passed and I have flowered in the groves of every heart, my sorrow relinquished not his cries in Babylon. His cries still haunt me yet and I bring this to you knowing that I cannot compete with his hold. But know me too inasmuch as you are right to grow as you seek. Know me too so that I can complete myself and you and all brethren who are far afield. Understand me so that I can progress as you. Know my sorrow and my toil so that you can withstand your own suffrage, me to you and all mankind, women notwithstanding his grace and mine and holy shrines beckoned to the light of yesteryear. Goodbye.

Well, this appears to be getting better. I simply typed whatever came to mind without forethought, and excepting most of the first paragraph and a few phrases here and there, once again, I can make sense of most of it. “Mammon” a good sort of devil, “sweet tongue of the lord”? relaying a story told by “livestock”! Could this have anything to do with my so-called “primordial dream” of last week? I like its poetic nature (“flowers bent the breeze” (things turned around–reversed?), “I have flowered in the groves of every heart” (reference to being hidden?), although it seems a little out of character for me and certainly archaic. I can’t help but wonder if there’s any historical references to any of this as Jung seemed to think; especially to the “cries in Babylon”. I know that God destroyed the city, presumably because of lustful sin and all that, but what can Mammon mean by saying that his sorrow “could not relinquish God’s cries in Babylon”? Prevent His wrath? Why would Mammon feel sorrow? Last sentence beginning with “women notwithstanding…” seems unclear to me but I kind of like most of what is being said even if some things are puzzling.

I’ve always felt that God was guiding me even without a conception of Him. And I always felt that what was hidden within me was not ugly but contained a guiding element in itself; that everything affecting me was not without a purpose. So this notion of a “misunderstood” or denied “devil” within, does not shock me in the least. I am disturbed by the fact that he makes Jesus and God appear to have been great and worthy of love, but who at the same time, seemed to lack a complete understanding of things, or were capable of unfair treatment. Perhaps “sweet tongue of the lord” means that the sweetness of God’s word is made at the expense of condemning Mammon; that blaming Mammon for the ills of the world is what allows God to be great and good. “Over against the darkness, I shone bright but the glow blinded the ignorant and the swayed”. Does this mean that Mammon wasn’t always considered bad? That he was once seen in a good light but this goodness blinded ignorant as well as the swayed? “Swayed” to what?

This is all pretty heady stuff and I almost am inclined to erase it. What would others think of someone who thinks he might be receiving information from his unconscious? And look at the information! As a kid, I use to think that I was being conditioned by God to fight and win over the devil. Actually that feeling never left me since I am always expecting and imagining the worse as a sort of desensitizing or conditioning experience hardening me for any eventuality. But, on the other side, the devil has come to mean a part of human nature which lives within us all and which seemingly can be denied. And most of us have become quite expert at denying what we don’t wish to acknowledge, although we are at a loss to gauge the price we have paid for doing so. We would rather grasp onto illusion or safety in which neutrality and ignorance can provide; a comfort in knowing that we are not unlike our brethren, and that whatever happens to us, will therefore not be unlike our brethren. Shared ignorance or fear, like actions and beliefs, reduce the agony of not knowing.

But why must we talk in archaic terms? Is it because these are archaic fears passed along in the Jungian sense of there being a “collective unconscious” working through us? Well, can’t we assume its validity, examine it more closely (via the door of the auxiliary function as Jung suggests) and continue step by step to the inferior ones as well? Can’t we catch up to ourselves so that we no longer need to speak in archaic terms? I suspect that this is so; that the extent of such forms most probably approximates the development of consciousness; that such development (like the functions) precluded an awareness of the split. Analogous to the duality of the brain, I suspect, and the reason for one side of our personalities being millennia ahead of the other. Nature may be wanting to balance the ticket now by allowing the other side a freedom to grow. But does this mean that we are going to relinquish control to the other side, or that we are going to allow it to merge with our modern side; perhaps, in so doing, the overall process allows for an evolutionary leap.

August 13, 1991

When I was in my teens, I remember having a dream of a previous dream I had experienced earlier. Because of the similarity existing between the two dreams, and the fact that I was `conscious’ or able to `recognize’ that I was in fact dreaming, I was able to manipulate this second dream, thus avoiding a negative part of it. In the first dream, I had to walk home in the dark from my downtown location, etc. In the second dream, I recognized I was dreaming and simply chose to fall asleep on the steps of the Village Post Office knowing that I would awake from this dream in my bed.

This suggests that we are conscious of dreaming while we are dreaming and that it is possible (under certain circumstances) to consciously manipulate (join in) our dreams, thus, in effect, joining consciousness to the unconscious. If a means for developing this ability could be found, it would prove to be an excellent door-opener to the unconscious as well as to the process of synthesis or individuation.

Does this relate to my so-called “primordial” dream and its accompanying imagery of “triangularity” whenever I reflect upon it? I am so accustomed to thinking in terms of “dualism” or “polarity” that I find it difficult to see the significance of “triangularity” in nature. And yet, I speak of the relationship between “self” and “world” as a threesome. The “relationship” itself constitutes the third part. And it would also seem that in order to “apprehend” or become “aware” of a relationship existing between `two things’ or between `one thing’ and `ourselves’, one must perceive a connection (that is, a relationship) between the other two legs of the triangle… OR ELSE, the whole thing comes about (can only come about) when all three are perceived simultaneously! This later notion would give us “three objects” and “three relationships” making up a single perception. We should stop to consider what elements are present when we have an awareness in order to see if there are in fact three or six elements to consider. We might try abstracting one or another of these out of the picture, and then consider whether we could have come to the perception without it.

August 14, 1991

I seem to be a “J” (judging type) in dealing with the outside world, always coming to closure, wanting to fit things neatly in place, within a theory or perspective which I quickly formulate. New information is assimilated as it comes and sometimes I am forced to alter my theory or perspective. But at any given time, I seem to have an opinion, even if open-ended and surrounded by other possibilities I’ve intuited along the way. These may get in the way of closure but they too are quickly assimilated into avenues of possibilities each of which represents a closure in itself. But is this really “thinking judgment” or a misrepresentation of “intuition” at work?

Inside, when introverting, I am more prone to allowing my intuitions to lead me without coming to closure. This does not mean that I am not striving for closure, I am; but here, my “feeling judgment” seems to lead over “thinking” and the result is a forestalling of closure. Thinking takes a back seat to feeling in introversion. Or “thinking” was never really in use! If this is true, then my desire to come to closure in introversion is the result of my feeling judgment and whether or not this is stronger than intuition becomes the real question.

If I had to go by gut feeling, I would say that my “feeling judgment” takes a back seat to “intuitive perception” and that, perhaps, my difficulty with coming to closure is due to a reliance upon “thinking” rather than feeling. If thinking is an inferior function and feeling is underdeveloped, then I am bound to have difficulty in this regard. I may have spent a lifetime developing the wrong function–beyond that of my natural best or auxiliary function!

[Just received an intuition regarding the possibility that we may all be living on illusions; that this is our fate; that it can’t be anything other than this since “we need always to anchor ourselves upon something before we can know–but can’t know that anchor beforehand!” We must begin with uncertainties in order to gain certainties. We must begin with uncertain premises in order to get to certainty, but the certainty derived can never exceed the certainty of the premises.]

The above “intuition” seems to have begun as an intuition but took on the character of “thinking” as I expounded it. Is this thinking or a series of intuitions? What was grasped (the intuition) was a `picture’ or `feeling’ which spring-boarded from the last thought I had. I suspect that…

Prior Thinking

But why did the Myers-Briggs show me to be clearly on the “thinking” side? Because I showed my thinking “preference”? Did I confuse preferences for actual behavior? Can one’s feelings (natural or unnatural preferences) cloud one’s response? I believe so. This would appear to be a major difficulty or flaw of assessments in general! When taking an assessment, might we not be in the grip of a true preference, falsified preference, strongest function, or weakest function (an unconscious motivation) for that matter?

August 19, 1991

Psychology needs to be open to all of us. Problems cannot be isolated within a psychological specialty nor handled by a specific perspective. Must be looked at from present moment and all that this entails.

We are living in an impersonal world. Human element is all but ignored. Automation, computer, answering services, etc. allow us to hide behind machines and systems.

Our needs are multi-faceted and multi-leveled. Personal, social, physical, psychological, educational, spiritual, etc.

We are diverted from addressing these–knowing these, by those demanding our attention. Diversions lead to confusion, delusion, and leave large gaps in our understanding. Causes fractures in ourselves (disunity) which then leads us to cling to the “collective mentality”–go with the flow.

Major problem is difference between what we believe of ourselves and others–values and realistic approaches of each. Living in a real democracy? Society must be formed from the individual up and not from the top down. Our faith in our leaders is misfounded–based on naivete and apathy, off equilibrium, out on a limb, unchallengeable…

Russia tried to create society from an idea and this led to corruption. Capitalism created a society by ideas as well, allowing maximum freedom to individuals which also has led to corruption. Whether controllers are official or unofficial does not change the situation.

Management of society depends upon the individual always, be they alone or working through groups. Individuals lead and control others through illusion, delusion, values, fear, intimidation, common interests and goals, etc.

The individual has become an expendable, impersonal entity to be used when needed and discarded when not. The individual has become a burden.

We look at what is common in ourselves and ignore what may be unique. MBTI is only a first step in reversing this process. Jungian psychology underlying it is the important second step.

BUT, are “commonality” and “individuality” really opposed?

To make distinctions through abstraction is to provide a means to commonality. To distinguish differences is to distinguish commonality… the same outcome in either case, though going in two different directions.

We can use such refinements to escape confusion through an identification with smaller groups of like-minded individuals OR we can use such information to understand and better accept those differences we find in others. Differences between promoting a more “fractured” or more “synthesized” society.

Breakthrough will be the Jungian model of “Individuation”. A person is “complete” when he can allow all sides of his nature to exist, even while he retains certain preferences. WE MUST NOT TRY TO ESCAPE DIFFERENCES, WE SHOULD EMBRACE THEM… “Love thy enemy”

TOLERATION: Is a tolerant society good or bad? Depends upon what is being tolerated. Are we attempting to create better individuals and or a better society by our actions or is it all out of our control? To tolerate evil is to ignore it–this would be wrong! Toleration is to acknowledge and want to understand. It is to permit and allow behavior which, although different, can be seen to be appropriate to one’s nature. So long as it is not dangerous to others, it can and should be tolerated. What is important is that it develop from its own frame of reference, its own starting point.

What is evil? What is dangerous? Different? Deviant? What is the psychology of the psychotic? Serial killer? Tyrant? Benevolent? Martyr? Ignorance, indifference, misapplied tolerance and kindness leads to present wastefulness and future dangers.

Social problems are always individual in the final analysis. What do humans share in common and how are we different? Physical and psychological characteristics… relationship to the world… cultural and personal differences

We must first know what are our strongest personal values–what is right for ourselves. Then we need to know what are our strongest social values–what is right for all of us. Can we shape personality, behavior, values, etc.? Yes. And we can also misshapen and warp them by creating illusionary ideas, etc. which do not connect with ourselves as we are.

We must begin in the PRESENT with CONFESSIONS of what we are or by what is troubling us. Problems are signs of what is wrong and are also undeveloped solutions. We must stop hiding from ourselves–admit and state what it is that is troubling us. EXPRESSION is closest to truth and not the assertion of beliefs and ideas!

Feelings and emotions are the best door-openers to the truth of what ails us. Secrecy fosters manipulation by others through ignorance of ourselves. A dissociating wedge is driven between ourselves and others, perhaps as a means to “dividing and conquering”, thus turning us into automatons while forestalling our search for wholeness.

I can offer you no certainties about yourself nor about myself. I don’t know if I’m in control or being controlled, or whether there is any real sense to such notions at all. Regardless, there is a definite sense to there being a personal unconscious and strong evidence for believing the existence of a “collective unconscious” working through us. Perhaps “it” is the real controller and perhaps “it” has decided that the time is ripe to reveal itself.

I only know that I feel that the answers to my own problems are integrally bound up with yours; and that I cannot proceed without you. Perhaps the social or collective forces are more primary and more powerful than what is contained in our individual or personal conscious. Perhaps we can only “know” beyond this by “referent points”–meaning all of you. Consciousness may be no more than this “triangle” of reference.

I always sought society’s approval and understanding, but could never get close enough to receive it. My ideals created too great a separation. They proved to be stronger than my passions, even while they were never clear to me.

The question becomes for all of us: How do we understand and satisfy our natures and the demands of the world when we are not clear about either?
Dissociation has severed us from one another. We have in effect told one another that we cannot be counted upon for support; that we will not risk at all. This thinking has reached endemic proportions and has fractured society down to the family and individual level. Distrust and fear runs rampant while we tolerate the most gruesome atrocities. Fertile soil for charlatans and those who profit from chaos.

By not facing our own worse side, we foster it. We escape the inner city–it festers–and then we cannot return to it. We tolerate atrocities and then must abandon the streets at night and our parks even by day. No longer is there safety in daylight. It is we who breed hopelessness and despair by abandoning others. And it catches up to us within when we slowly begin to discover that we are abandoning ourselves.

September 30, 1991

PERSONALITY TYPING THROUGH ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS
All assessments begin with a theory compiled through a synthesis of abstracted concepts which themselves represent synthesized abstracted qualities of things.

BUT… we do not understand the genealogy of the same. We may try to take the process apart piece by piece in the hope of unraveling its complicated structure in order to see its simple beginnings, but these prove anything but simple.

Since we can presently distinguish a tree from a stone, or a tree from a shrub or flower, or a maple tree from a locust, etc., and can point to their various “characteristics”, we tend to believe that it must have been these same characteristics that enabled us to make the distinctions in the first place. That the distinctions were in some way already distinguished–the qualities of things already there to be observed. Distinguishing objects is an activity in itself. But we must not suppose that the activity of distinguishing objects gave rise to the `activity of distinguishing objects’! This is to get the cart before the horse and is a major source of our delusions.

All theories and concepts are fluid or in tension due to their arbitrary nature. They are arbitrary in the sense that their creation or “natural” development might have been different, and indeed, they seem to have to fight to remain integral. When we choose from among the characteristics of things in order to make distinctions, define or classify a thing, we creating tension. Everything overlooked springs back upon us as if to punish us or warn us of the arbitrary nature of the enterprise.

How much of this is due to conceptual delusion? To our mistaking the process for what it really is? By overlooking categorical mistakes? Would this explain why evolutionary theory requires an interceding notion of “mutation”; physics–“force” or “wave”; theology–“faith”, etc. Do these requirements (insertions) in every sphere of knowledge point to the “gap” left by conceptual delusion?

INTRODUCTION TO SELF-UNDERSTANDING BY MEANS OF ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS AND UNDERLYING PSYCHOLOGY

I would like to introduce you to a particular assessment instrument currently in vogue (the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator) and to Jungian psychology which underlies it. But rather than begin with these, I thought that it would be much more beneficial if we could paint a landscape or a general perspective which could serve as a basis for understanding.

Many of us are confused or riding on waves of hope, or the lures of others, compelling us to go along with the collective flow of events, or to simply do what we are told. Out of a fear of the unknown and a sense of losing balance due to a rapidly changing world, it is natural to cling tighter to what is most familiar to ourselves; or to get closer to those most like ourselves. We sense that dangers loom ahead, but so long as no one else is panicking, neither will we. We will instead await a new direction, perhaps a new identity, coming from society. We rightly sense that a shifting of values is creating a disequilibrium within us. Some of us feel a compulsion to cling to past values while others feel inclined to suffer this disequilibrium while hopeful that an appropriate readjustment is on the horizon.

Earning money provides us with basic necessities. How we earn a living is not as important as earning it. Toward this end, we will go against our natures for this greater good, or the greater good may alter our natures! For enough money, we may begin to re-integrate our values in a very different way, thus, leaving the door open to instituting the same or fostering the same within the general society at large. We have abundant examples of the advantages to crime, manipulation of people, shrewd business tactics, etc. THIS CAUSES A SHIFT IN VALUES. “Integration” is a key need. No matter how far we stray from home, we must know our relative location at any given time or risk the loss of detachment!

And so the maxim: “the end justifies the means” succeeds in altering or reconstituting the very values which were originally set against it. The “new values” will be appropriate to the actions made in light of them. Whether or not the new value was in place already or came about after the effects of the action, is not so important. It is like asking whether it was an internal change or external temptation that caused the action.

It seems that we are simultaneously compelled from within and without. That each of these concepts is an abstraction from a whole, or single thing. Since we have memory and thus a repository for belief, values, etc., we tend to consider this as our anchor or base–what constitutes our personal identities. Thus, the outside world must integrate with the inside world if we are to remain balanced. Of course, if basic needs (physical needs) are severely threatened, then it makes little sense to speak of one or the other compelling us. We are compelled from both directions to satisfy them. Values, identity, etc. do not even enter the picture. We are at one with nature.

So we have levels to action; Instinct (non-conscious, autonomous) level, Personal Consciousness (awareness at a given moment and potential for new elements coming into awareness), Personal Unconscious (containing elements which are not withheld from consciousness and elements that are), and a Collective Unconscious which seems to be a deeper layer yet. But keep in mind that these are all abstractions, pulled from a whole, and no doubt forced!

THE POINT IS THAT THERE ARE CONTENTS WITHIN AND WITHOUT US THAT AFFECT US. TO UNDERSTAND THEIR DYNAMICS IS TO UNDERSTAND OURSELVES!

NOTION OF FORCING ABSTRACTIONS & RESULTING REVERSE OR COMPENSATING PULL IN OTHER DIRECTION.

But do these abstracted concepts really point to “definable something”? And are the dynamics existing between them real or created by the abstracting activity? Is the “force” one and the same? We choose certain characteristics and ignore others. Those ignored come back on us when we seek to apply our concepts in the world. This is because the world is whole or else looked upon through other conceptual glasses which may conflict with those we are wearing. Are the “dynamics” owing to a conflict between concepts or a conflict between concepts and the non-conceptual world?

Is it even possible for us to view the world without the aid or interference of concepts? Logic compels us to either consider this an actual fact or else potentially possible because we are forced to assume that the same process underlies all levels of abstraction. We had to abstract colors, shapes, etc. and must suppose it possible that the non-abstracted world will force itself back upon us in the same way. And it does. The non-abstracted world enters the picture when we are in danger of our lives, for example. Sometimes, the force of beliefs proves stronger than the force of nature compelling us in a different direction. We don’t always revert back to instinctive behavior.

Jung tells us that we have had to win our place in this world–win consciousness–win the strength to overcome ourselves. It has been costly and very messy. The further removed we are from our basic natures, the stronger the compensating force compelling us back. It is like a stretched rubber band, and we might wonder if the rubber band is fixed or alterable. Since we are evolving, it would seem that it is not fixed, but only relative to this time and place. There may be “conceptual” breakthroughs which may give a surge to our direction, or provide a “peace” through integration.

This is what Jungian psychology tries to come to grips with. It attempts to describe the nature of the conflict by means of concepts. It then abstracts a theory from the concepts thus forcing another conflict of a kind. Those concepts ignored will come back to haunt us. The theory is a theory of personality; that is, an attempt to define what are the essential constituents of personality. Others may disagree with his choices, and none of us should consider these correct or permanent as Jung himself did not make any such claim and always welcomed criticism.

September 2, 1991
Seminar

I want to invite you to an informal discussion related to the subject of personal assessments and self-understanding. I have two main motives for doing so. First, I want to discover what common threads exist among a random group in this regard; namely, what problems stand in the way of furthering self knowledge, or knowledge in general for that matter. Second, I wish to explore (with you) a potential means to overcoming such problems by a process resting somewhere between ordinary knowledge of human behavior and certain philosophical and psychological perspectives developed out of the same. Since I am neither counselor nor psychologist, a proper explanation is in order.

As a former resume client, you may have already undergone a personal assessment or occupationally-oriented interview process which may have seemed more “therapeutic” than informational. This is because occupations are personal and can potentially affect every facet of life. Thus, an occupation, or lack of an occupation, can prove to be a cause, a content, or a solution to a whole host of personal problems, be they mild or severe. Look in the Rochester Yellow Pages and note the number of psychologists who are currently advertising “career counseling” services. Why do you suppose? The simple fact is that psychology cannot separate human behavior from human behavior–or “psychological concerns” from everyday life. Unfortunately, there is a price which the professional must pay for `trailing’ personal problems into the ordinary sphere. They risk getting caught up in the very confusion they are trying to sort. Like the lay person attempting to trail personal problems into the “abnormal” arena, the professional’s position is weakened as it becomes further and further removed from his or her area of specialization.

The fact is, neither the lay person nor the professional counselor or therapist needs to continue in this vein. There is an appropriate middle ground, and it needs to be addressed now more than ever. It is that area of human behavior, emotions and ordinary knowledge which most of us have willingly or inadvertently given over to psychology. Understandably, there are those among us who would prefer to remain in the dark about themselves, not really wanting to know the “lurid” details of those “hidden and quirky things contained in the mind”. Neither are we all that willing to deal with the confusing aspects of personality. No, we have been frightened by such “ghosts”, and most of us perhaps believe that we are better off containing them and buying protection as needed. In such a way, the “mental world” (feelings and emotions) have been relegated to an inferior position, all but ignored throughout youth and education. But while we can ignore effects, we cannot repress them–nor can we drive them from our lives. Try as we might, they remain only too apparent. They spring back on us (oftentimes with a vengeance), causing undue suffering and seemingly unbelievable stress. What should be done?

To my way of thinking, professional psychologists, counselors and teachers, must first admit that the field of ordinary everyday problems, from upsetting emotions to and including mild forms of neuroses, are all an integral part of ordinary life. It is for this reason that they are in so many ways outside the professional’s capabilities for effectively handling them. The field is simply too broad, too interconnected, and too non-specific for the trained specialist–too many variables for any one mind and person to grasp and act upon. [Teachers become entrapped] But the field is and ought to be within the proper domain of ordinary people and ordinary knowledge, and, thus, within the individual’s own capability for understanding his or her own situation. Again, this does not mean that trained professionals cannot be of assistance in this area, only that they will be on very loose ground unless all the rest of us have first gained a general familiarity with the principles of psychology from the emotional rather than rational side. Only then will we be able to relate facts and information about ourselves in a relevant way. In short, we will be able to do for professionals what they cannot do for themselves given the circumstances they find themselves to be in. On the other side of the coin, it will become much easier for us to understand and admit to our problems being beyond our own capability for understanding. Knowledge always carries with it an appreciation of what is not known. With greater capability and confidence on both sides, we will all have taken a major stride toward better health and emotional well-being.

Over the past six years, I’ve assisted approximately 1,000 clients who, like yourself, were initially in need of a resume or some other form of occupational service. Some were unemployed, some “about to be unemployed”. Some were undergoing difficulty in their current jobs, and some were simply in need of a change. I discovered that many were in careers not of their own choosing and, as a result, were simply “going with the flow”, or doing what “Dad or Mom or Teacher or Guidance Counselor or Society considered appropriate at the time. It became more and more apparent to me that there was a great deal more at issue here than the mere construction of a resume.

Early on I had thought of incorporating assessment instruments into my business but never got around to doing it. Not just because I’m a procrastinator, which I am, but because I really didn’t place much faith in them as valid instruments. My philosophical instincts or general familiarity with “concepts” forced me to treat them with suspicion even while I began to make use of them and continued to learn more and more about them. Today, I still regard them with caution, though not suspicion. I feel that I understand their relative usefulness as well as limitations, and I believe that I am able to get maximum benefit out of them because of this, and also because their results are always interpreted within a one-on-one consultation. Thus, even though all such instruments remain “circular” and “arbitrary” devices revealing no more than what they already contain, they can nonetheless prove to be useful starting points, especially when they are compared and contrasted with other instruments and analyzed from two perspectives–yours and my own …

PROBLEM: People have wrong or misplaced knowledge about themselves and world leading to negative consequences when failing to successfully adapt.

RESULTS: DISEQUILIBRIUM: Society shifting… shifting values… identity loss. Balance, Integration, Values, Sense.

NEED: To understand human beings as a part of nature as well as apart from nature. Self, Others, and World. There is a need to reverse the process of specialization

BUFFER ZONE: Consciousness, thinking, represents a sort of “limbo” or buffer zone which allows us to think of ourselves as separate from nature.

September 28, 1991

“Ugliness”
Soul or veneer
Evil at liberty
Or goodness despaired

“Sweetness”
Delight or refrain
Goodness revealed
Or evil contained

Are you proud or arrogant Peacock
Your strut is all the same
From this alone I cannot tell
If noxious be your game

Not only do many relational terms oppose one another, but in such instances, each extreme of the continuum seems to contain its opposite–even while remaining opposed. We can all cite examples of goodness posing as evil and evil as goodness. The line between them seems so refined, and so easily crossed, that it becomes easy for us to suspect that both `ingredients’ were there all along. There must be something more to this than apparent delusion. It must point to something more in our conceptual or psychological makeups.

From a conceptual standpoint, it is difficult to imagine how we could know things in opposition without first knowing a single `thing’ which is capable of both. In the physical realm, we might wonder how we could have formulated concepts of `hot’ and `cold’ without first having witnessed water or some other singular object undergoing a change from one to the other? One hot object and another cold do not oppose. Think about other relational terms like `liquid and solid’, `up and down’, `finite and infinite’, etc. Two different perspectives of two different things? I doubt it. More likely, relational terms can only derive from one and the same thing seen from two perspectives, or seen to change from one quality to another at two different times. Our believing otherwise is most likely due to our ability to abstract qualities from things (once they are known) and then recognize or anticipate such qualities in other things with only half our original perspective? But half a relation in one context might also be seen as a full relation in another. Think about the relation of `cold–not cold’. Like an on and off switch, a full relationship can be formed in this way and then go on to becoming only half of a new relationship. This could occur if it joins to become part of the `cold-neutral-hot’ relationship which really amounts to a gradual blending or continuum going from one extreme to the other. Think about statistical, scientific, social and political concepts in this regard, or any concept or conception for that matter. What we find is that all conceptions are relations because they are always in relation to ourselves. Thus, a single perception, observations of changes in a single object, or relations existing between one object and another, all exhibit similar characteristics. Be they objects in the external world or emotions and feelings within us, something is always opposed, compared or contrasted. Knowing how such relations may have originated is not the important question here–I’m almost certain to be wrong about this–but knowing that such relational aspects exist, most certainly is important.

September 29, 1991

What we believe or know in the rational sense; that is, either my means of logic and analysis or by way of observation, evidence and test, is representative of a long struggle between nature and ourselves through abstraction. We are told that this struggle has taken us from a complete identification with nature (supposedly characteristic of primitives and lower animals) to the `conscious separation’ which we presently feel . While we are quick to pride ourselves (abstraction entails devaluing that which we abstract from) for achieving this level of “freedom”, we do while recognizing the emotional and physical energy needed to sustain this condition.

No matter what our rational beliefs regarding relationships existing between `conscious and unconscious’ behavior, or notions regarding `free choice or determination by nature’, none of us can deny the emotional effects of the situation. Without understanding why, we seem obligated to bear the weight of our emotionally-imbued `rational’ convictions (or lack of them) throughout our lives, even while it seems ever so natural to simply let go. Why is this?

Obviously, if we believe that nature is bent on opposing us (as most of us do believe), then it seems we have little choice but to struggle and maintain. On the other hand, it is somewhat ironic to speak of there being little choice in this regard, as though “choice” were not even a consideration. After all, what if we choose not to `own’ the struggle, but consider that it is belonging to nature or God (or to some other intelligence in between), perhaps decrying the fact that we were not made privy to any of it and, therefore, choose not to continue the struggle at all? Would this be an example of reasoning to an appropriate conclusion in view of ones beliefs and circumstances–or an example of emotional exhaustion–or, perhaps, the absence of emotion from the rational process altogether? After all, it is not as though we were left without an impetus to survive; on the contrary, survival seems to say it all. But then, must we suppose that nature is in contradiction with herself, or that we are simply lacking an appropriate perspective for noting the benefits of self-destruction?–That with such a `higher-order perspective’, we can expect the contradictory character existing between the impetus to die and live, to simply disappear.

Understandably, most of us hate such questions. We wish to shrug them off on philosophers or social scientists–or do anything which might free us from having to acknowledge or grapple with them. Nevertheless, be it ignorance, apathy or cowardice standing in our way, our conscience reminds us that these issues must be faced because the concerns and events are real. People do take their own lives and those of others out of remorse, revenge, or from a whole range of factors pointing to psychical disequilibrium and their compensating effects. Only note how easily (like a released rubber-band held in tension for too long a time), the “emotional” causes of such problems spring into the foreground taking precedence over “rational”. Why is this?

We seem to understand only too well that here is where the major source of conflict is to be found–that here is where the battle must be fought and won. Only, sadly, we are also aware that here is the territory we are least familiar with–least equipped to handle. Our “rational training” has so often reminded us to ignore emotion in order to further knowledge and progress, that we have all but split ourselves in two. Not only do we find ourselves ill-equipped to understand the competing drives and mechanisms at work between ourselves, others and world, but we find that most of us are in the same boat–that we are all “out on a limb” without knowing how we got here. What must we do to aright this situation?

==================================
As was said, although we have taken great pains to abstract emotion from the processes of rational or so-called scientific inquiry, or have treated emotions as the subject matter of poetry, it is not entirely certain that we could ever do so in fact; or if we could, whether or not we would have to sterilize the process to the point of obscurity. To be sure, the dynamics of this abstracting process has been the untold story of civilization as we know it, and, in particular, shows us the primary pathway we have taken away from nature.

Emotions are experienced within each of us through feelings, whether or not such feelings were caused by something within ourselves or from without. We can observe and recognize emotions (dominant “affects”) in others in most cases.

When should we contain and when reveal our emotions?
Emotional release mean too much emotion generated or too much held back? Does it make a difference?
What is an individual’s emotional balance?
Is the Englishman generating as much emotion as the Frenchman or Italian–only containing it? How can we know? Does emotion breed emotion? Does containment diminish it? What might we project as consequences for either side?

I am more emotional today than five years ago. Why? I can claim to know many reasons for this and they all seem quite valid. But these reasons have proven themselves insufficient for correcting any imbalances. I am not certain as to whether my actions would be right, appropriate, advantageous or disadvantageous to myself and others. Why not? Why can’t I reason to a sound conclusion? Because I can’t keep my emotions separate from my reasoning? Or because I in fact keep them out of the picture when I should not? My gut feeling is that the latter is true. I suspect that my emotions have been held back for so long a time and that they can rightfully be said to be pent-up? And if I allow this reservoir of pent-up emotion to flow, will I be the better or worse for it?

October 4, 1991

Most of us are familiar with various assessment instruments used to evaluate interests, values, behavior or personality, or any number of other things. They may ask us to respond to words or questions or pictures or problems and situations in order to elicit appropriate responses from us. Appropriate responses are “correct” measurements of what the instrument claims to be measuring. And it is this that will determine its validity. If it can be shown to measure what it claims to be measuring most of the time, it will receive a high validity mark; if not, it will be low. But how is success or lack of success to be determined?

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator claims to measure one’s personality “preferences” by way of a model of personality that was presented by the psychologist Carl Gustav Jung.

Expressions of positive emotions (likes, preferences, etc.) point “above the neutral zone”, meaning that one must record an emotion above the “mean” of a continuum which goes from the extreme of dissatisfaction to the extreme of total satisfaction. Of course, it all depends on how these “extreme” points are defined. But if the ; nevertheless, one can equally be asked for negative emotions as well or, further, can legitimately claim that a given behavior or event is neither liked nor disliked–that there simply is no noticeable emotional plus or minus. This raises a problem concerning the validity of personal assessment instruments; that is, whether or not they measure what they claim to be measuring.

Expressions of emotions in answer to assessment instruments need to be based upon a statistical (mental) accounting of the frequency of feeling intensities accompanying specific behaviors or events which happened in the past. It is unclear as to whether one leaves in or abstracts from such memories, abnormal conditions which need to be discounted

One might discount the “rainy days” in the park, or the time it proved to be dangerous or frightening, but such days would certainly have an affect upon one’s total feeling in the present moment.

THOUGHT: Sit down with a client and go through an assessment word by word, question by question and ask the client to think aloud, expand, question, or do anything that comes into mind. Rather than guess at such distinctions, why not observe what is going on in a persons mind. Note what the assessment actually assesses… or note how the respondent comes to or forces closure; whether or not the respondent rescues the assessment through a forced compromise. Does the respondent supply “truth” where the assessment lacks the means for eliciting it? Is it truth in fact or self-imposed fiction?

Expressions of opinions regarding characteristics of self

October 15, 1991

SINGLE PERSPECTIVE IDEAL

To facilitate learning and the amassing of knowledge deemed beneficial to all species and the planet at large is an ideal which can hardly be disputed. It cannot be disputed because it rests upon a `single imaginary perspective’ which, being a single perspective, has nothing opposing it. What can simultaneously benefit the parts and the whole must certainly be considered worthwhile. But can there ever be a single perspective in fact? No. Quite clearly each of us can be said to have a different perspective which may rightly be called our own. But can all of our perspectives ever be combined into one? Only “in principle”–only “in imagination”. For what we are agreeing to are real uses of language, though in contexts which are no where to be found in life.

Imaginary concepts and contexts may in fact appear to simplify matters for us, but it is only for the short run. We buy time by pretending that such delusions may have relative worth and that they really cost us nothing. But what is overlooked is that we are wading into deeper and deeper waters of rational and emotional confusion. Some of us have been treading water while awaiting an appropriate appraisal of our situations and an appropriate direction in which to move; some have simply swam off in a direction without knowing why; some are drowning; many have already gone.

What is being overlooked essentially is that their are alternative perspectives which pull the ideal formation apart. Perhaps the most significant fact being overlooked is each of our relationships to the world from our single most perspective. This is the ultimate foundation for all relationships, and can be uncovered by pulling leaf off of leaf of our highest ideals.

We climbed to such ideals by assimilating or synthesizing perspectives and agreeing upon them. We are able to do this when we share a single perspective; that is, when the benefit of sharing a single perspective is equal to, or outweighs the benefit of not sharing it.

The world is a flux of relationships. Everything has boundary and structure in accordance with our personal makeups, or in relationship to ourselves. And we see that everything is related to everything else from our individual perspectives, or related to us via another’s perspective. Such is the case for the transference of knowledge from one individual to another. It points to the fact that relationships are variously known and variously noted.

Because there are as many perspectives as there are perceivers, we can expect that there will many similarities and many differences among ourselves. It seems natural to think of similarities as conveying a sense of familiarity, comfort and well-being, while dissimilarities might perhaps bring a sense of tension, discomfort and maybe fear. But we also know cases when the opposite is true. Some individuals are inspired and attracted by the unknown while familiarity can breed contempt, boredom or any number of other emotions.

What is important to note is that it is precisely our emotional characteristics (which are never stable) which are capable of turning rational constructs on their heads. No matter what the relationship drawn from any set of observations or circumstances, our emotional makeups can run counter to them, and it is this fact more than any other that seems to throw a wrench into the works.

[Think about PPS concepts of Dominance, Influencing, Steady and Compliant. How one may show a high preference for “influencing”, not because one `is’, but because one `wishes’, or because one has selected only certain of the `elements’ which went into the classification and these taken together paint quite a different picture, etc. Same true with Interests, Values and MBTI]

Feelings are sometimes expressed and sometimes not
When we are feeling and the feeling is strong, we are likely to show expression through the characteristics of tears, yells, speech and actions
When we are remembering a feeling, or the feeling is weak, we are not likely to show any outward expression at all

Since feeling, memories of feeling, and the likelihood of the emergence of feelings have always, and are always with us, then the likelihood of any perception bringing on a feeling is great.

What role does feeling play in perception and experience?
Feelings can botch up reason and assertions stemming from them when they are related to people

While relation can rightfully be considered our rational rock-bottom
Feeling is at the bottom of relation
Feeling orientates, configures, colors
We can only know ourselves through feeling
We can only surmise that we know others by the same
So be careful about what you claim to know about others
Similarities are never similar

October 16, 1991

You already know what it is like to receive ideas and methods having to do with learning and the delivery of educational products and understand how these have effected you. Those of you who are positive, outgoing, more accepting types (extroverts) have taken these programs and applied them as was considered proper. You noticed difficulties and pitfalls here and there and sought answers to resolve them. Others of you who found it somewhat more difficult to integrate the same within your own frame of reference; that is, noted difficulties and shortcomings which may have lowered your sense of a positive progression in the classroom, may have kept such disturbances inside, perhaps awaiting an answer from within.

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EXTROVERTED AND INTROVERTED ORIENTATIONS & ITS SIGNIFICANCE TO LIFE

My natural tendencies toward looking to what is wrong with something rather than what is right in order to put us on better ground. Those who are positively motivated can learn and progress from this

All of you have felt the effects of imposed expectations and understand the results of the same insofar as you yourselves are concerned. You know already mix in terms of emotional and rational sensibilities resulted.

Foster an awareness of intricacies involved in self-assessment practices and instruments without getting you into a muddle of confusions

Whether one is adding or subtracting to one’s own confusion is a major matter of concern and should pre-occupy all of us. Knowing myself and my proclivity for intuition and thinking, I fear that I may be adding more confusion because my mind continues to feed off of every gain and venture new possibilities in a never-ending chain. My hope is that what is occurring in me may not have the same effect in you; that upon hearing what I have to say, your lives will be simplified rather than further complicated.

Knowledge comes in all shapes and configurations: facts, ideas, explanations, etc. The effects of receiving the same may engender everything from enthusiasm and excitement to confusion and despair depending upon our own attitudes, histories, personal proclivities and needs. If we are to understand the effects of anything upon anything else we must understand each element and the relationship existing between them. Understanding how things relate and are related is to get to the crux of the matter.

I. INTRODUCTION
A. Overview of Seminar Goals & Objectives
 1. Foster an Awareness of Intricacies Involved in Personal Understanding of Self and Others
 2. Argue and Demonstrate that Relationship is at bottom of all understanding and that the relationship existing between one’s emotional and rational aspects is of utmost importance to fostering the integration of knowledge, world and person
 a.

“… we have been exhorted by so many academic prophets with theirown contradictory visions of truth, preached to by so many ministers of misinformation, that the culture at large–and the individual with it–is confused about the nature, the meaning, and even the respectability of feelings. Are they the antagonists of intelligence or the special attributes of the only truly intelligent animal; are they the sign of the undisciplined or the evidence of personal liberation from the constrictive inhibitions of society; are they the symptoms of neurosis or the measure of emotional freedom?” (Feelings: Our Vital Signs, Willard Gaylin, M.D., Harper & Rowe, 1979, p2)

B. Speech
 1. Meaning of Personal Growth
 2.Teachers & Teacher Expectations
 3.An Ideal for Education

Overview of confusing world and confusing knowledge
Effects of this on Education: Beyond the 3 R’s…Societies Impossible Expectations
Confusion of Knowledge
Descriptive subject and closed systems easier than prescriptive or normative subjects

Literature represents the broadest and most permissible body of free expression known to us. It is the closest subject matter dealing with the emotional aspects of ourselves (conscious and unconscious) and how they may variously play out both in life and mind. Reconfiguration of anything is possible and permissible. Any perspective whatever may be entertained, reconfigure and utilized in any way.

In broadest terms, my primary goal (and struggle) in life has been to achieve greater peace and harmony through an appropriate integration with others and world. In its most elemental form, my journey has been little more than a quest for appropriate relationships or `righteous forms of self-gratification’. Hearing the words “appropriate” and “righteous” joined to “self-gratification” brings an almost immediate sense of uneasiness as we suspect that there is a contradiction afoot. These are opposing tendencies which may be satisfied, ignored, balanced or overcome–but can never be joined. This `union of opposites’ appears more like an illusionary ideal, and we might even suspect that “delusionary unions” of this sort may in fact be the essential ingredients as well as means to the establishment of all such ideals. But this is too philosophical for our purposes here. All that I wish to establish is that such relationships do in fact exist and that each of us (in accordance with our particular orientations toward life) has to one degree or another struggled with trying to reconcile them. I would say further, that relationships may prove to be the most fundamental source for understanding all knowledge and human endeavor, not least of which, would be knowledge of ourselves.

To foster an appreciation of differences in ourselves and others by showing their positive

October 25, 1991

TEACHER WORKSHOP

The Myers-Briggs needs to be looked at as a door-opener to understanding a particular theory (Jungian psychology in essence), and also as a door-opener to another way of looking at, or living life. Unfortunately, we always run the risk that, in presenting such information, we will succeed only in adding to your personal confusion rather than subtracting from it. And the primary reason for this is simply because we are different from one another even while we note that there are great similarities. But, then, this is just the beginning of the message offered you today, for we find that in presenting a theory, a vision, an explanation–in presenting anything whatever–we must always assume that those who are receiving it are already, or can be in a position to understand. But this may be a very large assumption to make. Indeed, history is replete with examples reminding us that the contrary may be closer to the truth; that more often than not, we are not positioned for understanding most of what confronts us. Instead, we seem stuck within a rather tiny field of vision which provides us with our personal doorway to life. What comes through and goes out of this opening pretty much dictates how we will relate to a given person, message or set of circumstances. It will pretty much dictates who and what we are.

But we are not living in a stagnant universe, and this can make all the difference to our characters, moods and temperaments over time. Change everywhere surrounds us and its pace seems to be accelerating. As a result, many of us are experiencing a sort of psychological dizziness taking place within, and perhaps are suffering physical ailments as well. As always, “confusion” is understood to be the enemy, and “understanding” our major hope for salvation. But can we ever hope for a `single understanding’ to effectively serve all of us? Perhaps. But if we choose this to cling to, then we must be prepared to accept the potential consequence of abandonment should this understanding be devalued or prove insufficient for whatever reasons. To be abandoned is to be left alone, alienated from that which gives us a sense of completeness. But what about this sense of completeness? Is it a false God? Can we ever hope to feel whole?

Many would consider such a belief a “delusion” fostered upon us by those critical of structure and choice and decision and daring and risk-taking. They might be viewed as “Tories”, claiming allegiance to the King even while they continue to enjoy the fruits of separation. To the hardcore, then, they are cowards who hide under the guise of peacemakers while continuing to reap the benefits of civilization without joining in the fight for it.

But to the more tenderhearted, their way (the hardcore) is the way of fragmentation; a clinging to a mere `partial reality’ which enables us to reap short-term benefits only. To such persons, these actions amount to a flagrant denial of the obvious and at a severe cost to our psychological and emotional well-being; far out of proportion to whatever value is derived from the same. While the former cry out that… “Never has our personal well-being been greater than it is today!”, the latter respond that… “Yes, but we are left without a sense of purpose; we remain empty, lost, alienated and abandoned!” It’s as though we are entrapped within a Greek tragedy, playing out “The Fall” over and over again. Indeed, whether we choose to regard this as myth or an actual event, the potency of this particular drama seems to be constant throughout our lives. Today, we will see why.

Now if this talks sounds somewhat silly or far-fetched to you, it is only because you have not yet ventured down this road. But my hope is that this workshop will lead you to the realization that modern psychology (I should say, Jungian psychology), has provided us all with the means for reinterpreting our past heritage in terms of modern day language and psychological theory. As a result of Jung’s unique sense of openness to the world as it presented itself to him, we are now able to begin the slow process of rejoining ourselves to ancient counterparts too long ignored. Since Jung, the daring and mystery of Ancient Civilizations, Christianity, the Renaissance, Enlightenment and Modern Science, will never again be seen in quite the same light. For we are just beginning to grasp and amplify the true significance of myths and traditions, rites and taboos, prophets and “eccentrics”, gods and demons–indeed, the entire scope of our history and literature–in ways which we could never have imagined. Jungian psychology and his “psychological types” in particular, have provided us with an “acceptable”, modern-day means for coming to terms with what has gnawed at us since birth–the sense that there is potency in all things, and that all are contributory to some “whole”.

AN IDEAL FOR EDUCATIONAL COMMITMENT

THE BIGGER PICTURE
Begin to work toward the creation of an atmosphere of trust within your respective institutions, where all types and viewpoints are sincerely appreciated, and where one does not have to be afraid of revealing oneself. Agree to undergoing a process of self and group understanding, spreading your knowledge and awareness from one to the other, working from inside outward until all parties have been included.

Begin to believe that a community can decide for itself what should and will constitute the role, product and delivery of educational services. Commit yourself to joining with students, parents, peers, administrators and community members to ensure that this comes about.

Recognize when you are being used as a scapegoat by special interests and when you are deserving of blame. Make it difficult for others to play upon your differences by dealing with fragmentation wherever it may occur. Commit yourselves to the goal of reaching a workable level of understanding and appreciation of all such differences.

Begin the long process of disentangling and limiting the role of government from the business of education by demonstrating a strong level of self-reliance, commitment and purpose.

PERSONAL ASSESSMENTS

Be prepared to enter a period of confusion with the determination that you will not quit until you’ve worked through it. Recognize that personal understanding is a life-long process and cannot be accomplished in isolation.

Survey or participate in a workshop that surveys the conceptual elements of psychology and, in particular, the personality dynamics of Jungian psychology.

Undergo a series of personal assessment instruments which include interests, values, behavior and personality. Utilize all such instruments (especially the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator) as a starting point to further interpretation and analysis. Recognize the limitations of such instruments and the need for continuing interpretation in light of other factors and sources of understanding.

Especially survey the conceptual elements of emotions and feelings through readings, personal consultations, or experiential seminars and workshops. Note how easily emotional factors can turn rational models of explanation upside down. Recognize why the emotional factor is so extremely important to rational and psychological understanding.

PEER GROUP ASSESSMENTS & EXPERIENTIAL WORKSHOPS

Be prepared to enter a second period of confusion with the determination that you will not quit until you’ve worked through it. Recognize that personal understanding is nothing if it cannot be meshed or efficiently utilized in the service of others.

Participate in workshops designed to reinforce your understanding and awareness of personality differences in yourself and others. Learn the pro’s and con’s of such dynamics and how best to utilize them in the service of students, learning and education. Foster similar experience’s for students, parents, administrators and board members, etc.

Participate in workshops designed to acquaint you with emotional needs which may need to be expressed or satisfied by other means. Engender a stronger bonding with your membership by noting similarities in this regard.

Be prepared to “sequester” your group, if necessary, until you have settled or are comfortable with your differences and know how they will work to your best advantage.

MIXED GROUP ASSESSMENTS & EXPERIENTIAL WORKSHOPS

Be prepared to enter a third period of confusion with the determination that you will not quit until you’ve worked through it. Recognize that personal and peer group understanding is nothing without an appreciation of society at large. There is only one earth and we are all on it.

Work toward a deeper understanding of personalities from differing perspectives outside of personality and behavioral preferences. Assess where commonalties and differences exist and in which frames of reference. Think about how you might create a harmonious model of working relationships designed to enhance a given segment within the educational sphere.

Come to appreciate and celebrate yourself and others, knowing that you are part of an elite group which has dedicated itself to one of the most important aspects civilization–education.

November 9, 1991

Can the bridges be crossed?
Categories of thought
Categories upon categories
Concept built upon concept
Into a whole, a partial understanding

A single perception
May change all that was understood
A single focus
Demands a total reconfiguration
Resulting in a new soup, a gel
Which perhaps leads us even further astray

Do we ever gain precision?
If so, how?
Is there a model which we follow?
Or do we merely experience what relations impart?

Do you…? Are you…? Would you…? Could you…? Will you…? Can you…?
Prefer…? Interested…? Choose…? Define…? Select…? Perform…?
You are…! You show…! You like…! You believe…! You value…! You know…!
How do I know all of this?
Well, you told me!–didn’t you?

For I began with concepts sweetly defined
I should I say “loosely” or “forcibly”
Which would be a good deal more honest
Or should I simply admit that I’ve got all I can do
To prevent spillage and seepage and blending anew
Ignore this, ignore that, hack off here and there
If I could manage a particular before it breaks in two
Oh well, “In general”, then… “Are you…, Do you…, Can you…?”

What is it about thinking that seems so far removed–
From ascertaining anything at all?
Is it isolated thought that causes uncertainty–
Separation from activity I mean?
A departure from the whole–
Which alone can have meaning?

Can you tell me your name?
“Yes I can” I may respond, and nothing more
Or “My name is Ray”
Or respond silently from within
Or do nothing at all
For where in this question is an appropriate response?
Yes, where?

What is my understanding you ask?
What do these words mean to me?
They mean a thousand things, or a million or more…
Perceptions and actions which all had to come before
Even the most simple assertion could be understood

November 20, 1991

The head contains and is best suited for all of the senses save one–the sense of touch. This alone is best handled.

Our hands allow us not only to touch those things which we experience, but to hold and manipulate them in a thousand ways. They serve the head by relating perceptions to things, providing perspective upon perspective through action,–thus allowing the head to build,–thus allowing the hands and body to engage in activity.

Activity, then, is action in relationship. And things can only be in relationship if we or someone is a part of the relationship. Without restriction (boundary, definition), all is chaos or nothing. To know is to relate, and to relate is to experience. So knowledge is experience. And to know something is to experience it.

Of course, much more than this has been made of knowledge and knowing. Degrees of knowing,–outcomes, benefits, consequences, accuracy or certitude, etc.)–have all been added to make this relationship a very confusing and highly complicated matter. The head, in effect, has chosen to sever itself from the knowing relation and has sought, instead, to create a detached, “generic” (out of context) personal system of self-knowledge, by means of half perspectives. By concentrating on its own contents (memories and imaging capabilities), and ignoring the force of their source, the head believes itself to have created and extended knowledge in a significant way. But such “knowledge”, based upon a replica of the knowing relation, can have little or nothing to do with a changing world. While such detachments may be said to have benefited ourselves, to maintain the detachment for too long a period (that is, maintaining the illusion of thinking it possible to capture experience in this way), can only do us great harm. For the gaps which such thinking invariably leaves will be filled in by artificial attributes (or look-a-likes) drawn from real experience. In such a way, knowledge has proliferated beyond our means for understanding it. And, rather than free us from ignorance, we sense that it is strangling us. The illogic of the adage “the more you learn, the more you realize you don’t know” is no longer amusing. For we instinctively sense that knowing ought to lessen rather than increase confusion. But so long as the adage appears to be true of experience, we are forced to the conclusion that we will eventuality be overwhelmed by knowledge!

II

I personally recognize this overwhelming situation as something existing within me. The world violates me in a way I deplore, forcing me toward having to join it or tempting toward having to master it–both undesirable choices from my personal perspective. For I simply want to understand more of it. But, since I too have been guilty of severing experience, it seems that I deserve the punishment I’m getting. Satisfactory understanding seems to escape me while I am finding that the world is working on me from within more than from without.

But can there be understanding without relating to something outside ourselves? This is a complex question but, in short, the answer would seem to be no. We, or more specifically, our “persona” (the mask we present to the world) cannot help but come into relationship with the world whether the world comes from without or through oneself. We spoke of the detachment of memories from experience and mentioned the imaging capabilities which we all seem to possess. The ability to recall images of previous, as well as imaginary, experience, is a very powerful medium to knowledge. And, as we said, it is also fraught with danger. While imagination allows us to mentally re-live experience, adding and subtracting from the same to suit our purposes, we are also aware of the fact that not all of it is owing to `our’ purpose. That is, we are also aware of being passive recipients of images which simply come into our awareness without being called upon.

We understand how experience can call up memories of previous experiences, or generate ideas, intentions and action through association. Indeed, association is a powerful word and can also stand in for “relation” or “cause and effect” and other concepts suggesting wholeness, integrity or system…

This is proving too cumbersome a means to explaining my conceptions; too many off-shoots in terms of application and further meanings to ever get the job done. I desire a quicker, more elemental, short-handed means to thinking. Writing in this way seems as time-consuming as it is distracting.

Greed

“Rugged individuals” are we
Staunch in limb and heart
Adventurers to the end we think
To hell with Karl Marx!

Too weary has this pretense made us–
This haughty view of greed
This flowering of our natural selves
Said borne of sacred seed

Deceiving fools who dared distort
What must become of us
Who told us that the way of life
Is little more than pus!

But now the stench of greed foretells
Competition is much alive
Oh cattle barons of the East
Come take our worthless hides!

November 24, 1991

Consultant, Development, Growth, Awareness, Understanding, Consciousness, Completeness, Wholeness, Integrity, Character, Values, Hopes, Visions, Dreams, Reluctance, Fears, Aspirations, Desires, Fantasies

INTEGRATION…Person–Society–World

“Placation–Emulation–Usurpation”
“Natural–Actual–Preferred”

Large-scale differences in assessment results can hide true significance of what it is that is wanted or desired.

Individual not always conscious of knowing difference or wants to deceive others or wants to go against their grain in order to make up for some deficiency or another.

One must understand `context’ of their own lives and situations in order to interpret results correctly. One must see world in context.

Diagnostic concepts are formulated from a context too. Dominance, Influence, Introversion, etc. are all shaped (defined, classified) within a context–but one’s attitude can run these amuck when different from what was supposed in formulating the concepts. Concepts contain attitudes.

Dominant individual prefers, acts, is, aggressive, etc. But each of these attitudes can make a big difference. I have witnessed very docile dominant types.

I prefer X and do X
I prefer X and don’t X
I do not prefer X and do X
I do not prefer X and don’t X

Preferences can be natural or unnatural
Actions can be natural or unnatural

Need marriage of emotions and behavior

Natural behavior=preferred behavior=socially accepted behavior=actual behavior

Natural Preferences (inhibited or uninhibited)

Preference assumes repetition of choice or activity–one thing over another, etc.

Why does one choose or prefer?
Pleasing, right, admiration, end sought, means to end

Simplify reality
Adaptive behavior–Attitudes–Expectations–Perceptions

CONCEPTS A SOURCE OF UNDERSTANDING AND MISUNDERSTANDING/CONFUSION

Concepts=Intuition (Given us as `tools’ and also `answers’

Concepts point the way (Where to go and what to do, and answers puzzlement as it occurs)

If one stops to analyze the tool, looking for greater certainty, one risks losing sight of its original application. One gets mired in particulars which lead to other conceptions (?)

We don’t act on a single conception, compulsion, unless it overpowers all others–forcing us to deal with it–like a matter of survival, etc.

If not compelled, we stew
If tug of war inside us, then we appear to be doing nothing on the outside

We must release or vent the conflict–put it out into the world where it belongs. It is of no use if not applied, released, satisfied.

Our structure(s) fuse varying configurations out of chaos

IDEAL = Conceptual leap of faith. “It would be nice if we were all happy”

Takes `particular’ instances and makes them `general’ without regard for sense. Projecting the general case seems appropriate while our inability to achieve it is construed as a `lacking’ on our parts. We consider ourselves unable to achieve what would be worthwhile for all. What is understandable in the particular case is demanded for the general or social level. We want it to be true for all of us.

Ideals are magnets which draw us in a particular direction
Most would negate themselves if ever they were achieved
To achieve happiness would be tantamount to achieving misery, or `nothing’ as its meaning would be neutralized without an (opposing) counterpart

LIFE. Earth provides us with necessary tools for meaning and growth. Survival instincts (libido, natural forces, disequilibrium, etc.) has given us the means to integrate if not overcome. One cannot stop oneself from breathing simply by virtue of being a part of a greater whole.

November 26, 1991

Since having my “Mammon” experience of August 4th, I have thought about it from time to time and have tried to understand its significance. Little by little, more is becoming clear to me as I think upon it, sometimes after awakening from a dream which associates with it in some way or another, sometimes just by picking up the writing and rereading it over and over. Yesterday morning I sat on the edge of my bed (enjoying the sunshine streaming in through the patio door) and began raising questions. This morning, I awoke from a dream and began thinking further upon this earlier occurrence and received new enlightenment. For the sake of keeping some sort of record, I will re-state the essentials of my August 4th experience [only what I received from my unconscious (?) through “random typing” on my computer]. Following this, I will put down some thoughts and questions raised yesterday morning, and will continue on from that point.

On August 4th, I remember going to my computer to begin to write and then becoming immediately frustrated over the awareness that this thinking (like all my previous thought) would reveal more new possibilities than answers. At any rate, I began writing…

“The world is as confusing as we, and yet we look to the world rather than to ourselves for answers…

[At this point, I felt the urge to just let go of myself in order to write whatever came into consciousness no matter how nonsensical. The sentence I started was continued even though I was not thinking in my usual way. I was not controlling (pre-thinking) my thoughts before writing. I simply let my fingers go on the keyboard!]

…as though it were possible to acknowledge any precept obliging the eradication of perennial problems. As though it were an unseemly point to know whatever is necessary in the span of time.

[I remember pausing at this point to see what it was I had typed and thinking it nonsensical at first, or if sensible, surely more sophisticated than what I am capable of. But I continued]

Outer world confusion
Inner world illusion
Consciousness is not a goal
Nor a seemly source to soul

Who can say what, if the treasures surrounding us were as difficult as we might imagine them to be? Who can remake progress? Who can annunciate the development of acknowledgement? Wherefore art the lambs of God speaking to brethren from aghast the fields of demagoguery? Mammon said “Whosoever bleats the lamb strikes the Lord, but whosoever strikes the Lord renounceth all.” And I say that this is trash!

[At this point, I was convinced that I was both acting and writing in a ridiculous fashion. (“bleats the lamb”, “aghast the fields”?) I felt silly about the experience thus far but still couldn’t help but be amazed by the “seeming” sense some of the sentences made. The little poem above was striking to me inasmuch as it seemed to go against Jungian psychology or the notion that increased consciousness is the goal of each and every one of us. I couldn’t help but feel that my own reservations were being justified in some way. Consciousness is not “a seemly source to soul”. Wow! What is a seemly source to soul? I couldn’t help but wonder. What ought to be our goal?–I decided to give it another try]

Unsure of myself. Given over to illusion, no conclusion, rhymes galore, to the floor, wavy Davie, sedentary rock, a kind of mockery, a kind of clockery. [Up to this point I was not confident of the outcome and was simply trying to go with the flow, my fingers flying on keyboard. But then it came…] “Wherefore art you now Raymond, lost I presume? Let this not shock you, but I am mammon. I am good for you, a devil no, whatever I do, a devil no; livestock displayed this tale to me:

A long time ago I came upon a child wrapped in swaddling clothes. Do you recognize who I mean? Flowers bent the breeze and camels talked whereof cameth this child. I of course knew naught for I am only mammon, the sweet tongue of the Lord. Over against the darkness, I shone bright but the glow blinded the ignorant and the swayed. Only He knew me as I was and He did not know me. I loved the child Jesus, and sought his grace. He sought me not and I could not not see his face. Long years have passed and I have flowered in the groves of every heart, my sorrow relinquished not his cries in Babylon. His cries still me yet and I bring this to you knowing that I cannot compete with his hold. But know me too inasmuch as you are right to grow as you seek. Know me too so that I can complete myself and you and all brethren who are far afield. Understand me so that I can progress as you. Know my sorrow and my toil so that you can withstand your own suffrage, me to you and all mankind, women notwithstanding his grace and mine and holy shrines beckoned to the light of yesteryear. Goodbye.

It all happened very fast though with slight (non-thinking) pauses occurring from time to time. I was not consciously thinking anything during these pauses, but they did occur; and then my fingers would lunge forward again to continue the passage. But at that time, I could only look at the passage and wonder what the experience was all about. I looked with puzzlement at some of the assertions and with awe at others. It seemed much too poetic for me and left me with the feeling that this could not be coming from me. I always thought Mammon was another name for devil and this passage was telling me otherwise. I clearly did not understand its meaning but treated it like any other piece of poetry which I had to read for the first time. I’m not very good at interpreting poetry in any regard, but this one seemed destined for me. I concluded that day by writing the following:

“Well, this appears to be getting better. I simply typed whatever came to mind without forethought, and excepting most of the first paragraph and a few phrases here and there, once again, I can make sense of most of it. “Mammon” a good sort of devil, “sweet tongue of the lord”? relaying a story told by “livestock”! [I have since noted that the story was “displayed” by livestock]. Could this have anything to do with my so-called “primordial dream” of last week? I like its poetic nature (“flowers bent the breeze” (things turned around–reversed?), “I have flowered in the groves of every heart” (reference to being hidden?), although it seems a little out of character for me and certainly archaic. I can’t help but wonder if there’s any historical references to any of this as Jung seemed to think; especially to the “cries in Babylon”. I know that God destroyed the city, presumably because of lustful sin and all that, but what can Mammon mean by saying that his sorrow “could not relinquish God’s cries in Babylon”? Prevent His wrath? Why would Mammon feel sorrow? Last sentence beginning with “women notwithstanding…” seems unclear to me but I kind of like most of what is being said even if some things are puzzling.

“I’ve always felt that God was guiding me even without a conception of Him. And I always felt that what was hidden within me was not ugly but contained a guiding element in itself; that everything affecting me was not without a purpose. So this notion of a “misunderstood” or denied “devil” within, does not shock me in the least. I am disturbed by the fact that he makes Jesus and God appear to have been great and worthy of love, but who at the same time, seemed to lack a complete understanding of things, or were capable of unfair treatment. Perhaps “sweet tongue of the lord” means that the sweetness of God’s word is made at the expense of condemning Mammon; that blaming Mammon for the ills of the world is what allows God to be great and good. “Over against the darkness, I shone bright but the glow blinded the ignorant and the swayed”. Does this mean that Mammon wasn’t always considered bad? That he was once seen in a good light but this goodness blinded the ignorant as well as the swayed? “Swayed” to what?

“This is all pretty heady stuff and I almost am inclined to erase it. What would others think of someone who thinks he might be receiving information from his unconscious? And look at the information! As a kid, I use to think that I was being conditioned by God to fight and win over the devil. Actually that feeling never left me since I am always expecting and imagining the worse as a sort of desensitizing or conditioning experience hardening me for any eventuality. But, on the other side, the devil has come to mean a part of human nature which lives within us all and which seemingly can be denied. And most of us have become quite expert at denying what we don’t wish to acknowledge, although we are at a loss to gauge the price we have to pay for doing so. We would rather grasp onto illusion or safety which neutrality and ignorance can provide; a comfort in knowing that we are not unlike our brethren, and that whatever happens to us, will therefore not be unlike our brethren. Shared ignorance or fear, like actions and beliefs, reduce the agony of not knowing.

“But why must we talk in archaic terms? Is it because these are archaic fears passed along in the Jungian sense of there being a “collective unconscious” working through us? Well, can’t we assume its validity, examine it more closely (via the door of the auxiliary function as Jung suggests) and continue step by step to the inferior ones as well? Can’t we catch up to ourselves so that we no longer need to speak in archaic terms? I suspect that this is so; that the extent of such forms most probably approximates the development of consciousness; that such development (like the functions) precluded an awareness of the split. Analogous to the duality of the brain, I suspect, and the reason for one side of our personalities being millennia ahead of the other. Nature may be wanting to balance the ticket now by allowing the other side a freedom to grow. But does this mean that we are going to relinquish control to the other side, or that we are going to allow it to merge with our modern side; perhaps, in so doing, the overall process allows for an evolutionary leap.

All of this happened on August 4, 1991. As I said, since that day I have thought variously on this topic, gaining insights here and there. I looked up “Mammon” in the dictionary and the Bible, for example, but discovered only two passages where it is used. Both times, it seemed that mammon is representative of the sensate world of experience (or of worldly needs, passions and possessions, etc.). I looked up passages concerning Babylon and got the impression (which I already had previously) that here passion for life turned to greed and avarice to an extreme. I re-read the paragraph over and over trying to get its meaning; but it was beginning to seem like I was in the process of becoming duped or swayed by something in me (or working through me) which, although friendly and in many ways pitiable, nevertheless, could be of possible harm to myself. And so I awoke yesterday morning and raised the following questions with my Self (?):

Why “sweet tongue”? What darkness? Compared to what did you shine bright? Did the “glow” keep the ignorant from seeing both darkness and light? Did the ignorant only see one side? Were they “swayed” by the light of material, lust, wanting, etc.? What swayed them?

Only God knew you as you really were–not evil? But denied you. Or did God experience you and then denied the experience (this side of Himself) through Christ?

Why are you sorrowful if you’ve been “flowering in everyone’s hearts”? Are you alluding to hopes and desires growing in our hearts? Is this a previous sorrow you are suffering or an on-going one? Are you currently stilled by God or is it simply by his past cries in Babylon? Am “I” growing as I seek even though I may not realize that I am growing, or seeking, for that matter?

You are asking me to complete you in order that you may complete me and others “who are far afield”. But why should I trust you? Who are you? And, if I am already growing and doing so in a “Christian” sense, then why should I ignore this for your benefit or for a promise of my own benefit? I’m willing to suffer for what is right?

Why is it that I am progressing and you can’t? Why do you need me to progress? If Christ denied you, should I not do the same? Am I progressing with your help, or because I’m denying you?

Is your sorrow and toil the same as mine? My sorrow is due to my denial of you–you are my sorrow. But what is yours? What is it that I have that you want and need to withstand your own suffering? Mercy? Forgiveness? Do you want me to stand-in for God? To intercede for God? To oppose Him?

It seems that you want me to bring God to you in order for you to attain wholeness. When you’ve attained wholeness, you will presumably then complete me and I in turn will go on to complete others… But I am not God! Why am I sufficient where God is not? Can I teach you restraint? Can I serve as a conduit for your good? Can I experience you without being swayed by you? Will you try to sway me–tempt me beyond where I must go? Will it be a renewed struggle for me or relief?

You make it sound as though you and I and others need to overcome God–that we are all in opposition to Him. You were once the “sweet tongue” of the lord–are you still?

Is God light or knowledge and are you darkness or experience? Or are you a part of God? Was Jesus sent to oppose you for our sake? For us to emulate? Are we a part of the mind of God undergoing struggle? Why does not God or Christ ask me to do what you are asking–to bring the matter to a close?

[Which brings the conversation up to this morning]

Without knowledge (light) we are tempted to exaggerate you beyond yourself to the point of lust and avarice. Is this what happened in Babylon? Jesus was sent to balance us between the light and dark but did not use light (knowledge or reason?) to sway us. He used fear and the promise of eternal happiness–He both frightened and bribed us! Why? Why didn’t he present our situation (or His situation) for what it is? He told us to resist the exaggeration of the pleasures of the body and earth and not to resist evil when it comes calling. Rather, that we should allow evil to destroy us rather than give in to it! But you claim that you are not a devil and I presume, not evil–but that through our own ignorance, we can misrepresent who you really are, once were, or now want to be. Are you now, and do you want to continue being, the “sweet tongue” of the Lord? I am unfamiliar with this meaning.

Again, are you a “part” of God? Without light (the other part of God?), you shone bright against the prevailing darkness. Why were you without light? Is God not whole? Is it the case that without restraint, we will make a bad thing out of something good? But structure and restraint is everywhere in nature; we always have our limitations, even if the breaking point be avarice and licentiousness. Are these extremes then too much for humankind as well as for God? Are we looking for balance? If so, then we must allow for both extremes to exist, and perhaps in the same proportions. Do we want to be precisely in the middle? Then we must expect that we will become stagnant or dull, perhaps having to forego the possibility of change in either direction.

But getting back to the specifics of your message: Would my “knowing” you mean that I must experience you? Or does it refer to understanding only? Because it may be right (appropriate?) for me to grow as I seek, does this mean that you feel that you also have this right? Again, why hasn’t God acknowledged you? It seems like we’re at a standoff, you and I, and it’s not clear as to whether I need, or ought, to heed you. On the other hand, it seems clear that you are more knowledgeable of me than I am of you and that, furthermore, you are smarter than I and, perhaps, much more powerful than I, although I am not certain of this. Your power may be limited by the fact of my consciousness. Is this true? Is this why you are telling me to disregard consciousness as a goal… nor a “seemly source to soul”? How can you tell me that it is not a goal when it might very well be, rightfully or wrongfully? What should my goal be? And what would be a seemly source to soul? Letting go of consciousness and listening to you?

You seem to be asking for an opportunity to correct your situation and that of others “who are far afield”. You seem to want me to believe that you have suffered all these years (since Babylon?) by God’s denial of you and that you, perhaps, have been left incomplete–in darkness as a result. Only you don’t strike me as being without light if light is to be construed as knowledge. Quite the contrary, you seem to be a very bright fellow indeed. How do you explain this? If my sorrow is the denial of you and your sorrow is the absence of me (lack of acknowledgement?), then our sorrow is the same object seen from two perspectives. If I give in to you we are both satisfied. If I acknowledge your right to exist alongside or as a part of me, then we will be in some sort of balance I presume. But aren’t I already in this sort of balance? After all, I am not completely denying myself of the pleasures of life. True, there are many things which I oppose that would prove gratifying to me were I to permit the indulgence. But civilization (attention to morality, responsibility, duty, law or obligation, etc.) does not permit it. There is membership to consider.

Or are you telling me that the price I am paying is too dear? Too destructive of myself (which is you I presume)? That I must pay heed to what you are telling me or pay the price you will exact from me? Is my physical and mental well-being at stake? Is “our” physical and mental well-being at stake? Then why don’t you do something about it? Given the fact that you are more knowledgeable about these matters than I, why don’t you simply have your way with me? [Intuitive flash just came to mind concerning a dream I had a month or so ago. In my dream, I was holding down a homosexual who I knew could overpower me if he wanted, but didn’t. I assumed that this was pointing to a latency in me, but now there seems to be some connection to “Self” if not representative of Self]

So, it would seem that you are indeed more powerful than I and that you are forewarning me before things take a turn for the worse. This is beginning to make more sense to me and I’m grateful for the warnings. But I’m still not sure that I can do anything about it. If you know already that you cannot compete with Jesus’ hold on me, then you must feel that what you are asking of me will not compromise my relationship with Christ, though I must admit, I never felt that it was quite as strong as we both seem to be making of it. The fact is, I’ve been fighting Jesus all of my life. But then, maybe this is saying the same thing. For why fight? Why not just let go?

November 29, 1991

The world is as confusing as we, and yet we look to the world rather than to ourselves for answers, as though it were possible to acknowledge any precept obliging the eradication of perennial problems. As though it were an unseemly point to know whatever is necessary in the span of time.

Outer world confusion
Inner world illusion
Consciousness is not a goal
Nor a seemly source to soul

Who can say what, if the treasures surrounding us were as difficult as we might imagine them to be? Who can remake progress? Who can annunciate the development of acknowledgement? Wherefore art the lambs of God speaking to brethren from aghast the fields of demagoguery? Mammon said “Whosoever bleats the lamb strikes the Lord, but whosoever strikes the Lord renounceth all.”

We should experience what is necessary rather than expect that we will be told what to do to resolve our difficulties–that it could simply a matter of “acknowledgment”. Is consciousness to be equated to passive experience–acknowledgement of what is given by life or Self? Thus, one would not “know” soul or Self simply by acknowledgement, but through experience. Not in a perennial sense but in a more finite sense in accordance with what needs to be known for the time–what is “necessary”.

–Not possible to acknowledge a precept obliging the eradication of perennial problems by looking to the world for answers. It is not forthcoming in this passive sense of simply receiving what is expected to come; that is, by growing more conscious of the contents of the soul, for example. This would not be a seemly source to knowledge about our Selves or world. It is not point to know whatever is necessary to know for a given time or within the span of time. What is important to know is what is “necessary”, and this cannot be a passive undertaking.

–If the treasures of life were as difficult as we imagine them to be, we would not be able to say anything! But we have progressed! We have progressed in spite of our imagined difficulty. Can we change what has already transpired? Remake it? “Who can remake progress? Who can make clear the development of acknowledgement?” The point being that `acknowledgement’ does not develop! It is one-sided, only half of the equation of experience.

–Experiencing Self is not sufficient for “knowing” in the sense of growing more and more conscious of it. To know Self, we must go beyond acknowledgement to experience. A more “seemly source to soul”, then, would be to experience it–live it through application! Consciousness alone is stagnant–a kind of `stand-off’–if treated as an end rather than a means. Consciousness cannot be the goal.

–I must know mammon if I wish to grow as I seek and, according to mammon, I am “right” to do so. By “knowing” mammon beyond consciousness, I will be completing him presumably through application (experience and satisfaction). This in turn will allow him to complete me, and I in turn the capability for completing all others “who are far afield”. By understanding mammon, he will be able to progress as me. By knowing (experiencing) his toil and sorrow, I will be able to withstand my own–thus passing along to all human kind, God’s grace, mammon’s, and also that of “holy shrines” resulting from “the light of yesteryears”.

[But is this going to be a negative experience–something suffered to increase endurance rather than something enjoyed to lessen suffering?]

–I am seeking completion even though Christ has a hold on me. Mammon is seeking completion even though Christ is preventing it. Christ is keeping both of us from completion–from knowing one another. Keeping us apart.

–Mammon is saying that each of us has a right to grow as we seek and that this growth cannot take place unless we know one another–me to him and him to me and me to all mankind. But I must be a willing participant–willing to go against God, it would seem, in order to understand and withstand my own suffering–TO EAT THE APPLE AGAIN! Apparently suffering will not stop, but that “knowing” can relieve the burden.

–Is mammon suffering from a lack of acknowledgement–that he represents something good or worthwhile–or from a lack of not “knowing” what it’s all about? Is mammon looking for acceptance or the “tree of knowledge”? Is this what we all are suffering? Is this what will complete us?

December 1, 1991

–We need to know what is necessary to know and not what we might imagine is possible to know. We feel compelled to know beyond what is necessary. We are future rather than present-oriented.

–There are no precepts in the world informing us that we ought to be engaged in resolving perennial problems, much less precepts informing us as to how we might resolve them. Why, then, are we compelled toward this end?

–If the outer world remains confusing for us, then so too will the inner world be illusory, which, perhaps, suggests the primacy of outer world experience over inner (?)

–“We cannot remake progress”, suggests mammon. We can imitate or repeat it, perhaps, but it transpires without our “knowing” it in the exaggerated sense of knowing we would like. Only life is not as difficult as our imaginations would have us believe. We don’t have to initiate or create progress! Neither does it simply happen–appear to us–as on a video screen. We progress by living, not through acknowledgement. And living is now, in the present moment, which may be all that is necessary for us to know. And yet we persist…

Wherefore art the lambs of God speaking to brethren from aghast the fields of demagoguery? Mammon said “Whosoever bleats the lamb strikes the Lord, but whosoever strikes the Lord renounceth all.”

[This passage sounds like nonsense to me even though I feel compelled to make sense of it since the remainder seems cogent. Should there have been a comma following the word `aghast’ to make better sense of it?]

–Why do the “lambs of God” choose terror to control their brethren? Is this demagoguery? [Is the expression “lambs of God” facetious? or are these really the lambs of God–followers of Christ, etc.?]

–But didn’t Christ use terror to put fear of the father into us?
Didn’t Christ send out disciples to “bleat” his message?
So how is doing this a “strike against the Lord?”

Is mammon telling us that the “lambs of God” are leading us to believe that it is sufficient simply to acknowledge life or the word of God rather than ask us to live it? Forcing us to fear God and then exact money from us (manipulation for their own gain)? Do these fear and terror tactics represent the “fields of demagoguery?

Christ spoke of our needing to trust in the lord–that He would provide for us and not desert us, that we only had to ask in order to receive. This seems like “knowing” in mammon’s sense of knowing–experience and acceptance of what comes to us in life, coupled with a trust that one will receive what one needs in order to cope. Is mammon speaking for Christ as well as for himself? Are they both preaching the same message? Must we walk with mammon before we can walk with God?

–Could mammon be the positive side of the Lord (sweet tongue)–that part of God that wants to elevate nature and human kind? [Any evidence in Bible?] Why isn’t this a significant part? Mammon speaks of himself as being insignificant: “I knew naught”, “I am only mammon”, etc. Which part of God is significant? The “knowing” part? Is mammon the heart, feelings or emotions of God? Are we to believe that God is having the same difficulties as we? Same struggle between heart and mind? Emotions and reason? Is mammon isolated from the rational, decision-making side? Is this why he didn’t know of Christ or the reason for his appearance? Why he wanted to know Christ but was denied? Has this been his sorrow and toil over the years?

–[Possibilities?] God wants to integrate his respective sides. God appears to be split–torn between two opposing forces just as we find ourselves to be. Jesus was sent to oppose mammon who was inflated to an extreme–out of balance with the rational side of God. This thinking accords with current Jungian psychology. I am told that Jung’s “Answer to Job” supposedly deals with this question. I’ve felt for some time that, out of a supreme sense of arrogance, we have been trying to lower God in order to usurp Him–to be Him! But maybe this is representative of our way of knowing Him. Don’t we always have to restrict our surroundings in order to make things fit ourselves? Since we are limited, knowing becomes contingent upon our being able to relegate things to our respective levels of comprehension.

–But there is no mention of mammon’s being the “sweet tongue of the Lord” in the bible (or is there?), or that mammon is Lord as we speak of Christ as Lord. [Father–Son–Holy Spirit]. Surely mammon cannot be the holy spirit! It would make more sense to speak of God as comprising both Jesus and Mammon (a trinity) and that the adjustment or balance of the same in God is representative of the Holy Spirit–offering the impetus or dynamics of the situation. The “spirit of God” moves to unite opposing sides within God (Jesus vs. Mammon), but may not be a part of God. Rather, God is relegated to an inferior status as we rise up to meet Him. The Holy Spirit now takes the supreme position as God becomes more like ourselves and we like Him.

–Are we to accept this state of affairs as representative of our limitations? That this is all that is “necessary” to know and is sufficient inasmuch as it accomplishes what we desire? Have we found (discovered, been given) a means for “overcoming” ourselves and God by “knowing” God through a process of reduction or restriction? If we were made in God’s image, then God is understandably human and we justifiably god-like. We now become the means to completing God at the same time as we complete ourselves. Mammon opposes Christ but must not be construed as evil or bad unless out of balance. (Do we dare say the same of Jesus?) Our task, then, becomes one of uniting Jesus and Mammon in God as the Holy Spirit ordains. A bold move on our parts if, indeed, we could take responsibility for it! But then, maybe the boldness of the move is made possible only for the fact that we do not have to take responsibility!

–But the dilemma remains. For we are reminded that Jesus asked us to forsake mammon–to give it all up. And He told us that this would be looked favorably upon by the Father. (We can understand this in terms of God’s wanting balance). But is it over? Have Christ and Christianity completed their task inasmuch as both have stymied mammon, even if he has succeeded in “flowering in the groves of every heart” as he says in his message. Although mammon is still very much alive, he is not without sorrow which may undoubtedly can be said of Jesus as well. But both seem to be stalemated at present. Perhaps the ideal of communism and the reality of capitalism are characteristic of this struggle although the analogy would be difficult to maintain for long.

December 2, 1991

–Seems to be a hierarchy of power. Jesus has access to God, Mammon wants access to Jesus. Jesus is telling us to forego mammon for God while Mammon seems to be asking us to ignore Jesus in order to acknowledge and know himself. In terms of power, it would seem that Jesus is second to God with Mammon falling in third place as “the sweet tongue of the Lord”.

–Christ says that the Lord wants us to trust in him and to deny mammon for everlasting happiness. Mammon is saying that we have a right to grow as we wish, or a right to grow in knowledge, even if only to understand why it is we are suffering. Mammon also suggests that we and he are incomplete and that we need to work together in order to attain this sought after wholeness. Christ tells us that all we have to do is ask of the Father and we shall receive, presumably, whatever is necessary to engage or withstand a life lived for God.

–Mammon wanted Christ’s blessing, but didn’t get it. I get the feeling that he considers himself as capable of good (if in balance) and that is was the fault of ignorance that got in the way in days of old (Babylon). It would seem that his message is that now things will be different. He has withstood suffering and knows that there must be a balance in life, and that this balance is within our rights to obtain. Jesus didn’t talk about achieving balance in life. He taught that we should forego it for God. Jesus seems to represent “mind” (thinking) when presenting us with parables for understanding and commandments for knowing what to do. Mammon seems to represent “heart” (feelings and emotions) when fighting for recognition and rights, completion and wholeness in the here and now. Jesus is heaven-oriented while Mammon seems earth-oriented.

December 2, 1991

[THE STRUGGLE ENSUES]

It seems to be possible to forestall experience in the sense of being able to choose from among the many elements pressing upon us. We might, for example, restrict or confine ourselves to dealing with certain things over others, thus creating a sort of “buffer” which allows us to ignore other pressing concerns. Indeed, modern life has provided us with many such buffers and it is this feat more than anything that is the source of confusion and illusion.

I suspect that reason would compel us to the belief that experience can and must be controlled–prioritized in fact. Perceiving, thinking, fantasizing, acting, etc. all need to be dealt with in an appropriate way. We usually know which things are most pressing (and, therefore, ought to deal with these first) and which are not. And yet, we still have the means for ignoring the same in favor of dealing with what we want. Thus, in a very strong sense, we become victims of our own doing or UN-doing.

Experience (particularly strife and ignorance) teaches us that we are a part of something larger than ourselves which engages us in a struggle for power and control. We call it life or nature or universe or God. But we do not need to struggle with life on such large-scale terms, only with its elements as they present themselves. Variously comprehended and interpreted through individual experience, life always comes to us piece-meal, and, therefore, all that we experience is not struggle.

And yet, many of us choose to ignore more pressing matters for other preferences which occupy our attention. In my own case, it is seen as an attempt to get purposeful answers prior to experience or action on my part. Of course this is not really possible to do, but such things as intuition, memory, language, communications media, reason, all combine to make us think it is possible. They provide us with a means for indirectly participating in life. And herein lies the problem.

Buffer or no, life is always impacting us for whatever reasons. If we choose to ignore the consequential in favor of dealing with the inconsequential, then time had better be on our side. Otherwise, we can expect to pay the price in terms of punishment, anxiety, debt or any number of further consequences suffered for having ignored priority considerations.

In such ways, we learn that experience has a force like no other. It is an incessant reminder that we are a part of something larger than ourselves, something whose various elements we may be able to forestall, avoid, or sometimes win over, but never without the sense that we are within its control. The combination of ignorance and strife teaches that experience–“knowing”–is limited to life-imposed restrictions which we continue to defy and overcome. Thus, we are left with a contradiction we seem unable to grasp.

In other words, by tending to the inconsequential, we risk passing up reality for the sake of what can be regarded as illusion. Psychologists remind us of some of these consequences when they outline the dynamics and characteristics of neuroses. But I don’t wish the term “illusion” to be limited to this pathological sense. It may also be used to describe an irrational situation, notion or conceptual standpoint which is far removed from experience. Far-reaching theoretical abstractions could be regarded as illusory in this sense, and in some cases, the individual dealing with these can afford to without paying penalties. Some persons are paid to be abstract, for example, and reality will probably have little effect on their meandering for too long a time in a single direction. But, in regards to most cases, such circumstances are not affordable. And when illusion is sought at the expense of reality, we can (and do) expect that life will spring back on us for having done so. Sometimes the attack is furious, causing not merely confusion, but anxiety or even despair in extreme cases. To a lesser or greater degree, then, we are all a part of this all too prevalent scenario played out in life. We have reason to believe that “realistic” present-oriented types will most probably deal with life’s contingencies more effectively than say “idealistic”, “intuitive” or “abstract” types, but their is no sure indicator of this. Nevertheless, we do know that personality traits and characteristics play an integral part in determining such preferences.

THOUGHTS

1992

January 23, 1992

Survival is not my goal. I want to survive in order to think and understand. I want to integrate myself with the surrounding world and others, in order to gain satisfaction and a feeling of purpose and overall well-being. I seek out knowledge as a potential means to this end (and not for its own sake); only to date, I have not succeeded, nor does it appear likely that I ever will. My hope has been that each of us has a threshold which, when reached, delivers that sense of completeness or wholeness which satisfaction demands. Only it is also possible that I have been wrong in this, and that my actions may represent little more than an illusory elevation of satisfaction which amounts to avoidance when all is said and done.

SAME ACTION–TWO PERSPECTIVES
February 7, 1992

It seems as though everyone is confused these days, or do we dare say “unbalanced”? Is this too strong a word to describe the sense of lost equilibrium which so manyare suffering. Amidst so much change, what is left that is recognizable? The old Soviet Empire is gone and the Eastern nations are busy struggling to emerge as competitors with the West! Japan is pounding its chest and showing strong signs of bulliness. The European community is showing signs of disentangling itself from American influence, while the English seem torn between having to choose them or ourselves, and the Canadian Commonwealth, of course. After all, the Britts own 10% of America already and who say how much of Canada. And who knows, perhaps they are secretly planning to bridge the two sides, believing themselves uniquely positioned for pulling it off. (And what will the French be prepared to do in this event?) We in turn are preparing to open our doors to Mexico and Canada, looking for a common trading bloc of our own. Beyond this, we are looking to all of Central and South America as a potential means for saving our skins.

And so the so-called “global economy” continues to emerge, taking our industries further from our shores, thus further weakening the bonds which tie us together. We are told that they must do this to survive. That they must take advantage of cheap labor and cheap materials in order to compete. That the losses we suffer here in terms of fewer jobs and lower wages must be suffered or else risk losing it all. Of course, the surviving industries will not be losing by splitting the advantages stemming from ourselves and others beyond our shores–asking the best from us and the best from others anything –take advantage of the benefits which lower standards of living (elsewhere) can offer us. What we suffer in lost jobs or lowered incomes, we gain in cheaper products from abroad. There are incredibly low prices of goods surrounding us at present. Look at the tools coming to us from the Far East. We couldn’t begin to produce and sell these items at such low cost. But do we understand the long-term consequences of this seeming advantage at present? I doubt it. And, therefore, we are without the means for assessing the moves that are currently being made. Worse yet, the gains which seem to be off-setting some of our losses at present may in fact be disguising some rather terrible consequences certain to come?

February 19, 1992

The Jungian model of personality represents a classification refinement which provides us with the strongest means yet envisioned for determining human behavior. In studying this model, one begins to appreciate just how much one’s values, attitudes, orientations, etc. is a derivative of basic personality characteristics. Family and cultural characteristics are second.

The theory claims:

That there are two characteristic forms or functions of behavior which appear to explain it best: perception and judgment. Of all our actions and activities, perception and judgment seem most elemental to Jung.

I would add description or expression of perception as an important intermediary between perception and judgment and sometimes confused with either. For example, an intuition can be expressed much as a judgment since intuitions come to us whole and seem to be answers. But they are not intended to be judgments or it is a judgment based upon intuition which is a fact. In a similar way, one could make a judgment based upon sensation, or the mere fact that he saw something.

Orientation—–Extroversion—–Introversion
Perceiving——Sensation——-Intuition
Relating——–Describing——-Expressing (Feelings, Moods, Emotions, Attitudes)
Judging——–Thinking———Feeling (Values)

[looking for a universal… common element in behavior in order to explain the whole of it]

We classify various forms of behavior by first recognizing those forms. What they have in common is already contained in the original concept (tree, stone, sorrow, etc.) and is what makes the classification possible. We recognize trees to be classified–not through classification. Maybe borderline cases following more stringent definitions, but this is another thing.

Conceptions of trees, stones, etc. are developed through experience–not experienced as such. Experience comes in wholes even while we are able to focus upon one thing or another. This ability could only have followed the latter as we learned to break experience into parts through activity and manipulation and a thousand other things besides. Pointing to, making, remembering, commanding, utilizing the things of experience, lead to our being able to separate and distinguish between its elements. Classification is a form of further refinement even though it appears to us as something quite opposite. We break trees down, further distinguishing the characteristics already contained in them. We discover further elements but we create nothing new except the classification itself.

Perception is a general concept akin to sensation. Psychologist have gone beyond

Jungian psychology can be criticized from a number of standpoints, not merely because of its claims (unconscious, collective unconscious, dynamics, etc.) but, more importantly, from its formulation of the concepts themselves. But then, all of knowledge can be subjected to this same criticism and, because of this, none of us wish to bring it up. We would rather argue against Jungs choice of concepts and description of relationships than against the fact that all of them are without a firm foundation. What constitutes a function, perception, intuition, judgment, is anything but clear and one can runs the risk of circular reasoning if one looks too close. Perception and judgment are two elemental forms of behavior for Jung which are employed to explain behavior! This means that we are already able to recognize various forms of behavior and simply are selecting from among these as “paradigm” examples. But in what way are they paradigms? Elementally? Do all other forms of behavior rest in some way upon these two? Do each of these selected forms have something in common with all the rest? Of course they do, or else they wouldn’t have been classified along with the rest. Then why were they selected? Jung told us that he doesn’t know why, but that his life’s experience seemed to point to these elements as being the important ones. Then what about these philosophical considerations just raised. Aren’t they worthy of consideration? Maybe yes, maybe no. Inasmuch as they stalemate us, perhaps we are for this reason obligated to ignore them.

So what will our takeoff point be? Will arbitrarily chosen concepts be allowed or are we wrong in referring to them as such? For nothing inside our realm of understanding points to a wholly objective, outside perspective. If we are certain of anything, we know that “philosophical certainty” has little or nothing to do with life. This is not to say that no good can come of it, or that it does not serve a worthy function–it most certainly does. For if we are without extremes, we will be without parameters and thus nothing to contain us, bounce off of, or serve as a takeoff points for refinements of a thousand kinds.

What philosophy shows us is that the answers we seek are not to be found at the extreme ends of knowledge, but within. We have been so busy trying to overcome ourselves, or trying to range beyond ourselves, that we have paid too little attention to what is given us. We have been so involved with taking credit for life, that we have almost intentionally shied away from the obvious viewpoint opposing this. The time has come to change this attitude. And the best means to do this is to begin with a full confession.

We have a characteristic, preferred orientation to the world (either extroverted or introverted) which can be

The elements of the theory (or model) include orientations (inner or outer) and intensity levels of the functions of perception and judgment.

The model is based upon varying types and degrees of preferences, orientations, compensations,

The model is based upon two major orientations and two major functions of life: our orientation to the world, the manner in which we perceive it, and the manner in which we make judgments based upon our perceptions.

Personality categories can predict ones outlook and behavior. They represent further distinctions which rest inside of broad-scale cultural aspects. Personality characteristics can explain or predict much more behavior than the fact that one is Italian. Greater precision can be had through understanding both. Outer characteristics do matter and do explain, but they are outer, objective, etc. and do not tell how an Italian of a given personality type is liable to behave within a given culture. Greater refinement will result from understanding both.

In education, “tracking” is made necessary in order to glean the profit from an inequitable system.

Causation cannot be perceived because events don’t exist as events. Events are descriptions or concepts only; distinctions, abstractions, etc. which are part of a whole. Causation is a concept! We create relationships by separating experience and then note how the parts fit or relate to other things in experience. Of course, non of this is intentional. It is all given us.

When you know personal characteristics and others know yours as well, then any abuse of the same will be blatantly obvious. Ill-doings are easiest where one party is more ignorant than another or where one’s perception of what is going on is mere delusion to another. If two people are standing in a room and only one can see, it will be that one who will have the greater advantage of knowing what it is that surrounds themselves? The question is, what constitutes conceptual dark and lightness? Or better put, perhaps, which is to greater advantage: the small but certain picture of one’s immediate surroundings? Or the more encompassing though less certain view of the possibility of things yet to come? Logic compels us to regard “sensing” as most advantageous to immediate needs and “intuition” for long-range considerations. That the power residing in each will depend upon the use to which it is put and also the manner in which each is used. For example, one may use sensing means as building blocks leading to broad-scale possibilities without intuitive beginnings. Or one may use intuitive beginnings and then go in search of sensing blocks to build a bridge to it. But this isn’t really how intuition works in fact. The fact that intuitive insights exist ought to be sufficient proof that they do have a role to play. But that role is anything but clear to us. Hunches, flashes of insight, etc. are complete by definition as well as experience. We don’t receive half intuitions–they are always wholes. But being wholes means that they are disconnected or separate from other things which we are conscious of (and therefore confusing, or uncertain) or else serve to complete something which previously was disconnected in our minds. When they serve this function, we applaud them. When their `message’ is unclear, we tend to disregard or devalue them. In any case, there are more uncertain intuitions than those which can be seen to be of immediate value to us. We might wonder whether this is true in fact or simply the result of the amount of confusion surrounding ourselves and the “knowledge” contained in our minds.

Whether we favor sensing or intuition in dealing with the world, we come to realize that both extremes and balance need to be avoided. While it may seem proper to state that things ought to be in balance, the fact is that nature punishes or acts upon both. It’s as though she were telling us that we cannot remain on center, but are not to move so far off center as to lose sight of what we left behind. Perhaps this is nature’s way of maintaining some semblance of appreciation or participation in things opposite our nature’s or directions taken. That this off-centeredness must now be balanced with some other off-centered standpoint opposing it. That standpoint may belong to some other individual or contained within ourselves. What seems certain is that the world does in fact exist in this fashion.

But why would nature allow us to have off-spring opposite ourselves–with randomly different or similar personality traits? What benefits could derive from conflict, complementary dependency, caring or safeguarding the enemy? Why not allow like-minded to care for like-minded and allow future relationships with others take care of the rest? But, then, where are most of the clashes to be found? Among the different or among the like-minded?

These questions are too difficult to answer at present although it seems clear that like-minded (in terms of personality characteristics) get along much better than those with opposing characteristics. But what about this?
The psychologist, Jung, provided us with a highly useful structure of personality which works on the model of a machine. The conceptual parts of the machinery have opposing orientations, attitude and compensating characteristics which Jung claims are owing to balances and imbalances existing between conscious and unconscious standpoints in nature; that the unconscious compensates or seeks to balance the former and that difficulties we may experience (including pathologies) results from struggles between the opposing standpoints. Jung does not know why or how these orientations and attitudes arise, but suggests that some form of optimum balance be maintained for overall health and well-being. But who will decide what is to be optimum? And how will we know whether or not our choices will cause us greater harm in the future?

We are inclined to believe that if our actions lessen anxiety and can create peace and harmony within ourselves as well as with others, then they must be right. In such cases, we do not feel a compelling need to know consequences which are out of reach for us.

But what of long-range and short-range thinking? Isn’t the former always better? No! Long-range thinking extends us into nebulous territory and certainty lessens as a result. Yet, here is where our strength seems to lie. CONFLICT: Greatest strength derives from most nebulous standpoint, thus risking ourselves!

To begin with particulars and build a bridge based upon them seems most certain–the model of the syllogism. Sometimes we begin with an intuition or picture of end-points and don’t know how to get there or whether it is worthwhile to do so. Intuitions are guideposts which can be followed on faith or examined from their potential connections to what is certain for us at the present time. Thus they serve as visions, reminders, commandments, etc.

What is the difference between something acting upon us and our conscious awareness of the same? What derives from the added standpoint of the latter? If no one were aware of what was taking place in the world, would it make a difference to the world? Yes! Awareness is an integral part of the actions, shaping them, determining consequences, and all the rest? But is there another level or kind of awareness which we are not in control of (yet contained within our bodies) that has an equal or stronger role in determining actions. Yes! Otherwise, we could not tolerate uncertainties. Nature would have to be viewed in contradiction, filled with uncertainty, etc. which runs counter to our conception of an integral machine. Our whole apparatus would break down in this event and science along with it. Even with piece-meal certainty (perhaps because of it) we can and do have a view of nature as a complete, integral whole.

Our conscious standpoints alone cannot determine our actions? We are rarely if ever certain about what it is that surrounds us or what it is we ought to do in our relationships to it. We seem always to be puzzled unless we cling to an acceptance of some other standpoint given us–society’s, etc. Somehow, we develop routines or complexes of behavior which serve us as generally unquestioned guides. Without these, we would be hopelessly stagnant. This demonstrates quite clearly that there must be a means for imbalance. Imbalance is what we like to view as choice! We claim that we are able to choose our balances and imbalances.

Balance is whole. Our view of the universe as an integral, purposive machine rests upon the same. And yet, balance is stagnation. With balance, nothing moves. And so we are forced to envision a system whereby imbalance exists within balance, or else we must throw out the latter. We envision a world filled with atoms of different kinds blending with complementing atoms and repelling those things unsuitable for this. The larger picture, we think, reveals a complete, integral system–regardless of how the things of this world appear to be disjointed, random, unconnected, etc. the universe as a whole appears to be quite the opposite. Obviously we cannot have such a view, but this does not stop us from seeing micro systems at play. We see how things connect and how systems build upon systems. Surely these patterns must continue in this way. But how is it possible? Can we have a perspective or conception of imbalance within balance? Of parts in contention within a perfect, balanced whole? Reasoning to such a conclusion seems wholly unsatisfactory since we are lacking conceptual pictures or models to support such thinking. While we are able to envision finite systems at work, we are only able to do so by ignoring their connections to everything else–that is, their connections to the rest of the world as we experience it. Thus, we come to conclusions about the whole of something by experiencing parts and then pointing to the space or place such parts play within the whole!

February 26, 1992

In a real sense, there is a realistic balance which needs to be sought and achieved by each and every one of us. The world does not seek to conform to us–nor does it tell us what we must do to conform to it. Each of us has to look to and listen to ourselves in order to know what we must do. With an economy out of balance, each of us must try to restructure our circumstances to fit the changes besetting us. The common approach is to try to “hang on” to what we still have, regain what we may have just lost, or seek to secure what may be realistically unachievable. While this is a normal reaction, it is not a very healthy one and is bound to lead to a great deal of frustration over the long run. Worse, by the time you come grips with these new realities, you may find that you’ve “run out of steam”.

With the situation growing ever tighter as competition for jobs stiffens, employers are finding it necessary to scrutinize covering letters and resumes. The good jobs (real jobs) are going to those who are able to demonstrate a keen sense of current realities and where they believe themselves to best fit within them. With the pressure on, only this kind of understanding will serve to separate the `merely desperate’ from the `true achievers’. To be sure, there will always be a select few who will have skills exactly right for the times. They will, and are being sought after regardless of what they know about themselves or the bigger picture. But again, these are the “creme du creme” and are always employed. Employers and recruiters simply play “musical chairs” in trying to win them to their respective companies. This message is for those who have already lost their job or are presently in fear of losing it.

Covering letters must be focused upon the job in question. This means that only choice elements are to be selected from the resume, correctly interpreted and highlighted in accordance to the specifications and needs of the job being sought.

Is your resume all that it can be? Does it adequately Desiree personal and job-related skills and characteristics? Does it reflect your learning and performance potential? Is its message or strategy consistent throughout. Does your covering letter providing an adequate lead in to your resume? Does it adequately highlight what needs to be highlighted for the job in question? au and focus these in the message it is bringing to an employer

March 6, 1992

People do not make decisions–they repeat them.

CONCEPT

Your only a word, an idea, a concept–
A seeming concept whose meaning I do not know
And yet I recognize your power over me
And am confused because of it

Because of you my behavior is inappropriate
It leads me in directions not suited to my nature
Because of this I am physically and emotionally stressed
And dissociation looms ahead

IN THE NAME OF EDUCATION, CONCEPTUAL CONFUSION LEADS TO INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR AND RESULTANT PHYSICAL AND EMOTIONAL ANXIETY & STRESS. WITHOUT MEANING, TRUE MEANING, WE BECOME DISSOCIATED FROM OURSELVES.

OUTSIDE–INSIDE: SYSTEM & PROTECTION

Most people are looking for understanding and acceptance by others–not for self-understanding to serve as a foundation for self-acceptance. They want to be told what to do–want others to decide for them–and dread having to understand for themselves. For them, there is no “self” other than a “social self”–and this is a comforting alternative to having to accept that we may be alone!

But we are not alone! Furthermore, it is only this limited view that makes us think so. And yet we persist in holding on to it–continue the charade of believing that nature only works from outside ourselves and not from within? Why? Why do we continue to demean ourselves by ignoring the obvious–by ignoring the messages which undeniably come to us from within? Because “within” is really “without”? Are we objecting to the notion that such phenomena might be “immaterial” or “spiritual” in nature, and that this view only shows how much we don’t understand about our physical natures–our brains? Okay, I’ll buy this. Let’s call the messages (hunches, visions, voices, dreams, conceptions, insights, spontaneous thoughts, etc.) all “physical phenomena” emanating from, and contained within our brains. Obviously, this implies that we have two brains since there is a dualism or relational standpoint between message-sender and message-receiver. It also implies that there is a conscious standpoint and an unconscious standpoint (since we generally aren’t expecting the messages that come to us, nor do we remember having ever consciously constructed them). Okay, I’ll buy the fact that we have two brains. I’ll even admit that it is logically impossible to think it otherwise, for whatever this is worth. But, again, so what! Whether the messages are coming from the brain, from God, from some alien being, or from the inside of a tree or a stone–they come to us, and for that reason alone, shouldn’t be ignored.

But, of course, there is another side to this as we know. While we may not choose to credit the influence of such messages upon our thoughts and actions, all of us do in fact know that the credit is not ours–or, at least, not belonging to our conscious selves. But of course, this does not prevent our conscious selves from taking the credit. Indeed, one of the greatest sins we commit against ourselves and all humanity, is fostering the delusion that we are acting alone. While we may fear that a subjective attachment to anything within will only further alienate us from the outside world–specifically, from others–we do not seem to be aware of the suffering which denial brings. The “ghost in the machine” remains a ghost only because we make it so!

What do we stand to gain from clinging to a half perspective–a mere particular–stolen away from a much broader spectrum of experience? How does this come about?

To focus upon particulars is to limit experience, but such is the way of all progress and knowledge as we know it. Without distinctions–dissociation–we could not define separate things and then go on to classify them–system. Without limitation, there could be no sense of “otherness” since everything is one to begin with. But consider the following:

It is impossible for us to envision our universe out of equilibrium, unless we envision something else existing outside it, and this, of course, runs our thinking amuck. And rightfully so. Although our concept of universe depends upon our refusal to consider anything else, still, we sense that it, like earth, is a whole. Only unlike earth, we must delineate the universe–circumscribe it–by pointing to it from within rather than from an “objective” outside perspective. So it would seem that we can sometimes observe a whole from an outside perspective, sometimes construct a whole from a limited outside perspective (like earth prior to space exploration), and sometimes construct a whole from an “inside” perspective. In the latter case, our experience and understanding of being outside of something, makes it possible for us to imagine an outside perspective–from within! Or does it? Something here seems dubious.

We must understand that the notion of a whole (of a thing) can only come about by focusing upon particulars which separate the thing from its surroundings. Since everything is connected by either matter or space (one stream so to speak), then we might say that all concepts represent arbitrary dissociation in this sense. Of course, there is another sense in which we can deny that our definitions and classifications are arbitrary. Since things are perceived in the way we relate to them–by our physical makeup’s and also by our actions and activities–then we could rightfully say that our concepts are appropriate for their usage. For we not only perceive objects in the way that we must, we also handle them, manipulate them, and do a thousand other things besides. This being the case, it makes perfectly good sense to speak of “natural conceptions”. But all I want to point out is that such characteristics and actions are dissociative, and because they are, we are able to conceptualize…

_LOST TEXT__________________________________

I do not need a special means
For hearing what is told me.
I do not need a special voice
For speaking what I hear.
Nor do I need a special vision
To know what I see–
To know that you are with me.

4/9/91

SEMINARS & WORKSHOPS (APPLIED THEORIES)

There is a need for us to disseminate knowledge for what it is rather than for ulterior purposes. Our system is dependent upon freedom because citizens must be free to make “choices” in accordance with the way they are manipulated! The individual vs. society question is a slippery one at best and it is grossly manipulated by both sides, thus turning these concepts “on their heads” very often in the sense of each becoming their opposite. In many respects, knowledge is out of control or beyond our capability for harnessing and understanding it. As a result, we are forced to let more and more of the details generated by the many (specialist) slip through our hands on the way toward greater and greater generality in order to live with the situation. BUT WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS? WHY NOT REGARD IT AS A NATURAL PHENOMENON?

Because those with knowledge USE KNOWLEDGE to manipulate and delude to the extent that they are able in the HIERARACHY of abilities and usage of laws and institutions which provide the means.

BUT WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS? AND, IS THIS HIERARCHY OF KNOWLEDGE & USE REALLY “KNOWN” AND UNDERSTOOD RELATIVE TO ONE’S LEVEL OR SIMPLY THE RESULT OF THE NATURAL PROGRESSION OF NATURE? ARE DIFFICULTIES, CRITICISMS, ETC. THE RESULT OF OUR “DESCRIBING” A SITUATION FOR WHAT WE SEE IT TO BE AND THEN “ATTRIBUTING” PURPOSIVE BEHAVIOR TO THOSE EXHIBITING IT? An interesting question which probably is a mixture of both. People believe and do manipulate our systems, etc. to serve their purposes but probably give themselves too much credit for managing it.

SHOULD WE NOT MANIPULATE OTHERS? SHOULD WE ALWAYS WAIT FOR MUTUAL ADVANTAGE? THE ILLUSION OF “MUTUAL ADVANTAGE” IS ITSELF A MAJOR MEANS OF MANIPULATION! AND DELUSION AND MANIPULATION IS CONSIDERED AN APPROPRIATE DEVICE FOR MANY THINGS, I.E., RAISING, GUIDING AND PROTECTING OTHERS. IT IS NOT THE ACT BUT THE PURPOSE THAT MATTERS. IS ONE’S ACTION FOR ONE’S OWN ADVANTAGE ONLY, FOR BOTH, OR FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ANOTHER?

Is it enough for each person to decide whether or not he or she is being taken advantage of? Since we all have differing aptitudes, this is certainly not sufficient. Thus we have rules, laws, etc. for protection. BUT, these same rules can provide the means for further manipulation whether or not a society believes that “anything goes so long as it is not against the law” or that “nothing goes unless it is permitted”. Both are oppressive. The first stresses faith in the good of individuals (or that best advantage may be taken through such freedoms) while the latter has no such faith, but relies upon a few to decide what is appropriate for the many (or that best advantage may be taken through such controls).

THOUGHT:This seesawing back and forth, interchangeable concepts in opposition, two sides to every question, etc. permeates all thinking. It is so prevalent, so near and yet we cannot understand why it is at all. Why is it not possible to assert something without having it come back upon itself in the form of an alternative (generally opposing) notion? It is the basis of all disagreement and alternative choosing. Is there a common thread or general basis which is identifiable and predictable in each of us? Or, are our opinions, choices, ways of seeing things, subject to the workings of life, language or thought despite ourselves?–that it is not purposive behavior at all, but is the result of our respective attitudes? My own attitude is such that I am prone to seeing the alternatives. Someone else may be prone to seeing fewer ones. What compels or propels either of us, assuming that there are always alternatives to every assertion, concept, theory?

If we always saw an alternative and could not come down on either side of a question, or agree with an assertion, we would not be able to act. And so we must decide, or act `as if’ we had decided. What determines whether we will do this or not? What decides one propensity over another? Is one who finds it easy to see alternative the one most likely to stagnate–being most unable to decide? Then, does our ignorance propel us? Without ignorance or “con-fusion”, would we be unable to act or progress in any way? Could we have knowledge?

I sense that knowledge itself is a highly illusory concept tied to notions of truth, certainty, understanding, etc. all of which suggest a certain degree of permanence, be it a `relative permanence’ or not. `Knowing something’ seems to imply that what is known is stronger than whatever doubts (alternative notions) one may have regarding it; and that it has a use or can be expressed as a belief (even if tentative) because of its weighted characteristics. Perhaps “knowledge” has nothing whatever to do with the pursuit of certainty but everything to do with the pursuit of life. Perhaps we `overcome ignorance’ not by replacing `it’ (an absence of an unthought potential or a state of confusion) with knowledge (some `thing’ to know), but by informing or explaining something which is `acceptable’ to another either as “new knowledge” or as a means to freeing oneself from constraining alternatives inhibiting action. We might suppose from this viewpoint that one could be in “limbo” when equally constrained, act reluctantly when one side is only slightly weighted heavier than the other, or act with force and certitude when one is very clear about one’s viewpoint.

_________________________________
MODERN PSYCHOLOGY, David Cox, c1969, Barnes and Noble. (Excellent treatment)
In keeping with analytical approach. Personality is born from relationships and is expressed by same. Only way a person can learn is through relating with the analyst. Jungian approach calls for a very open and honest relationship with each client with each expressing what it is they understand about that relationship, can or cannot do (such as not play the father role when a client is looking for this). The analyst must inform the client of what is happening on both their parts, etc. Projection forms part of every relationship but usually are not examined

Analyst must not fall for the projection–allow his feelings to be pulled in by what is expected of him from the client. Must hold on to his real opinions and gradually let the client know them and that what was projected upon him was a product of the client’s own unconsciousness. Projection is subtle, rarely crude, and takes training to spot. The projection is not just any projection but suitable to the analyst… thus bringing out aspects of analyst’s character (which seems to be going full circle into imagining that the client is right in the projection??)

Graduates may be optimistic about their ability to secure a valued employment opportunity, but the plain and simple fact is that it is going to be tough. Why?

Economic considerations:

Too many job-seekers seeking too few jobs translates to high competition

Most employers are seeking short-term gains. This translates to fewer employees, having appropriate skills, and willing to work at a high level of productivtivity for relatively modest levels of pay.

Since there is already available a large pool of displaced, experienced, “willing” workers to choose from, newcomers to the job market are at a serious disadvantage. Except for the very few who are “recruited” directly out of college, the majority of college students can expect to have a very difficult time.

Employers who are able and willing to hire college graduates, must look to an individual’s “potential”. Since relevant skills and experience will undoubtedly be lacking in resume, as will personal profile type information needed to discern “fit”, the traditional resume simply will not work.

To correct this situation, one’s resume must reflect the graduates skills or “performance” and “personal fit” potential. In this way, relevant screening information can be given employers enabling them to select appropriate candidates to be interviewed.

If a resume is to reflect one’s potential in both these regards, the graduate must understand what this means. “Potential” is a hollow term if it does not have credibility, and credibility is something which must be deserved. The last thing an employer wants to hear is what someone “thinks” they want, or “thinks” they know. Self-assurance of this kind can be gained by anyone, though, unfortunately, it rarely is.

RJ Iannello Associates

March 6, 1992

PERSONAL NEEDS, KNOWLEDGE & ACTIVITIES

I want to satisfy my personal longing for peace, contentment, and successful integration with the surrounding world, by continuing in my quest to note, examine and define, the fundamental contents, structures and relationships existing between human needs, knowledge and activities as these relate to the world.

Such matters may not always represent “fundamental” concerns in terms of basic, underlying, hidden or disguised elements and relationships, etc. However, I have found that human suffering (in the Western world) is more a matter of mental anguish than physical, and that this is due to an unmanageable level of complexity in terms of knowledge and activities. Half the world is trying to satisfy basic physical needs while the “modern” half is struggling with emotional survival. Anxiety, stress, mental fatigue, feelings of confusion and entrapment, etc., are all products of a dissociated society. Therefore, we must be suspect of our “knowledge”, “institutions” “activities” and “beliefs”. Many of these contents are chimerical and illusory by nature–but many others are intentional delusional constructs born out of ignorance, selfishness and half-baked thought!

I would like to join with other individuals who, like myself, want to assist others in improving the lot of humankind, through greater understanding and application. The goal is to increase personal satisfactions or decrease personal dissatisfaction by dealing with both the physical and emotional sides of the human dilemma. To feed, clothe and shelter the one side, and to disentangle the other from the conceptual and institutional webs which thwart satisfaction. In such a way, we might fulfill our greater purpose, if greater purpose there ever was for the likes of us.

March 10, 1992

PROBLEM WITH SELF & ACTION

Ideas given me point upwards to greater knowledge and clarity, but if I attempt to “close” them, I find dead ends with possibilities everywhere threatening them–devaluing them so that I feel they are unworthy to be used. So I keep receiving, holding on, and ignoring the outside world–wanting to be left alone to work toward something certain. But I know that this will forever be out of reach.

If I try to apply unfinished, undefined, changing thoughts to another individual, I generally overwhelm them and myself by bringing too much into the foreground. Do I have any business doing this? My Self does not point me in any direction–just keeps putting more and more enticing notions into consciousness. I do not confuse myself with my inner voice–I recognize its presence and its revelations. But I do so at the expense of leaving the world, and the world springs back to punish me. My inner self wants me not only to receive, but to go within. To know it. But the world compels me to do otherwise.

I am trying to serve two masters–“Self” and “World” without either giving me clear direction. Mammon is worldly, but comes to me from within. God is spiritual and seems also to come from within, I believe through “feeling”. The one compels me to know myself, the other to love mankind–to withstand or be used up–I just don’t know.

I seem to prefer self to world, however, since the world has grown ugly. People are growing uglier and are seemingly without purpose and direction. Human traits seem to be working against us rather than for us.

To love another is to trust, to give up control, drop defenses, and to give oneself over to that individual–opposite what nature seems to compel.

Perhaps godliness can be discovered in my repressed feelings. Perhaps mammon operates out of my thinking or intuitive side and God (or Jesus) out of my feeling.

Mammon uses intuition to supply me with compelling insights which my thinking tries in vain to put into some order and use.

COMPELLED BY MIND-WORLD RELATIONSHIP

My consciousness is nearly totally preoccupied with compelling thoughts or conceptions regarding the ways of mind and world. This relationship has preoccupied me for my entire life and has always been at a detriment to myself and family in terms of worldly satisfaction. The cost has been high.

My knowledge of integration increases while the fact of integration decreases. The more I learn, the further removed I become from integration.

But to “know” is to “experience” and this entails integration prior to knowing! My “acknowledgements”, or what is given me, does not constitute knowledge. I must dare to venture forth without knowledge. I must have the faith that what has been given me will be all that is necessary–or what is necessary will be given me.

When I talk to others, I bring my conceptual wares with me as protection. I don’t trust myself without them. I should experience another individual and trust that the right material will come befitting the occasion and need.

EDUCATION

Personal processes and the usage made of them is like utilizing a function with a particular orientation for a particular purpose. Purpose is often determined by ones orientation as well as by the function utilized. It may not agree with the contents education wishes to impose upon individuals.

There are student characteristics, teacher characteristics, and curriculum.

* Better to receive insights from an intuitive than present one with facts.
* Better for each to learn more about their own characteristics so that they can better understand what and why things surrounding themselves are not always satisfying, though perhaps worthy of toleration.
* By putting curriculum first and establishing a structure around it, we limit individuals who cannot conform and cull out those that can–all in the faith that what we are doing is right.

PROCRASTINATION

Why do I procrastinate? Because I don’t know. Because I don’t feel that I have anything tangible to give. Because I am not interested in people and things. Because people and things (the world) is punishing rather than loving.

What do I have of importance to say or perform? How can I assist anyone from a state of confusion and ever-escaping certainty? How can I reach closure long enough to make use of it?

It is the idea that is important to me and not a particular usage. It is the sheer potential of the idea in terms of aiding all humanity that intrigues me, and not a limited application. I hold out for the big ideas. But they never seem big enough or certain enough to express.

Or is it because they never can be expressed without leaks? How can I preach a process? It seems that we are always stuck within or between parameters, always short of knowing. What we claim to know never quite holds up, but it does serve to propel and compel us.

Or am I barking up the wrong tree? Ought I to be expressing my feelings? Are feelings worthy of consideration? Do they carry the same conviction as knowledge? Why do we regard knowledge as more important than feelings? Because we confuse feeling with spurts of emotion?–emotional outbursts which confuse rather than ameliorate a given situation? But these emotional outbursts are not simply the domain of feelings–they come from, or accompany thinking and other functions as well.

Is there something which we could point to aside from sharpness? Something akin to knowledge which accumulates and gets carried about? Do feelings develop? Feeling seems to be attendant with sensation and knowledge–something which is always around. And yet, because its always around, it tends to go unnoticed! Since it permeates everything, it tends to be overlooked as a distinguishable property in its own right–a content of sorts worthy of examination–worthy of being known. We talk about an inner, “Thinking Self” but never about an inner “Feeling Self”, as though the latter could not contain a logic of its own. Again, for us, feelings are emotional accompaniments, features or characteristics attached to or resulting from something else–never emotive exaggerations emanating from its own soil. We tend to believe that thoughts can organize and are intentional, while feelings cannot and are not; they simply happen to one. But, I’m beginning to “feel” otherwise!

Perhaps this is my “journey’s end”–my intuitions and thinking finally dumping me at the door of feelings. Full-circle have I traveled, only to find myself where I have always been; that the baggage I’ve cursed was all along my salvation–a blessing in disguise which did not desert me. I am thankful for this and now feel that it is time to substitute my baggage; that the old marriage of `intuition and thinking’ needs now to be carried as baggage into the new marriage of `intuition and feeling’. I want to carry the old vision with me to God, without apology. I share Mammon’s hope for worldly good and self-righteousness through knowing. His plight is my own and it asks for a dignity befitting each of us. I will not feign humility or offer myself and Mammon up as a sacrifice. Jesus said he wanted “mercy” rather than “sacrifice”–but mercy for whom?–Jesus? Are we to forgive Jesus for the toil He’s caused?–opposing us to life? Or does He desire mercy for others? As I journey toward my feeling side, I fully expect that answers will come.

FEELINGS

I ache. I dread. I fear. I am ashamed. I am disappointed. I am weary of life. I am losing hope for peace and contentment. I fear that my life will have been to no avail.

I am not angry–just sorrowful. I feel that you are causing my suffering–that it serves your purpose. It is not a shared purpose and so I am not without my doubts. You could be much less than what I hope for. I want you to be all that I want you to be–nothing less. If you are less, then I wish to defy you–to tell you how wrong you’ve been. Otherwise, I gladly trust in your will and only hope that I can withstand. But, what is most difficult is that I am forced to affect other lives. I am trusting others to you and I don’t feel that I have that right. They should not have to suffer my thinking or feeling. Do with me and with them what you will, but why through me? Why should I cause others to suffer in your name? Let them choose you or not. Or are we not individuals?

I feel helpless in the light of the world; it is so disappointing. Only it is your world and only you know it. Within the parameters given us, you must be held to blame for our shortcomings more than we. Why should we be punished for being alive and living? We choose life because you made us to choose. And we deny life because you told us to. I feel entrapped. I feel pain. I am fatigued from trying to understand.

What would you have me do? You do not want me to think. You do not want me to sit still. What does the pain mean? It carries no message. Give me a sign. Should I stop what I’m doing when in pain? Then what? Will your message come? Or am I just to avoid doing what I was doing? For how long? Or should I turn my back on you altogether? Make the best of life despite your will? Join with others–the good, the bad, and the ugly? Get into life on any plane?

This is not thinking, is it? Maybe I should find an earthly replacement for you? Maybe mammon is good for me, worthy of being known. Maybe I should join him. At least, there is someone besides myself that is talking to me. I’m angry at you. I don’t like your hold on me. You undoubtedly exist, but you won’t reveal yourself. If you are revealing yourself, you are being mysterious about it. If you are guiding us, this too is mysterious, since we are never sure what it is we are to do. And this is very troublesome to us. We know you are there but don’t have the ability to recognize you if you are with us. If you are nature, then you are not the God we choose. You would not cause us suffering. But I am thinking again.

I feel tense. I feel used up. I feel entrapped. I dread having to go with my life as it is; facing each day without any hope for happiness. Must I take charge? Must I take matters into my own hands? Must I do what I think is right to do? Must I be selfish or must I act in a way that is mutually advantageous to myself and to those I affect? Must I find the means?

TAKING RESPONSIBILITY

There seems to be no middle ground. One must conquer life or be conquered by it–move forward or be forced backward. If we are not alone, we are at least made to believe we are. If we are controlled, we are not made to believe so. Everything around us forces us to action or refrain.

But do I want to survive? Do I want to conquer life? Or do I want to succumb to it? I hate to move because I hate what I’m moving toward;

March 7, 1992

PERSPECTIVE

“Ugliness”
Soul or veneer
Evil at liberty
Or goodness despaired

“Sweetness”
Delight or refrain
Goodness revealed
Or evil contained

Are you proud or arrogant Peacock?
Your strut is all the same
From this alone I cannot tell
If noxious be your game

The words `segregation’ and `integration’ generally refer to separatist or isolationist and cooperative tendencies regarding race, ethnicity, culture, customs, language, beliefs, habits, etc. But these words have far greater meaning than this–reaching into and representing fundamental areas of knowledge, belief and activities which go well beyond this limited usage. While the world seems to be more chaotic and uncertain today than ever before, to my way of thinking, it is only confusing because we have made it that way–and, ironically, it is “knowledge” (together with “Ego”) that stands in the way of clear vision. Once an appropriate perspective is achieved, I am confident that we will discover that, like ourselves, all problems share a common heritage. As such, our search for solutions can begin almost anywhere, knowing that if we remain on track, we will eventually reach common ground. Nevertheless, I think it appropriate to begin this essay by defining characteristics of a problem which, at present, is growing to endemic proportions–isolationist tendencies.

We needn’t point to the tendencies inherent in neo-nazism, fascism, ultra-conservatism, or to the Ku Klux Clan, to recognize that isolationist tendencies are contained within all of us. It is a tendency born out of fear turned to anger and frustration. Sometimes the fear is unfounded, exaggerated or born out of ignorance regarding the true nature of people and circumstances,–but who among us has the right to say so? To the person holding such tendencies, choosing one direction or attitude over another may seem to have been a rational choice, but we know it is not. It is an outgrowth of emotion, primarily, and the attendant feeling that we have been forced to tolerate and withstand a situation which is clearly not in our interest, advantageous or simply fair. Let’s see how this plays out in describing segregating and integrative tendencies in other terms.

Those who favor segregation claim to be sick and tired of the pangs which difference and prejudice brings. They choose not to ignore their individual or group differences for the benefit of the larger society. They do not wish to swallow abhorred differences existing between their value systems and those of others. And they are tired of having to disadvantage themselves by sharing their wealth with “undeserving types”–with the unproductive types for example. As such, these types tend to be conservative, individual, practical, decisive, expedient and present (or past)-oriented. They seek and use authority and institutional structures to reach “closure”. For them, greater harmony will be realized from order and the rule of law. Realism replaces idealism as the best means for dealing with the world. The greatest sins are weakness, indecisiveness and an inability to act. Thus, prejudice (pre-judgment) is a common trait of this type attitude, and it is something to be proud of–so long as it’s right. In its most “elevated” form, it takes on a god-like status exuding “power and commandment” in a corrective or necessary sense. The survival and rule of the strongest and fittest is their byline–the more paternal Gods of the old world being much preferred to the new. Although they would not care to admit it, they cling to Christianity for its cohesiveness and institutional value primarily, and not because of its teachings. Christian humility belongs to Christ alone, and is somewhat of an embarrassment when practiced by anyone else! They are suspicious of education and over rationalization in general (although this type makes up most of education’s administrators and teachers on the lower levels), and oftentimes are embarrassed by the limited number of considerations that have gone into making a decision. Nevertheless, they believe that “liberals are indecisive, cowardly space cadets who would rather live within the illusions of dreams rather than face the realities of the world as it comes to us!”

Those who favor integrative policies and measures also claim to be sick and tired of the pangs which difference and prejudice brings. Only they seek to correct inequities where they exist while striving to foster a greater tolerance of differences without becoming detached. They are sick and tired of controls, power and decisions made without due consideration. They tend to be future-oriented idealist, hoping for a better life to come, a “new order”, a “gentler society” (oh no, can it be?) which will finally set things right. Their attitude is liberal and social and this enables them (or dictates to them) that they are obligated to withstand and suffer both difference and indifference in a way that their counterparts cannot–or will not. As such, they tend to procrastinate when it comes to getting things done. They are often indecisive, relative, tentative, and most always uncertain about whatever they undertake. Unlike their counterparts, they look for more information, rather than less, before deciding to act. They want to be moral and correct and would rather do nothing than do the wrong thing. Their gods exudes love, tolerance and forgiveness–the more maternal gods of the New Testament and Eastern religions–and not the wrathful, paternal gods of old. Although they would not care to admit it, they are somewhat embarrassed by their inability and general reluctance to make definite choices–and then to live with them. They are very critical of conservative choices as these most always preclude alternatives which their standpoint considers necessary. Their cry is that “Conservatives are bigoted, shallow-thinking fools who force themselves upon the world, whether wanted or not, by the sheer force of brutality and ignorance!”

Of course, these definitions can be argued and contested from a host of varying perspectives and concepts–`segregation vs. integration’, `conservative vs. liberal’, `judging types vs. perceiving types’, etc. While this fact alone should set us all wondering, there are still other facts more worthy of note. No matter what your criticisms are regarding the way in which I have differentiated these concepts, what you cannot deny is the fact that there are two opposing tendencies at play. Furthermore, these tendencies seem to represent two opposing perspectives taken from a single observation!

Both sides, then, point to suffered consequences as an appropriate rationale for their respective attitudes. The one side wishes to inform us that we should accept the fact of differences, but that we shouldn’t tolerate them when they unfairly disadvantage us–that we have the right to take action to right prevailing wrongs. The other side also accepts the fact of difference, but informs us that we need to tolerate rather than avoid them–that greater harmony will result from our ability to foster greater equality while tolerating prevailing differences. Ironically, the side that chooses not to tolerate differences, accentuates and fosters the same through separation, while the side which claims to respect difference, de-emphasizes and diminishes the same through greater integration. But illusions and delusions of this nature abound on both sides, and this fact only demonstrates how shaky is the ground we stand on.

For example, we are quick to talk of maintaining “toleration and respect for the different cultures existing within our nation”–a professed value of both conservative and liberals alike. Only conservatives claim that we can best respect these differences only if they remain intact and separated (meaning that each group will go its separate way), while liberals claim that we can best respect differences by living with them. But why, then, did liberals follow their conservative counterparts to the suburbs? And why do they continue to follow their lead in nestling into an appropriate section of the same. Does this mean that the liberal banner is a farce inasmuch as they don’t seem to be living or acting out of their convictions? Or does it reflect a cowardly unwillingness to reveal their innermost feelings?–that while they may hope and act for a better world, it will be from a distance! So who is helping who?

We know instinctively that integration will eventually eradicate the very same cultures we profess to honoring. But this is not an issue to be decided on the basis of segregation or integration, it is an issue to be decided on the basis of our knowledge of culture. If we could just look beyond our concepts, we would observe that cultures are not stagnant, integral entities which would go on forever if left untouched. While all cultures can be said to be of equal worth, who is prepared to preserve any one of them? Which ones will we choose to preserve and at what time will we apply the shellac? At its pinnacle–“the golden age”–or in its simplest terms, the rural setting of a farm, the colonial era, an Indian culture, etc. As was said, all are worthy of preservation–but none are ever preserved. Cultures never cease to grow and change with the flow of time and events. What we consider to be racial and ethnic sameness, in fact contains a million and one differences within their self-imposed parameters. An Englishman, Spaniard, Frenchman, German and Italian are each composites of hundreds of tribal bloodlines. At what point and where will we draw the lines to permanently distinguish each as a cultural entity in its own right?–Nowhere and at no time can we in fact! But we can and do delude ourselves in thinking so. Does this mean that we cannot respect a given culture or cultural heritage for what it was, or is at a given time? Of course not.–This is what history and anthropology and literature and museums filled with artifacts do. But these are little more than “snapshots”, and this makes all the difference.

So what are we to make of all of this? Should we argue the matter further? Or should we further refine our concepts–further order our facts and classifications, and then on to priorities. Perhaps we should cite the conservative as a fool for believing that she could ever escape differences–humiliate her by pointing out the reality of those opposing differences existing within herself–that her isolationist tendencies are as futile as would be building a stationary pond in the middle of a on-rushing stream.–stagnation viewed as success, forfeiting life as it comes to us. Why would anyone want to do this!

Or should we remind the liberal of how foolish he is to believe that we can or ever should tolerate difference–that his notions of integration and “oneness” are as chimerical as is his faith in “true knowledge”, if only it could be had! Should we rub his face in the dirt to remind him of what is real? No, we haven’t the right. No one has a handle on reality and illusion.

These are but two burdensome concepts which delude us into thinking

*what’s wrong in this thinking is the fact that we believe ourselves in control, that we govern ourselves and the world

*But professed beliefs and actions do not necessarily indicate a person’s true preferences. Often operating out of an opposite tendencies.

* Circumstances are placing people in a non-productive status which might teach them something about the plight of those who have been in this status all along. But rather than admit to this, it is easier to blame the victims as a cause of the present

*Pat Buchanan is primary example. Pandering to such tendencies, riding the crest of a wave of anti everything. Strong need for certainty. Overlooks a great deal to keep things simple. Like catholic church.

Education was thought to be a means to greater harmony through fostering shared values, history, language, etc. It has failed. As soon as youths “come of age”, they begin to see the discrepancies between what they are being told and what they are learning outside the classroom. Education cannot alter society unless it enters it …

THE NEW ORDER

“Rugged individuals” are we
Staunch in limb and heart;
Adventurers to the end we think
To hell with Karl Marx!

Too weary has this pretense made us–
This haughty view of greed;
This flower of our natural selves
Said borne of sacred seed.

Deceiving fools who dared distort
What must become of us;
Who told us that the way of life
Is little more than pus!

But now the stench of greed foretells
Competition is much alive;
Oh cattle barons of the East,
Come take our worthless hides!

March 9, 1992

NOTES ON JUNGIAN TYPES

THOUGHTS:Normal attitudes reflect a balanced psychic equilibrium between conscious and unconscious standpoints. Conscious attitude and unconscious attitudes can oppose one another if unconscious is not satisfied and cannot make conscious standpoint allow satisfaction of its own interests, impulses, etc. It too wants to join in the present only it comprises a good deal more than our recent history. Thus, it can be infantile, archaic, and maybe out of touch???

If we do have natural functions, we mustn’t change or alter these in ourselves or others to conform with some outside goal, etc.

Psychological theory allows us a means for furthering our understanding of ourselves and others through natural differences and propensities and therefore has great potential in increasing harmony and lessening conflict.

Jungian psychology has far-reaching parameters and dimensions. It’s a big theory and worthy of being utilized

INTROVERT: reserved, inscrutable, shy…abstracting attitude, draws energy from object, devalue object… conserves energy, Adapts by monopolizing…
Decisions and actions determined by consciousness subjective orientation

EXTROVERT: consciousness is outward-directed, open, sociable, jovial, outward-looking… wants to affirm and give value to outside objects. Expends energy for sake of objects, is oriented by object, propagates and tries to adapts by multiplicity of relationships.

Problem: ignores or violates subjective needs. Decisions and action determined from consciousness oriented by objects themselves and not by subjective view. Sometimes adjusts rather than adapts to outside influences…gets sucked into objects, changing to the conditions of the moment without regard for own subjective needs. Suffers psychically and physically but usually only aware of physical. Family members and friends will notice other characteristics. Hysteria

To compensate for this, …unconscious tries to maintain a psychic equilibrium by taking on a complementary, opposing, introverted and ego-centric attitude which tries to force involuntary restraints by concentrating energy on the subjective factor rather than the objective; upon needs, impulses, desires, etc. formally suppressed by conscious attitude. Unconscious contains a person’s whole history which must come alive in and participate in the present. Thus, it has an essentially primitive, infantile, egocentric character. The more repressed these impulses, the more regressive, infantile and archaic they become, oftentimes verging on the ruthless. But these remain hidden so long as the extraversion is not extreme. But if extreme, the unconscious impulses can no longer find any degree of compatibility, it will cease being complementary and will begin to oppose and destroy the extroverted conscious standpoint. When this happens, the conscious attitude further exaggerates its own standpoint trying to further repress the unconscious, etc. until it leads to a collapse, nervous breakdown, etc. paralyzing all conscious action. Then the unconscious brings about a disastrous split: either the subject no longer knows what is wanted, or wants too much of impossible things.

When the mechanism of extroversion predominates in a mode of behavior, we say that the behavior is extroverted. In such cases, the most differentiated (superior) function is always extroverted whereas the inferior functions are introverted. The superior function is most conscious while the others have little of each. Conscious personality exhibits aims, will, etc. while less differentiated (less conscious) functions simply “happen” to one. They always show highly subjective colorings with pronounced egocentricity and personal bias. The unconscious comes to light through them. Think of the extroverted feeling type who enjoys excellent feeling rapport with people around her and yet occasionally “happens” to express very tactless opinions.

Constant influx of unconscious contents into the conscious processes.. sometimes hard to know which character traits belong to which. Generally, a “judging” observer will see the conscious character while the “perceptive” observer will tend to see unconscious characteristics. When we cannot tell to which attitude the superior function belongs, we must observe which function is completely under conscious control and which have a haphazard and spontaneous character. Occasionally the superior function gives impressing of normality while the others have something abnormal or pathological about them.

NOTESHow does one know if they are looking at an exaggerated extrovert who is ego-centric and inward looking because of an unconscious compensation of an overly exaggerated extroverted standpoint and a natural introvert. Because it will be crude, infantile, behavior

E-T

Judges by outside criteria and direction of thinking directed toward outside

March 16, 1992

Something terrible seems to be happening to us currently. We are suffering consequences from `we know not what’–except that we know that we are suffering! Everywhere we look–in every area of the globe–within every knowledge discipline–every political and economic structure–every social organization–we sense that something monumental is happening to us, and that we are in real danger!

In our hearts, we know this danger is owing to ignorance, although it is the last thing we care to admit. We sense that our time for staving it off, ignoring it, or simply cloaking it by delusionary means, is quickly running out; that such practices have finally caught up to us, and that we are choking as a result. We sense that we have made the world (or that the world has made us) much too dangerous for our own good. World-caused or not, we know that if we are to survive, we are going to have to somehow come to grips with the way we find the world and ourselves to be–that the present situation must be corrected–that unless it is, nature stands ready to dismiss us.

While we remain in this state of ignorance, we suffer. While we continue to fear, we suffer. Indeed, our ignorance may well be the direct result of fear and, in particular, of our unwillingness to risk knowing from a state of ignorance. This unwillingness has led us to set-up delusionary states of mind whereby we imagine ourselves capable of knowing prior to experience!–that we are able to do `something more’ than simply acknowledge that which comes to us!–that we come to know because we are already armed with knowledge! And yet, if we are asked to state clearly what it is we in fact do know, in the end, we fall muted. We find that the only clear sense of knowing is an on-going, relative sense, which, in the end, puts nature rather than ourselves in the drivers seat. Science understands this only too well, but it goes on about its business without fanfare. In fact, this is its true strength: it places nature above ourselves, thus sidestepping the hardships which result from a quest for certainty; it relegates knowledge to a relative status. The only certainty it counts on, is that every certainty is bound to change. The strides made by science and technology are owing to this basic attitude.

But science has been guilty of grave sins against humanity–not because of its achievements–but because of its failure to disclose how its advances really come about. Science lies like nothing else! It parades itself as though it were the cause of its own successes. True, it elevates experience and experimentation above “reason”, but it is not above cloaking itself in the latter as a means to taking credit. Science lies to us! It lies every time it overlooks the guiding role of “intuition” or the simple acknowledgements coming through perception. It lies every time it tries to suggest that it is “thinking” which guides their efforts–as though there could be such a thing as “pre-meditated thought”! They lie each and every time they help to foster the illusion that we are creators, rather than recipients of nature’s gifts–working through us from within and without.

But science is not alone in this. Industrialists, politicians, academicians, etc. are all proponents of this basic delusion–every man and woman, on every street, in every part of the world, to one degree or another, exudes this same “egocentricity” which tries to take credit for what it thinks it “knows”. But because this attitude severs itself from the relational aspects of experience, what we `think we know’ turns out to be little more than bogus! Thus we have come to the end of our rope; no longer able to swallow what we know is not nourishing, we become more and more anxious, stressed, and finally fall sick.

How do we know this to be true? Well, because we feel it! Does this suggests anything out of the ordinary? Yes! It suggests just how paltry is “knowledge” when compared to “feeling”!–that perhaps “thinking” is a mere attribute (appendage, accompaniment, epiphenomenal spurt, etc.) of “feeling,” and not the other way around!–that because feeling and emotions surrounds us, we have been without the means for distinguishing this broader view (just as we could not have a conception of light without knowing darkness)! What is everywhere cannot be distinguished! But, then, maybe thinking and feeling are on an equal plane, two distinguishable elements of a experience.

II

The psychologist Jung said that dealing with life is always a question of adaptation for the individual. In my own case, I must confess that I cannot find relative peace and contentment within myself (nor through my relationships with others), primarily because I am both disgusted and frightened by what I see. At bottom, I understand it to be a personal fear and general reluctance to face and accept myself–or, more accurately, perhaps, to face “Self” and “World” as it comes through experience, and not as I wish it were. Like so many others, I find it difficult to accept the “facts” or “realities” of pain, danger and evil existing both within and without myself, and also that “self-imposed” and “world-imposed” limitations and restrictions abound. Thus, I find it difficult to integrate with a world which I simultaneously like, dislike and fear.

In trying to resolve this difficulty, I have sought to stave off danger through avoidance and understanding. I have attempted to discover and deal with those matters (cognitive and otherwise) which seem to stand in the way of personal and social problem resolution; always seeking protection for myself and others by trying to uncover and eradicate the principal causes of confusion, disharmony or whatever else I see to be standing in our way. Admittedly, the stance I have taken appears to be a “lofty” one, and may be no more than the expression of an overly inflated ego, perhaps heading for an eventual crash. But this too is worthy of expression, if not consideration, and so I choose not to hide it.

In broadest terms, my goal has been to seek broad-based, large-scale solutions to problems because only these would suffice to “tame a world” which seems in dire need of taming. I didn’t always understand my personal conflicts in such terms, but came to this way of looking at myself only after a long period of soul-searching. When I was much younger, I sought personal comfort and knowledge from God, and then went on in search of a more fundamental, “worldly knowledge”, through education and on-going reflection. This led to an interest in literature, history, philosophy, and finally, psychology, but always from a highly subjective standpoint. I sought greater depth and comprehensiveness only inasmuch as it directly related to my own personal needs or quest. Thus, a great deal of “other-related knowledge” went by the wayside. I can only hope that my thinking is not too parochial as a result of this.

In more specific terms, my goal has been to demonstrate the primacy of on-going experience as the only true means to knowledge; and to warn that whenever we establish emotional and rational (or physical) constructs as though they have a life of their own–“knowledge contents”, so to speak–we do so at the expense of living. We wrongly focus on the results of experience rather than experience itself, and become mired and entangled in a conceptual stagnancy which does little more than throw life back upon ourselves in confusion. Although the results of this stagnancy everywhere surrounds us, we choose not to reveal what we know to be true–but seek comfort in a rather cowardly form of delusion!

To my way of thinking, the spiritual, or emotional and physical elements of experience are but two differing concepts–two perspectives stemming from a single thing–which is experience itself. We must understand this relationship in a way that will allow us to flow with experience rather than attempt to overcome it. Amassing knowledge in order to disseminate it, may be just another example of this futile attempt. Although the illusion of our being able to maintain relatively stable, long-lived concepts is a necessary prerequisite to knowledge, we must discontinue the practice of believing that we have actually succeeded. For as life goes on, so must experience; rather than regard knowledge as a “derivative” of experience, we would do better to say that it is the experience.

Again, speaking for myself, I want to be able to successfully integrate with a world I consider to be worthwhile–a world which is progressing, rather than regressing–which is able to foster and satisfy not only my personal needs, but those of others as well. Progression in this sense must deal with very difficult circumstances–must contain, tolerate, and respect real differences, for example, as opposition seems to be the fuel of life–the driving force behind and underlying experience. Christ said: “Love thy enemy”, but who can! Perhaps this ultimate goal can best be served by knowing our enemy first (and this means all that we disagree with, abhor and avoid both within and outside ourselves, etc.), and then, hopefully, we will be in a better position to move on to toleration and respect, and just maybe–love.

EDUCATION

Which brings us to the subject of education–the soul of experience–the hope and salvation of humankind! Not wanting to sound vindictive, I find it almost impossible not to be so. For here, on hallowed ground, we find the most desecrated of all our gifts. As a result of egocentricity, ignorance and cowardice, we have succeeded in deriving “bogus thinking” from experience, which has resulted in “illusory knowledge”, which has been packaged into “imagined contents”, which have, for the most part, been disseminated without regard for relevant “relational experience”, which has resulted in “bogus educations”, which has contributed to “world confusion”–and in particular, to the “neurological mess” we now find ourselves to be in.

Not that educators or education is to blame, however,–it is all of us who must bear this final responsibility. For all of us have sought the comfort of illusion (or delusion) when it seems to serve our purpose. In some cases, there was a material advantage (or hope for the same) to be gained by going with the “collective flow”, rather than what experience suggests we do–thus keeping quiet, playing the game, pretending that things really are what we say they are, etc.–for the sake of comfort, avoidance of conflict, embarrassment, risk, and a thousand reasons besides. Again, we can’t plead ignorance because we are never left in a position of ignorance. There is always an “emotional” reminder (not a mere accompaniment to reason–but, perhaps a basis for it) informing us that something is amiss or missing! Had we the courage to `speak our feelings’, we would not be in the mess we find ourselves to be in.

Education’s ultimate purpose is to create the means for fostering greater harmony in the world from the `particular’ vantage point; that is, by dealing with each and every individual making up the societies of the world. Think of it, nearly every living human on the face of this earth has gone through a process of education of one sort or another. What are these processes? In what ways have they or have they not worked? What contribution have they or have they not made on society?

As was said, education’s ultimate goal may be to aid society by working from within as well as from without; from one’s personal standpoint and immediate environment, toward whatever that society deems of value. Thus differing perspectives will have to be understood and dealt with. They will have to “clash”, though, hopefully, in peaceful ways with a due respect for difference. Thus, one of education’s most important goals is to teach a respect for difference. Now this is not as difficult as it seems–only the avoidance of this issue has made it seem so! Avoidance of any kind entails “segregation” or separation which, if it is sought out of hatred or spite (rather than from an honest respect for difference), turns sickly more often than not.

To repeat, one very important way of fostering both personal and global integration and harmony, is through a personal understanding of the psychological and physical determinants which drive us;–needs, characteristics and actions undertaken to satisfy the same. We speak of “knowledge” and “experience” as though they were two separate things, on equal status with one another, or even that knowledge is superior to that from which it derives, but we know instinctively that we are lying. As a result of this lie, experience is relegated to an inferior status which it doesn’t deserve, as something which appears to be more attached to the “physical realm” rather than to ourselves, or stemming from our relations to it. This view is tempting for educators since they are charged with the dissemination of “knowledge” rather than the dissemination of “experience”. Nevertheless, we think that experience can at least be replicated. And this is precisely what education attempts to do. By means of knowledge derived from experience, it attempts to create new experience (or replicate old) as a vehicle for the dissemination of “worthwhile” knowledge.

And so the structuring process commences: Conceptions, born out of experience, become established through descriptions, definitions, and classifications: grow into “concepts” which, in turn, grow into theories, models, and “knowledge contents”–curriculum–which finally results in lesson plans, strategies and procedures to present the same. Again, the emphasis falls on the deliverance side, the unspoken premise being: that what is given children through educational means is more important than what children may discover and reveal (give back) through experiential means! I recognize that many will take issue with this last remark, referring to the many rewards gained through interactions with children, but this does not alter the fact that this is not a primary goal of education, it simply points to the fact that educators are not yet dead. The goal, then, is to provide “educational experiences” (experience pre-designed to accomplish definite ends) in order to provide youth with the knowledge and skills needed for life.

Thus, fostering the means to better adapt to “life” becomes a lofty and indisputably worthwhile goal of education. But adaptation to whose life? A worthwhile curriculum and suitable educational environment for whom?–For which types? Obviously, how we go about structuring the machinery of education pre-determines what material (or which types of students) will be best suited to it! It will also pre-determine who will stand most to benefit from it! The output of any machine can be known by its characteristics and usage. Thus, we know, beforehand, which types of students will be most pliable, most easily shaped into the existing frameworks, and which will not. We know already which types stand the greatest chance of surviving the machinery at all–that is, eventually coming out at the other end–regardless of shape.

Since everyone is “entitled” to enter the machinery of education, educators are left with having to enforce a system which has failure built into it. Not that it is ever intentional–it simply results from a “culling” process. Thus, we deceive ourselves, or let others deceive and use us, for a hoped for “benefit” which we each consider from our own personal standpoint. It is this that divides us, and keeps us from doing what is right. The latest impetus coming down the pike for educators is still another “industrial-motivated” approach to education which is once again fueled the profit motivation. It cloaks itself in righteousness and propriety by appealing and pandering to society’s most honored values, along with some of its base leanings as well. They speak of “quality”, “excellence”, “productivity”, “foreign competition”, “jobs”–that America must regain its eminent position in the world, that we must stop “freeloading”, “giving it all away” and return to more traditional or conservative values. And who could disagree with this? No one! But this does not make it any less a deception! It’s just one more example of how education becomes further weakened–further removed from its life-giving role which is its only proper domain. I shudder to think of what this newest “savior” has in store for us! As industry is becoming more and more global, reaching beyond our shores for survival, as a result of its own mistakes, it takes jobs and wealth with them. No longer satisfied with the need to train workers to operate its machinery, it now wants to use them as machines.

EDUCATION

Something terrible is happening to us currently–we are suffering consequences from `we know not what’–except that we know that we are suffering! Everywhere we look–in every area of the globe–within every knowledge discipline–every political and economic structure–every social organization–we sense that something monumental is happening to us, and that we are in real danger!

In our hearts, we know this danger is owing to ignorance, although it is the last thing we care to admit. We sense that our time for staving it off, ignoring it, or simply cloaking it by delusionary means, is quickly running out; that such practices have finally caught up to us, and that we are choking as a result. We sense that we have made the world (or that the world has made us) much too dangerous for our own good, and that time is fast running out. World-caused or not, we know that if we are to survive, we are going to have to somehow come to grips with the way we find the world and ourselves to be–that the present situation must be corrected–that unless it is, nature will soon dismiss us.

But if we are ignorant–what can be done?–that isn’t already being done?
Isn’t our knowledge pre-figured?–our attitudes already shaped? Aren’t we products of experience?–of nature? Isn’t it true that “what will be, will be”?

While we are ignorant, we suffer. While we fear, we suffer. Indeed, ignorance may very well be the result of fear and, in particular, of our unwillingness to know from a state of ignorance. This unwillingness to risk `knowing to experience’ has led us to set-up delusionary states of mind whereby we imagine ourselves as capable of knowing prior to experience!–that we do `something more’ than simply acknowledge what comes to us!–that we come to know because of what we know! And yet, if we are asked to state clearly what it is we in fact do know, in the end, we are muted.
We find that the only clear sense of knowing is an on-going, relative sense, which, in the end, must put nature, and not ourselves, clearly in the drivers seat. Science understands this only too well, and it goes on about its business without certainties. In fact, this is its true strength–it places nature above ourselves, thus ignoring the hardships resulting from a standpoint of certainty, and relegates knowledge to a relative status. The only certainty it counts on, is that every certainty will change. The strides made by science and technology are owing to this attitude.

But science has been guilty of grave sins against humanity–not because of its achievements–but because of its failure to disclose how its advances really come about. Science lies like nothing else! It parades itself as though it were the cause of its own successes. True it elevates experience and experimentation above “reason”, but it is not above cloaking itself in the same as a means to taking credit. Science lies to us! It lies every time it overlooks the role which “intuition” plays. It lies every time it suggests that it was their “thinking” somehow resulted in their achievement–as though thinking could simply exist without being related to anything else. They lie each and every time they help to foster the illusion that we are creators, rather than nature working through us–that it is “we”, rather than our relationships with our “selves” (nature working from within) and the “world” (nature working from without) that freely gives us “knowledge”. Science lies like nothing else.

But science is not alone in this. Industrialists, politicians, academicians, etc. are all proponents–every man and woman, on every street, in every part of the world, to one degree or another, exudes this same “egocentricity” which tries to take credit for what it “knows”. But because such an attitude severs itself from the relational aspects of experience, what we “think” we “know” is bogus! In such a way, we have come to the ends of our ropes. We can no longer swallow what does not nourish us, and we can’t help but know just how sickly we’re becoming. Why? Well, because we can feel it! Does this suggests anything out of the ordinary? Yes! It suggests, in the end, just how paltry is “knowledge” when compared to “feeling”!–that perhaps “thinking” is a mere attribute (appendage, accompaniment, epiphenomenal spurt, etc.) of feeling, and not the other way around!–that because feeling and emotion surrounds us, we have been without the means for distinguishing it (just as we would not know we were surrounded by light if it never got dark)! What is everywhere cannot distinguishable! Thus, no observation, definitions, concepts, classifications, theories, or anything else that going by the name of knowledge.

Which brings us finally to subject of education–the soul of experience–the hope and salvation of the world! Only here, we find the most desecrated of all our gifts. From our egocentricity, we have succeeded in deriving “bogus thinking”, which has resulted in “illusory knowledge”, which has been packaged into “imagined contents”, which are disseminated without regard for relevant “relational experience”, which has resulted in “bogus educations”, which has contributed to “world confusion”–and in particular, to the “neurological mess” we now find ourselves to be in.

Not that educators or education is to blame, however,–it is all of us who must bear this final responsibility. For all of us have sought the comfort of illusion (or delusion) when it seemed to serve our purpose. In some cases, there was a material advantage (or hope of the same) to be gained by “going with the flow”–keeping quiet, playing the game, pretending that things are the way we say they are, etc.–sometimes simply because it was preferred, was comforting, easier to live with, and a thousand other reasons besides. And we can’t plead ignorance for this, because we are never left in a position of ignorance. There is always an “emotional” reminder (which is not a mere accompaniment to reason, but the basis for it) informing us that something is amiss or missing! Had we the courage to speak our feelings, we would not be in this mess–would not be punished.

March 17, 1992

SEXUAL ORIENTATIONS AND VARIATIONS

There is more to sexual attractions and relationships than meets the eye. I can’t help but believe that Jungian notions regarding the existence of a female archetype (anima) in every man and a male archetype (animus) in every female accounts for the cross variations we see. It would be well worth checking these variations (from the standpoint of the theory) against actual types of homosexual and heterosexual variations observed or expressed. It can get quite involved structurally speaking, but rich in possibilities.

For example, the male and female components of every male and every female would provide us with four variations. But once we introduce the “outer” Homo and heterosexual preferences of each, our variations extend at first to eight (the male and female components of the homosexual and heterosexual male and female), and finally to sixteen when we consider “inner” (hidden) preferences of each–that a male heterosexual may be attracted to females, not from his male side, but from his homosexual female side! On the surface, all appears to be quite “normal”–underneath, quite another matter. The theory stands to give new meaning to “latency” as we must consider such possibilities as: a heterosexual female’s animus (male side)express either a homosexual or heterosexual attitude, etc. These variations need to be structurally diagrammed and then matched with existing knowledge regarding characteristics known types.

Thus, there is obviously some exciting research to be undertaken here for those so disposed, and some exciting observations for the rest of us. I am confident that only a few moments reflection (regarding personal characteristics and relationships we share with others), will convince anyone of the validity of these remarks, or that they are certainly worthy of further consideration.

March 23, 1992

I feel as though my unconscious is telling me that I am first and foremost a “feeling judging” type who has been repressing the same for most of my life; that is, have been repressing what may I consider to be crude, barbarous, tendencies (stemming from what I’m not sure, although I feel that it is from a lack of love, attention, comfort, etc. as a child), and, as a result of this, have sought comfort in knowing (knowledge and reason) in an effort to aright the situation–to earn attention and respect. I have thus hidden my emotional needs under the guise of a controlled outer reserve, while secretly looking up to tradition, propriety, adjustment, mature and controlled living, etc., even as I fought against it. But why would I fight against it?

Because one cannot enter such a world unless one first submits to it–prostrates oneself before it–undergoes whatever “admissions criteria” it holds. I cannot bring myself to do this. It is too demeaning–deprecating–undignified. I cannot bow to another human. Thus, the traditional propriety I seek is an illusion. My simultaneous respect and distaste for the “realism and austerity” of the English character, and the opposing “idealistic and romantic” notions of the French character, or the “realistic–idealistic conflicting character of the Germans trying to synthesize the two. I love what is good and noble in all of these and despise what is bad. But what is it that I admire and hate?

I see a world full of hypocrisy and weakness; an unwillingness to check oneself–to refrain from taking fullest advantage of every situation. The goal seems rather to take all that one is capable of taking–even if it demeans the whole of society. What I admire and wish is that we can in fact create values and traditions which elevate, rather than demean us. Clinging to wealth and power as a means to controlling, manipulating, taking advantage of others, etc. is wrong.

March 26, 1992

There is no inside or outside; no compulsion stemming from within or without; no inner or outer worlds in fact;–there is only experience. The “subjects” of experience–ourselves, and the “objects” experienced–world, are one and the same thing taken from two differing perspectives.

But why 26, 1992

“Afterthought” or “afterexperience” is how it is done. With memory comes repetition (re-experience) with its attendant `illusion of sameness’. This `relative sense of permanence’ enables us to March identify and distinguish `existing things’, which, of course, are all owing to the original illusion. Thus, we are forced to conclude that “illusion” is at the core of all belief and knowledge!–that it is through `illusory consciousness’ that we are given the means for anchoring ourselves to an ever-changing world–and that without this `imaginary buffer’, all would be chaos.

But why? Why must nature choose delusionary means to unfold?

Well, given that the world is as it appears to us, we can readily understand why this must be so. So long as we experience a world in constant motion; a world which is undergoing constant change; always becoming something else from one moment to another, how could it be otherwise? If we could not oppose the flow of events, stand apart from them, perspective would be impossible. But…

======================================

Where am I going with this thinking? Sure, I’m convinced that it could reach rather sophisticated levels–I’ve done some reading, and I’ve made some comparisons. But who am I kidding! I’ll not reach any valid conclusions. I’ll always come up short of fully grasping even the simplest of matters. Haven’t I learned my lesson yet? How many trials do I need to remind me of how tenuous this enterprise is? Am I adding anything to knowledge? Am I providing bridges or rungs which will lead me or others to new experience? Is there at least a `relative value’ in this?

My god, look at the beautiful expressions which are available to us at present, but which are all but ignored. While our schools have all but given up any semblance of providing education, Emerson’s words (along with many significant others) lay dormant. Why haven’t his essays been translated into simpler terms so that all may derive benefit from his greatness? Because we disagree with his values? What in all hell have we put in its place! Little or nothing. We have left a void to be filled by chance, only we restrict even chance from entering the field by holding on to whatever structures we choose to maintain. We are destroying ourselves from without, for the sake of illusions which we know little or nothing about. We are held captive by the stagnancy of our past experience and dare not risk present experience.

In our lowness, we would rather hide the achievements of humankind from view rather than admit to the void existing within ourselves. We try in vain to elevate our own shallow stature by withholding elevating knowledge from others. We would rather cut-off our own life-lines rather than face the emptiness within. In such a way, our schools become places where the goal is to subjugate rather than elevate; places where students are taken only as far as their teachers can understand or withstand; where anything less than oneself is permitted and anything more abhorred. In such an environment, nature is not merely restricted–she is tormented. But nature is never stopped by the buffers we put in place. She springs back on us with a vengeance equal to the crimes committed! Our children grow up to haunt us. They become nature’s mirror to remind us of what we have done.

How much more can we withstand? What further evidence is needed to understand the errors of our ways? What is preventing us from righting these situations? Why do we continue to cling to the errors of our ways? Why continue to withhold and deny what we know to be the case?–what we experience to be the case over and over again! What have we become that we are so entrapped within ourselves? What is life doing to us and why? Which comes down to asking: Just who is in control?–who is responsible?

This question is a nuisance. It is always interfering with us. Not only is it perplexing–it holds us hostage! We something which we need to settle once and for all, even if our answers turn out to be insufficient. Even insufficiency can provide a basis for consequent actions and belief. So be it!

The first fact to lay down is that nature is larger and superior to ourselves inasmuch as we can see our origins in her rather than the other way around, and can see our dependency or sustenance coming from her rather than from ourselves. Furthermore, we understand by nature something which always is beyond our understanding.

Second, knowledge is most certain the closer it is to the present and is least certain the further removed it is from the present. As Emerson put it, life is like a continuous wave; it moves, but the molecules of water making it up are always changing. Thus, its identity remains the same even while it undergoes countless changes. In like manner, we are able to identify things in the world even though they are never the same things,–which is to say that life is a flowing continuum which is carrying us with it. As such, our viewpoints or perspectives regarding it, although of relative permanence for a brief time, must in turn change with it. And because we are always within the continuum, we can only see just so far backwards and just so far forwards. This imposes strong limitations on our ability to uncover past knowledge or to know what lies ahead of us. It is a hindrance which we continually struggle to overcome. But what is too easily overlooked is the fact that it is the present moment which becomes both inheritance as well as a prognosticator of future events. At the same time as its parameters impose limitations upon us–they also enable us to KNOW! It is here, and not in some imagined past which can never be sufficiently reconstructed, that we need to concentrate our efforts. Only to do so is to risk hurting our ego’s which for us, may be more important than truth itself.

The question now becomes: Can we be nurtured and borne by nature and still be in control of ourselves? Can we oppose the very thing we are a part of, or is the opposition we experience not really stemming from ourselves? I think that the answer to this question can come from just a moment of honest reflection. Just take a moment to recall the usual way your decisions come about. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’ll bet you dollars to donuts, that your “intentions” derive from some physical sensation felt within you, from something perceived in your immediate environment, or from some spontaneous image or intuition which suddenly presents itself to you. Admit it! When, if ever, can you credit yourself with making a choice? After calculated thought, deliberation, research, discussion, etc.? Admittedly, these seem like good examples of personal control, but look closer. Break these so-called activities down into their constituent parts. Where did the idea to do research on this or that subject come from? What led to the next step, and next, and next! Or were your “intentions”, “purposes”, “desires”, “motives”, etc. more descriptions after the fact than before it. Admit it! While “self-crediting” words such as these abound in our language, we know instinctively that something is amiss. Nevertheless, we still feel a reluctance to do anything about it. And why should we? After all, it’s not as though nature were about to complain. Since it can’t hurt, why not take credit for our intuitions, insights and ideas however they may come to us!

This view of ourselves at the pinnacle of nature, with “personal experience” held to be supreme, has been a prevalent notion fostered through the ages. Experience becomes the major focal point because this is all we are. While nature is undoubtedly stronger and more powerful than we, still, we are more important because we are the reason for nature! However else this sleight of hand is performed, the end result is always the same–humankind is supreme. To be sure, we were helped to this view through religion, but religion is no longer required to maintain it. We’ve got hold of a good thing, we think, and we are not about to let go of it.

But at what cost to ourselves? To maintain this preposterous view of ourselves, we have had to inflate our true significance (namely, the “peep hole” which determines the parameters of experience) way out of proportion. To simultaneously take from nature and deny that anything is taken, is to beg confusion. This “passive” view of nature is backfiring on us because it is a lie, and the lie is once again based upon a limited view of what constitutes life. And, yes, you can guess where the “standard” comes from? We think that the fruit of the acorn (which is the oak tree) is its fulfillment, and therefore more important. Are we not nature’s fulfillment? Well, we seem to want to stack the cards this way; but, in truth, we can’t say. We may be everything and may be nothing!

“But if we are in nature’s throes, then everything we do is really her doing, and not our own!–her confusion and not ours!”

This brings us back to experience. If nature works us through experience stemming from without and well as from within, and she is in active control of the situation rather than a passive entity, then everything must be as it should be. Thus, we are back to ground zero inasmuch as we now have to allow that there is such a thing as personal choice or abandon responsibility altogether! In addition, nature must come very much alive inasmuch as she is seen to be in opposition with herself, or, at least, that opposition exists within herself–opposing elements, as it were.

To be sure, there are opposing elements everywhere surrounding us as well as within us. There are no certain boundaries by which we can locate where one source of conflict begins and where one ends. We distinguish elements in relation with one another, but understand the relationships to be somewhat arbitrary. We note relative perspectives and viewpoints while also recognizing that these have been “carved” out of experience. We recognize the ways in which structures determine outcomes or various type consequences while not understanding how or why. We understand that we are first and foremost passive receivers of experience, but haven’t a clue as to what results from the same, where such experiences are heading, or what can be done about the same. We see the results of exaggerated behavior or abnormal behaviors and can’t begin to place them into an “appropriate” context of life. We see purpose in nature and we see absurdity. We find that we are always at a loss, a disadvantage, for understanding life. And when we look to understanding itself, to its constituent components, we find that we arrive back at the beginning of our quest.

The only thing certain is that certainty is unapproachable–that nature is not understandable–that we are limited even as we progress by our limitations–that we are always becoming something new–that each moment seems to make the world anew–that we are in the throes of fate–that we have no choice but to flow with what is given us–that, perhaps, whatever is possible for us to do within our channeled parameters, is alright–that the insanity, strife, anguish and suffering felt throughout nature has its place–that positive can derive from negatives and vice-versa–that we can’t understand whether or not we are progressing or regressing–that we can’t understand whether suffering is a good or bad–whether evil and good may not be meaningless terms to nature, of no significance–that humans may only be the measure of all things to themselves, and nothing of consequence to the universe–or that because the universe is unfathomable to ourselves, we will strive to overcome it and ourselves in the process.

So here we find ourselves with an inflated consciousness filled with a sense of identity, continuity, and a whole storehouse of former experiences which can be called into consciousness at a moments notice. We locate ourselves here–not in the outer world someplace, but here within the space we occupy. We recognize dreams, images, memories, etc., which are sometimes are called up by their associations to things experienced, and sometimes simply of their own accord it seems. But these too, we feel are located within us rather than without. Most believe in a physiological, psychological, or religious view as a source of such information. In the latter case, God is either within us or working through us much as nature does. To others, God and nature and ourselves included are all one and the same thing. On the surface, it appears that all of these views suffer the same limitations as knowledge and experience, but in reality, what comes to each of us through experience is only known by us. To impose “collective” concepts and notions on individual experience is to limit nature in a way which does not seem appropriate. If the middle ground of experience is to respond to natural events without opposition, and its outer parameters the result of an extended consciousness, it behooves us to explore just how far this extension has proceeded, and at what cost, if any, to ourselves.

It would seem that our futures may very well rest with our ability or inability to come to grips with consciousness. We are beginning to understand how it can be a major source of confusion as it comes into conflict with other kinds of experience and also the conceptual knowledge we bring to it. If restrictions are deemed necessary in order to make room for other forms of experience and perspectives, it may be through new conceptual constructs that allows it.

Third, all experience springs from this “peep hole” on life, either by the direct experience of sensation, or by means of various apparatuses extending the same. Thus, experience is in principal, unlimited.

and how do we come to have differing and opposing perspectives if it is all one to begin with?

April 9, 1992

WHAT I DESIRE TO BE LIKE, OR BE CAPABLE OF DOING
The person I wish I were and want to be; the behavior I wish I were capable of and would wish to exhibit; the “ideal me” if I could have it!
*What I desire may not be what I can be!

WHAT I AM LIKE, MY ACTUAL BEHAVIOR CHARACTERISTICS AND ACTIONS
Whether or not I am being true to myself, am successful, or enjoy the situation for what it is.

WHAT I CAN BE, AM CAPABLE OF BECOMING OR BEHAVING LIKE IF I “DESIRE” IT AND HAVE THE “OPPORTUNITY”
If I were given the opportunity and were agreeable to it.

WHAT I AM ACTUALLY STRIVING TO BECOME OR DO GIVEN ALL OF THE ABOVE CONSIDERATIONS:
The plan, compromise, or ideal put to action. What I am going to strive to become or do because it is both “appropriate”, “possible”, or “worthy” of striving for.

DO, DON’T, LIKE, DISLIKE
?Assuming that you do want to go on living… why do you?
?Assuming that you do want to go on working… why do you?

QUESTIONS

“AM” IS SO TIED UP WITH “DO”–CAUSES CONFUSION.

I AM WHAT I DO! (“I” defined by “focusing” upon “my” actions)
One’s actions are “attributable” to oneself!
But couldn’t they be attributed to any number of things–hot sun, dangerous animal, etc.? Why make this claim? It is a labeling or assertion or closure type activity. One wants to claim something for a “reason”! “He is a carpenter. He is crazy!, etc. Does the person become what he is labeled? We say that he is what we say he is. He exists as our labels describe him. As we apply more labels, he will become further defined. If his actions continue to “fit” the labels, his definition will be more stable. If not, they may fall by the wayside. But sometimes labels stick–which shows the importance we attach to “Claim-Is”. Labels are general terms abstracted from particular actions.

I AM WHAT I AM–WHAT I AM BORN TO BE! (“I” am defined by “focusing” upon “my” attributes–physical and mental, “belonging to me”)
But these are surmised from observing one’s physical characteristics or one’s behavior as said above!

I DO WHAT I AM–AM COMPELLED TO DO! (Act out of self, do what one must do, compelled to do because of oneself, etc.)
But oneself can be seen to be compelled from without as well as from within (genetics, memory, intuitions, etc.) One

I PREFER WHAT I AM! (Like what is me–only “self” or “life” defined?)

I DO WHAT I PREFER! (Perform what is natural to me)

I AM NOT WHAT I DO NOR DO I DO WHAT I AM
What I sometimes do is oftentimes uncharacteristic of my usual behavior
What I often do may be uncharacteristic of what I am “expected” to do
THUS WE SOMETIMES OR OFTENTIMES ACT OUTSIDE OUR IDENTITIES OR LABELS–ONLY TO DO SO OFTEN IS TO FORCE A CHANGE IN THE LABEL

HOW CAN LABELS BE CORRECT OR INCORRECT WHEN THEY ARE BASED UPON BEHAVIOR? BECAUSE BEHAVIOR HAS ALREADY BEEN JUDGED SO! GOOD BEHAVIOR–BAD BEHAVIOR… THUS WE JUDGE BY LABELS AS THEY APPLY TO BEHAVIOR. BUT DO WE DEFINE “APPROPRIATE” BEHAVIOR BY APPROPRIATE LABELS? NO! THE JUDGMENT IS ALREADY CONTAINED IN THE ACT–IN THE EXPERIENCE. PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE TO “JUDGE” THAT THE STORM WAS BAD!

BAD BEHAVIOR IS EXPERIENCED AS BAD WHETHER OR NOT IT BE PUNISHMENT EXACTED FOR A PREVIOUS CRIME. BAD BEHAVIOR CAN THUS BECOME “APPROPRIATE” IF IT IS RETALIATORY BEHAVIOR! ONE SENSES JUSTICE IN THIS! THE PERPETRATOR DESERVES BAD BECAUSE HE DID BAD!

THUS, APPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR IS “SOCIALLY ACCEPTABLE” BEHAVIOR, WHETHER OR NOT IT AGREES WITH ONE’S OWN OUTLOOK OR COMPULSIONS.

BUT WHEN ARE THERE DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN SOCIAL CONSIDERATIONS AND PERSONAL? WHAT ARE PERSONAL “GOODS” AND “BADS”?

What I ought to do is to behave in accordance with myself

I am
I am what I am
I am what I do
I do
I do what I do
I do what I am

WE NEITHER ARE WHAT WE DO, NOR DO WHAT WE ARE!

I prefer
I prefer what I prefer
I prefer what I do

I desire
I desire what I am
What I am is what I do
I desire what I do

I desire
I desire what I am
I desire

I prefer what I do! (Like what I perform)

Am I defined by life or self? (inner world, outer world or both?)
Do I act from life or from self? (“)
Are our preferences grounded in life or self? (“)
Is life and self all one and the same seen from two perspectives?

The truth is that life comes to us simultaneously from without and from within; at us and through us. Distinguishing a dualism here is difficult and causes great problems.

BOTH! OUTSIDE WORLD AND INSIDE WORLD ARE SAME WORLD! PERCEPTION IS ONE RELATIONSHIP WHETHER COMING FROM WITHOUT OR WITHIN. IT IS ALL RECEPTION! IT IS ALL COMPULSION TO ACT! THE COMBINATION OF PERCEPTION AND ACTION IS EXPERIENCE AND AGAIN IS A SINGLE ON-GOING RELATIONSHIP. “WE” CHOP IT INTO PARTS.

THUS, ASKING WHAT ONE PREFERS, REGARDLESS OF THE REASONS FOR THE PREFERENCES, IS TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE INDIVIDUAL HAS BECOME OR FEELS THAT HE NEEDS TO BECOME, REGARDLESS OF THE “CAUSES”, “REASONS”, “APPROPRIATENESS”, ETC. OF THE RESPONSE.

IF ONE CANNOT DISCERN A PREFERENCE, CANNOT CHOOSE BETWEEN OPTIONS–ONE IS IN A STATE OF CONFUSION. BUT IS THE CONFUSION OWING TO A STATE OF EXISTENCE–TO AN INABILITY TO EXPERIENCE? OR TO A STATE OF “KNOWLEDGE”, OR INABILITY TO ACT OUT OF IT? THIS KNOWLEDGE RESULTED FROM OUR RELATIONSHIP TO THE WORLD, TO BE SURE, BUT FOR SOME REASON, CANNOT COMPEL US TO ACTION IN THE SAME WAY AS PRIMARY OR IMMEDIATE PERCEPTIONS. WHY? IT’S AS THOUGH THE LONGER WE HANG ON TO KNOWLEDGE, THE MORE STAGNATION WE ENCOUNTER. SIMPLE PEOPLE ARE ABLE TO SIMPLY ACT WITHOUT TOO MANY RESTRICTIONS JUST AS EXTREMELY CONSERVATIVE TYPES WHO HAVE SIMPLY CLUNG TO SIMPLE RULES AND HAVE DISCARDED THE REST. SO ARE CONFUSED PEOPLE THOSE WHO CANNOT DISCARD? INTUITIVE TYPES, PERHAPS, WHOSE PERCEPTIONS COME FASTER THAN THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO ACT UPON? EXTROVERTED INTUITIVE OR INTROVERTED? OR SIMPLY “PERCEIVING” TYPES IN GENERAL. IF THEY CAN ACT ON THEIR PERCEPTIONS, ALL IS WELL. IF NOT, THEY BECOME OVERLOADED AND UNABLE TO RELEASE ALL THEY CARRY. “INTROVERTED PERCEPTIVE” TYPES WOULD SEEM TO BE THE MOST LIKELY CANDIDATES FOR CONFUSION

BUT IS CONFUSION A BLESSING OR PROBLEM? STRENGTH OF PERCEPTION OVER JUDGMENT ON EQUAL FOOTING WITH STRENGTH OF JUDGMENT OVER PERCEPTION–DESPITE THE OUTCOME TO DIFFERENT INDIVIDUALS? AND ARE WE CERTAIN THAT THE JUDGING TYPES ARE ANY HAPPIER HAVING LIMITED THEIR LIVES THAN ARE THE PERCEIVERS FOR NOT DOING SO? WHAT PRICE DOES EITHER SIDE PAY?

It is all one and the same although our conceptual activity creates a dualism! Thus dualism must be natural to the world of experience.

But it causes confusion. Thus, confusion must be natural to the world of experience!

But it leads to pain and remorse in many instances. Thus, pain and remorse.. etc.

But it also leads to knowledge and progression! Thus, knowledge and progression must be grounded in confusion, pain and remorse, elation and surprise, clarity, light and warmth, etc.

But knowledge keeps getting thicker, denser, more cumbersome. It also seems to be accelerating “exponentially”. Thus, experience itself is exponential and the rewards and setbacks will be the same.

But what if we get waylaid in a major setback rather than progressive movement? Can life be held in the balance of a 50-50 scale! Do we have a 50% chance of survival! Or are we to recognize how this works and be able to control it in our favor? What will most benefit us: greater optimism or greater pessimism? Or is it all out of our control?

Can we statistically assess the “dualism” which is present in nature, in thought, in activity, in knowledge and belief? Can we verify it?

May wish for something for wrong reasons. What is “right” for one according to one’s natural traits, etc. ought to be “naturally” wished for! Why the interference?

One always needs to compromise, but one should always understand what it is that is being compromised! One should first know oneself!

Assessment instruments confuse personality characteristics with behavioral characteristics as well as preferences, capabilities, desires, compromises, etc. stemming from individuals trying to adapt to environmental concerns and changes. One perceives (receives), remembers, thinks, believes, plans, is compelled, etc.

Is the behavior characteristic of the person or the job? Natural preferences, social preferences, basic needs, reactions to various life stimuli? To identify one’s behavior as Dominant is not to do anything! Is proper, natural, comfortable, desired, causing hardships?, etc.

April 11, 1992

What would make one extrovert pay heed to compensatory actions of unconscious and another to ignore these? What things stand in the way? The more exaggerated, the more powerful the reaction, etc. until collapse. Must reverse the process by giving in to subjective, thus reducing ugly “opposing” effects, making it less necessary to counter by greater exaggerated attitude. But how does greater exaggeration further suppress the unconscious? Unconscious can “falsify” objective aims!

Relation between subject and object is matter of adaptation biologically speaking
Every relationship presupposes the modification of one by the other through reciprocal influence
Adaptation consists in these constant modifications

Two modes of adaptation in nature: a) high fertility, low powers of defense, short life of single individual (extrovert), and b) high powers of defense with low fertility (introversion)

EXTROVERT
Sociable, jovial. Oriented by, and primarily interested in, objects or facts such that decisions and actions are determined by objective (most important, outer) conditions rather than subjective views. Positive relation to object, causing the extrovert to expend himself for the apparent benefit of the object, to assimilate subject to object! Affirms its importance to extent that subjective attitude is constantly related to and oriented by the it. Desires to increase value and importance of object. Expend and propagate himself. Prolific. Achieves ends by a multiplicity of relationships. Inner life is subordinated to external necessity. Looks outward because this is where he expects to find the essential and decisive determinants. People and things seize and rivet attention, particularly immediate concerns and environment.

If outside changes occur, changes in moral law, fashions, etc. extrovert changes accordingly by adjusting to the situation

But there are harmful consequences which can result from an exaggerated attitude; namely the suppression of the subjective factor! You see, adjustment is not adaptation! It is the extroverts limitation! Owes normality to ability to adjust to existing conditions, but normality also depends upon taking subjective needs into account, and the outer-directness of the extrovert oftentimes makes this impossible. An extreme extrovert can seemingly “lose” himself in objects or the outside world, thus causing an involuntary “compensatory” reaction to occur, stemming from the “unconscious”. The unconscious has its own attitude or orientation and is always compensatory to consciousness in order to correct imbalances and to maintain an equilibrium. This is usually not understood by the extrovert until there are “physical” signs, or signs of effusiveness oftentimes accompanied by a morbid intensification of fantasy activity. These, then, are signs of a more “introverted” nature as the extroverted attention is drawn inward by the unconscious.

Thus, hysteria is the most frequent neurosis of the extraverted type, generally showing up as exaggerated rapport with persons in the immediate environment and adjustment to prevailing conditions that amounts to “imitation”. There is a constant tendency to make oneself interesting and to produce an impression. He becomes very prone to another’s influence.

We carry our whole histories with us in our bodies representing a “vital” need to which a wise psychic economy must respond. The past must come alive and participate in the present. Total assimilation to the outside world without regard for the inside will arouse protest from these suppressed factors. Thus, it only stands to reason that the psychic compensation of the conscious extraverted attitude will lay particular emphasis upon the subjective factor. And here we will find a markedly egocentric tendency in the unconscious which is essentially primitive and infantile since we are dealing with long repressed or archaic elements. The stronger the conscious attitude of extroversion, the more infantile and archaic the unconscious attitude. The extroverts “egoism” can even go so far as to verge on the ruthless and brutal. When unconscious impulses are ignored by consciousness, they become non-compensatory and destructive

Catastrophe can be objective (aims falsified by unconscious) or subjective, taking the form of a nervous breakdown when the unconscious has finally paralyzed all action. Then unconscious takes control and brings a split: either the subject no longer knows what is wanted and nothing interests him, or wants too much at once and has too many interests in impossible things.

When extraversion predominates, the most differentiated function is always employed in an extroverted way; it is the most conscious and completely under conscious control. Conscious personality (aims, will and performance) is always expressed by the superior function.

The inferior functions are introverted and partly under unconscious control. These are things that simply “happen” to one and show a highly subjective coloring with pronounced egocentricity and personal bias. The unconscious is constantly coming to light through them. Not always easy to tell which character traits belong to which, though generally, judging types will focus upon conscious traits while perceiving types focus upon the unconscious. When we cannot decide whether a person is extroverted or introverted, we must observe through analysis which is completely under conscious control and which are haphazard and spontaneous–which appear normal and which abnormal.

THINKING

Extraverted thinking is oriented by the object and objective data. The objective data is the valid and determining one. To know whether or not thinking is extraverted, we must ask by what criterion does it judge–by outside or of subjective origin. Which direction does the thinking take in drawing conclusions? Where does it finally wind up?–to objective data, external facts, or generally accepted ideas. Problem with philosophers. The philosophers “ideas” may be abstractions from objective experience, derived from tradition or borrowed from the intellectual atmosphere of the time–forms merely of “higher collective concepts”.

INTROVERT
Reserved, inscrutable, shy. Oriented by Abstracting attitude, withdraws energy from objects, protects and defends self from outside demands. Conserves energy by withdrawing it from objects, thereby consolidating his own position. Devouring. Achieves ends by monopoly.

April 14, 1992

Knowledge does not seem to have a thing to do with morality. Confusion, ignorance, unfamiliarity, etc. can forestall action because of fear of harmful consequences to oneself. But this aside, what is left to determine whether or not that action will be taken at another’s expense? Why do we choose to do good or harm to another? Is it merely a “by-product” of acting in our own interest? Why can’t we lay this question to rest?

Confess your “self” to you, and then expose who you are to others. Dare to be vulnerable!–for you must trust that there is more good on earth than evil. Bare heart and soul and allow those who would harm you do so; for you must trust that there will be others who will move to safeguard and protect you. Let those who will simply acknowledge and pass you by, do so,–for there will others who will take closer notice and will celebrate and emulate who you are.

Life can be sad if we did nothing more than await guidance from “up above”. For what we are doing is nothing more than looking for a sign to safeguard us from experience–from having to live! How did this sorry state of affairs originate? Well, I suspect that we want knowledge prior to experience because we always want our experience’s to turn out right. And we want to be right because we fear the consequences of being wrong. The problem is that the consequences of being wrong are tied to experience in the same way that being right is. Both are contained in the process of knowing which, for better or for worse, is experience! Sadly, however, many of us have come to think otherwise. To maintain our delusion, we are prepared to forfeit truth. In its place, we substitute a form of second-hand knowledge which goes by the name “description”. It is the stuff of which knowledge is made. It is a lie!

No matter how much we may wish to deny it, knowing prior to experience is impossible because knowing is experience. We are only able to separate knowledge from experience by substituting a “pseudo” form of knowledge in its place. In this way, it has the appearance of sense, but it is in fact only a “description”. In other words, while a description, like a picture, can in fact be considered a substitute for experience, it remains an artificial one at best, and this is so long as we are able to distinguish between it and the real thing. Like it or not, it is “second-hand knowing”, that constitutes knowledge.

It seems that all we can ever do with experience is to acknowledge it, but, oh, how we wish to claim so much more than this. If we were to grasp this simple truth, we would have to admit just how passive is this process of knowing and just how arbitrary and delusionary is the whole state of knowledge! For to admit that we are always and only recipients of knowledge, is to forgo taking the “credit” for it. And who would want to do that? But if this is true, then we can hardly be blamed for what is there to be acknowledged, that is, unless we choose to lie about the situation. For who among us does not know the truth of this matter from “first-hand” experience? And if we simply allow ourselves to be “convinced” by what others tell us is the case? How pitiable we’ve become. To deny experience in this way is to refuse to acknowledge what we know to be the case–a direct denial of God or nature, if you prefer! And so we force ourselves to live with delusion.

That anything beyond this may be more aptly be described as delusion. it is your choice as to whether it will be first-hand or second. Second-hand knowledge is second-hand experience, and while it may have its place, I am certain that it was not intended to replace personal experience. How do I know this? Because, whenever I see “knowledge” layered in such a way, I see prevailing confusion. For what is closest to experience is rarely doubted or misunderstood. What is experienced itself, is never misunderstood; that is, unless, we decide ask for a description of the event! But then we are back upon a multi-leveled conceptual plane, entangled in the web of language.

But is it language that beguiles us? In a manner of speaking, yes! For language is the primary means by which we both communicate and avoid experience. Physical and visual expressions are other obvious means. We can say that expressions, pictures, words (signs, labels, etc.) stand-in for experience in one way or another, but we could also say that they are experience’s themselves. Listening to a story, looking at a work of art, watching physical movements of any kind whatever, all constitute real experience. So what then is wrong?

April 17, 1992

INTROVERT

Ego is focal point of consciousness. Self is focal point of unconscious. Inborn mode of acting is instinct. Inborn mode of psychic apprehension is “archetype”–primordial image, symbolic formula which functions when no conscious ideas present or when they are inhibited for internal or external reasons. Contents of the collective unconscious are represented in consciousness by pronounced preferences (tendencies and views) or ways of looking at things.

Subject mistakenly thinks these are determined by objects but are only released by the effect, or impressions resulting from the object. These are stronger than the object’s influence,–of higher psychic value–thus allowing a superimposition on all impressions. Setting subjective judgment above objective data creates the impression of being ego-centric which the introvert is hard-pressed to answer since he is unaware of the unconscious but generally valid assumptions upon which his subjective judgment and perceptions are based. So as expected of the times, he looks outside rather than within (behind his consciousness) for an answer. Should he become neurotic, it is the sign of an almost complete identity of the ego with the self; the importance of the self reduced to nil while the ego is inflated beyond measure. “The whole world-creating force of the subjective factor becomes concentrated in the ego, producing a boundless power-complex and a fatuous egocentricity. Every psychology which reduces the essence of man to the unconscious power drive springs from this kind of disposition.” (P378)

Introverted attitude normally orientated by the psychic structure or “Self” which is in principle hereditary and inborn–that is, far more comprehensive than, and prior to, ego development. Introvert orients self by subjective factors in perception and cognition which are interposed between the perception of object and action, thus preventing action from assuming a character befitting the objective situation. Consciousness selects subjective factors (which constellate in him as a result of the perception) as the determinant or decisive ones. “By the subjective factor I understand that psychological action or reaction which merges with the effect produced by the object and so gives rise to a new psychic datum.” (P375 Psychological Types).

ARTIFICIAL SUBJECTIVIZATION OF CONSCIOUSNESS
Characteristic of introvert to confuse ego with the self and to exalt it as the subject of the psychic process. Excessive development of this standpoint leads to an artificial subjectivization of consciousness. This is counterbalanced by a de-subjectivization which takes the form of an exaggerated “extraverted” attitude. Predominance of subjective factor in consciousness devalues the object, withholding the importance it rightly deserves. It has too little meaning. Excessive importance attached to ego puts the object in an untenable position. Ego too flimsy to go up against the world–quite another thing for Self. When ego usurps claims of subject, the unconscious compensates by reinforcing the influence of the object. Object comes to exert an overwhelming influence on consciousness despite convulsive efforts of ego to retain superiority. Since ego is unadapted to object (desire to dominant is not adaptation), unconscious makes it feel tied to objects. The more that ego struggles to preserve independence, freedom from obligation and superiority, the more enslaved it becomes. Individual eventually brought down and unconscious takes over relationship to the object and brings illusion of power and superiority to utter ruin. Psychasthenia, extreme sensitivity and proneness to exhaustion and chronic fatigue.

INTROVERTED THINKING

Whether concerned with concrete or abstract objects, always at the decisive points, it is oriented by subjective data. Thinking begins with the subject and leads back to the subject, even though it may range far afield. New views rather than establishing new facts are its main concern. Formulates questions and creates theories, it opens up new prospects and insights. Facts okay as illustrative examples, evidence for a theory, etc. but never for their own sake. What is paramount is the development and presentation of the subjective idea, of the symbolic image–never an intellectual reconstruction of the concrete fact, but shaping that dark image into a luminous idea. Reality okay to fit idea. Success is when idea seems to emerge from external facts naturally, proving its validity.

Dangerous tendency to force facts into shape of image or ignore them altogether to give fantasy free play. Thinks that few facts could validate idea but real convincing nature derived from unconscious. Unless it can fit or be assimilated into the thinking of the time, it will not have any value. Theories for their own sake, visions with numerous possibilities appear but never become reality until only have images which express nothing externally real. Mystical thinking, trying to represent the irrepresentable. Carried to extremes, it arrives at its own subjective existence. Further development of life crowded out

April 20, 1992

An unrelenting quest for light and warmth;
A philosophical stance without knowledge;
A political and social appeal without action;
A prophet’s tongue without words;
What’s to become of me?
What’s to become of me?

April 24, 1992

THE SITUATION

*Too many qualified persons to fill too few jobs
*Too many personal friends and relations that need jobs
*Strong pressure to assist these at a time when it is imperative that right person be slotted
*Survival makes it easy for employers to abuse employees (hard work, low pay and termination after being used!)
*Abuse of employees can cover up a great deal of organizational inefficiency under the name of “competitive necessity”
*Lying, cheating and stealing has also become relatively easy for employers and small business to engage in. Complicated products make it especially easy to cheat consumers in the “repair and service” component
*A seemingly valueless, “anything goes”, “look the other way”, “get what you can get” society makes all such behavior appear to be rational
*One does not know where honesty and goodness lies and more often than not believes that it is nowhere to be found
*Thus, one is not really concerned whether or not they are helping themselves by working for a crooked organization or one which is honest and upright. As long as we are benefiting ourselves–we are justified! After all, everyone, on every level, is looking out for #1. The evidence is overwhelming.

THE MORAL REALITY
*Naturally, everyone would love to be in the employ of a confident, honest and competent employer with a vision of the future and a belief in their attaining success–especially those who have or currently undergoing abuse within their own employment situation. We don’t really believe that such organizations exist, we would gladly cling to the illusion so long as it can last.
*The reality is that we regard organizational “solvency” as being a higher good than “honesty” since this is what our livelihoods most depend upon.
*Nonetheless, even if we are able to distinguish those which are solvent from those that are not, the competitive difficulty of landing a job will be even greater.

THE STRATEGY
*An individual must have a vision of her own within a broader vision and an appreciation of what is going on in the world at large.
*At very least, one’s vision needs to involve itself within whatever the employer’s sphere or vision happens to be: government job, industry, social agency, educational institution, etc. One must have and know what she has to offer… vision, service, dedication, hard work, competence, etc.

May 5, 1992

Who is Ray Iannello?

Generalists, conceptual, philosophical

Involved in clarifying personal problems and social issues through the development and application of broad-based “relational” concepts and perspectives grounded in experience. This means that narrower (more limited viewpoints) can often be explained by more fundamental, comprehensive means; and that such “conceptual” means can serve as a major tool for alleviating confusion.

Modern-day society has grown complex in terms of cognitive and behavioral possibilities owing to its membership. Because of this, individuals are finding it increasingly difficult to trust their own experience and decision-making capabilities, and thus are tending toward a forfeiture of personal responsibility altogether. A bind and dangerous “faith” is placed in “others” who will interpret experience for us, and who will continue to “show us the rest of the way home.”

Thus, an unpleasant situation is seemingly “corrected” through a desperate reliance upon others to decide what is to be appropriate for ourselves. A major source of confusion , and sheer anguish for far too many others.

Underlying this approach is the belief that a good portion of what ails us is “conceptual confusion”, meaning that it

A generalists or “questor” by nature with a strong interest and need for pondering and searching for meaning and purpose in life. You might regard him as a “pseudo” philosopher, psychologist or “silent prophet”, perhaps, since he tends not to share his perceptions within an appropriate vocation, nor does he have definite “answers” or even a “personal perspective” to call his own. But this is not to say that he is without perspectives–he has numerous ones–or that he is not concerned about those personal and social issues which are perplexing all of us. He does care, and he cares in a highly personal way. It is this self-same “feeling” that forces his intuition and conceptual thinking to formulate insights and broad-based perspectives; and these in turn which provide a framework for others to understand their own.

This is not, however, to say that he is a caring or service-oriented type individual; only that he recognizes, and cannot help but feel, that his personal perspectives and general welfare is integrally bound up with others. In doing for others, he recognizes that he is doing for himself, and in doing for himself, he has discovered that he is able to make significant contributions to others whose perspectives may be narrower than his own. In this way, his personal efforts may take on a more social significance by helping to alleviate confusion through better clarification of perspectives belonging to others.

Who we are depends a great deal on personality type, cultural influences, and hidden belief systems
Once we understand our personalities, we can predict our beliefs
We can only understand our own perspective by understanding other perspectives
This is a conceptual undertaking
Experience is a critical component

What can I offer?

A perspective regarding your personal problem situation (confusion, sorting, conception)
Clarification of your individual personality characteristics, interests and values (who you are and what is important to you)
Clarification of appropriate life and career goals

In terms of job goals, I can ensure that your:
resume is effective
job search is realistic and appropriate
presentation materials are polished
will have on-going support services

What will it take to get my message out?
Client Newsletter describing…
Backup Brochures

What constitutes winning?

Customer-oriented newsletter
Pull out NF’s for seminar
Pull out Introverts for seminar

May 6, 1992

I was somewhere where I didn’t belong my dream told me last night. And yet I remained away even while I worried about the consequences I knew I would suffer. What was this dream telling me?

Values are the starting point of virtue–shared values the advent of culture. What I desire for myself, I fully expect others to desire for themselves. What causes me to suffer, I expect will cause others to suffer. Whatever emotions I experience, I expect others will experience. Of course, I understand that there may be differences in “degree”, but “qualitatively” speaking, I can’t help but believe that we are all alike.

[But why am I writing this?]

But desires are not values, even if we hold them in common. Neither are common desires values, even if we acknowledge their legitimacy for all. Only “worthwhile” desires can be values. We don’t desire something because we value it–we value it because we desire it. But even this isn’t enough since we don’t value everything we desire. There are many things which we wish we didn’t desire; things which may even be harmful to us. It seems inconsistent to think that we can value something which we know to be harmful to ourselves. “Desire”, maybe, but value, not hardly. Values are not momentary emotions–they are not emotions at all. To value a friendship may call up all sorts of emotions, but the value is not to be found here. Values are the end-product of a valuing process which may in fact involve emotion, but is actually more a process of consideration.

So why all this talk of values? and what does it have to do with my dream? I don’t know. I don’t know.

Yesterday I wrote about the forfeiture of “understanding” one’s own perceptions, and the giving over of responsibility for one’s own perceptions and judgment to some “unknown knowers” who presumably are there to handle the burden. The result of such a practice has been the pain of confusion which we have all been left to suffer contrary to our expectations. Perhaps “values” represent a way out of this dilemma–a way to regain a lost equilibrium. But what does this have to do with the interpretation of perceptions and that of judgments made in light of them? Is it because the former derives from experience?

“Valuing” and “knowing”. The former seems arbitrary in some way while the latter seems to smack of certainty. And yet, “valuing” seems like a derivative from “knowing” (something higher) as it is difficult to imagine our valuing something which was not understood to be worthy. While “knowing” is generally associated with a thinking process, “valuing” seems to result from a long-standing knowing.

Then should we equate “knowing” with “experience” despite our associations with rational processes and the like? If we consider the infallible sense of `knowing what one experiences’ inasmuch as we cannot help but `experience whatever it is we are experiencing’, it seems like a play on words. But what it is simply an all too prevalent distinction between a `content presented’ and a `content received’ through a single connecting experience. A causal relationship existing between object and subject which

May 11, 1992

Synopsis of Jung’s Psychological Types

Relations and adaptation…

Basic Attitudes of Introversion and Extroversion

According to Jung, there are two fundamentally different (psychological) modes of adaptation which ensure our continuing existence in the world. These are the basic attitudes of “introversion” and “extroversion” which are distinguished by the direction our interest takes toward things. These attitudes are “natural born” dispositions to act in one or the other way and, therefore, must not be violated. Violations, whether self-imposed or forced by the influences of others, can lead to neurosis (and acute exhaustion), and cannot be cured unless one develops the attitude consonant with one’s nature. Just what is this “natural” attitude?

“The relation between subject [ourselves] and object [the world], biologically considered, is always one of adaptation since every relation between subject and object presupposes the modification of one by the other through reciprocal influence. Adaptation consists in these constant modifications. The typical attitudes to the object [introversion and extroversion], therefore, are processes of adaptation.” (P180)

Thus, the “biological foundation” of extroversion and introversion is to be discovered in ones relationship to the world, which is always a process of adaptation (or reciprocal modification). Jung sees a correlation (or some similarity) between the basic attitudes and differences in fertility rates between organisms. In nature, those organisms with a high fertility rate (but low powers of defense and short life span for the single individual) are akin to the extroverted attitude, while those with low fertility rate (but with high powers of defense or numerous means of self-preservation) would be akin to the introverted attitude .

It is sufficient to note that the peculiar nature of the extrovert constantly urges him to expend and propagate himself in every way, while the tendency of the introvert is to defend himself against all demands from the outside, to conserve his energy by withdrawing from objects, thereby consolidating his own position… the one [mode of adaptation] achieves its end by a multiplicity of relationships, the other by monopoly. (pp. 180, 181)

Jung reminds us that it cannot be the struggle for existence in the “ordinary” sense that determines a particular attitude. [Perhaps this presents a clue to his thinking regarding the biological parallel] Two children of the same mother may exhibit contrary attitudes (even at her breasts) and, therefore, such differences cannot be due to the effects of parental or environmental influences. For whatever reasons (and Jung does not claim to know why), “there are obviously individuals who have a greater capacity, or to whom it is more congenial, to adapt in one way and not in another.”–and, furthermore, that these dispositions in fact appear quite randomly throughout nature “despite the constancy of external conditions.” (p181)

Under normal conditions, then, individuals can be expected to follow their natural dispositions. But, to reinforce a point made earlier, under abnormal conditions (such as when a parent’s own attitude is extreme), a child’s natural attitude may be “falsified” and, as a result, may lead to neurotic behavior over a period of time. The child must get back on track if she is to avoid these harmful psychological consequences.

Introversion and extroversion, then, each represents a given attitude or orientation–the preferred direction of interest or “libido” (energy) toward life. But orientations are not means. The actual means of adaptation will be found in one or two of our most “preferred” functions. These will be out of a total of four functions which Jung distinguishes as primary. Thus, an individual adapts and orients himself chiefly by means of his most developed or “differentiated” functions which are used in the favored attitude. But this isn’t all. It is also true, according to Jung, that both consciousness and the unconscious are similarly oriented and, as we will see, this makes all the difference to an understanding of personality types.

Attitudes of Consciousness and the Unconscious

behavior within a given attitude. But this is only a starting point. The orientations of extraversion and introversion can apply equally to functions. Not only do we utilize different orientations and functions at different times, but conscious and unconscious attitudes can also be introverted or extroverted.

these dispositions appear quite randomly throughout nature, and therefore should not be violated.

It is all to easy to believe that our personal uncertainties are due to uncertainties of economic conditions and life because these have in fact disrupted our lives. But it shows an over reliance on collective belief, action, etc. and an under reliance upon ourselves in relation to it. The tendency is to adapt to existing conditions if only we could, or knew where things were going.

We need to understand how different personalities and attitudes relate to the world, specifically in terms of adaptation, in order that we can keep up with change. There seems to be an opposing standpoint which has been in development for just this purpose. The inward expression or further refinement of personality differences is perhaps the only tool we have for absorbing change without being swept up by it.

It seems ironic that we should be so caught up in change that we feel like we’re losing control. After all, isn’t it change of our making? Nature is really no different than she has always been it seems

It’s as though nature were saying to us: “Be prepared Homo sapiens–You’re entering the big league now. If you want to make it in this world

Tendency of introverts to step back and take a wait and see attitude
Tendency for perceivers to watch

Tendency for extroverts to rush ahead to adapt, but world changing almost too quickly

Tendency for judgers to become more conservative in order to control things moving too fast to understand. To “force-simplify” the world if necessary. Thinking types will use logic to cut to the core while feeling types will use person-centered values to try to reach the same simplicity.

Tendency for perceiving types to
It’s easier for them to adapt to change

The importance of assessing and clarifying personality type cannot be over emphasized. It is not merely a starting point for self-understanding, but crucially important to bringing us closer together. stressing “similarities” over “differences”, we have only succeeded in further alienated ourselves from one another. This strategy must be reversed.

Initial Personal Consultation:
A.An overview of your immediate situation (needs, problems, plans, etc.) with a view towards establishing an appropriate plan of action.
B. Informational resource in a review of your own materials, goals, etc.

PERSONAL ASSESSMENTS

PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENTS

A powerful and comprehensive personal assessment process promising a wealth of insightful information regarding yourself and others, and aiding in the establishment of a significant body of self-knowledge for future use. A significant set of survey questionnaires is utilized to assess and evaluate personal and vocational interests, values, behavioral style, personality traits and type. These in turn are scored, analyzed and their results shared with you within an in-depth private consultation lasting from two to three hours. Depending upon orientation (see below), general interviewing, informational and counseling techniques are utilized in an effort to clarify and correctly interpret the significance and meaning of such information for yourself.

A.Occupational Orientation $100.00

A brief overview of vocational interests, values, behavioral style and personality type for the express purpose of:

_Identifying an appropriate career direction
_Utilizing such information as a basis for composing and setting the overall tone and strategy of an effective resume
_Developing a “personal profile summary” to be used as an effective “marketing tool” within the resume itself. (See “Personalized Resume” Below).

B.Personal and/or Occupational Orientation $150.00

The primary focus of this orientation is to introduce and demonstrate the merits of personality and behavioral “typing” to self-understanding and to personal problem resolution in particular. Its secondary aim is to assist clients in establishing an appropriate foundation of personal knowledge to guide future actions. Unlike the occupational orientation, an evaluation of personal and situational sources of confusion is made in order to clarify uncertainties relating to personality and behavioral characteristics, goal-setting, decision-making or interpersonal relations–both on the job and off. The “relational” nature of problems will be expressed in terms of self-awareness and also in terms of understanding and appreciating differences in others. Most importantly, clients will come to understand the extent to which stressful situations could have been avoided by means of such understanding.

B.Relational Orientation for Couples$350.00

Overview of the dynamic interplay of individual personalities and behavioral characteristics within a particular relationship. Each partner undergoes an individual assessment and private consultation to better clarify and establish personal trait characteristics, and also to allow each to express his or her own perspective regarding the relationship. Following an analysis of these results, a joint session is scheduled which will allow both partners an opportunity to discuss their respective differences and needs, and, more importantly, how such differences (or a lack of appreciation thereof) may be adversely affecting the relationship. The underlying assumption is that neither side of a relationship (any relationship) can be appreciated (much less loved) without first having a significant understanding of self and that to which one is relating–be this another individual or the world at large.

EXTENDED CONFIRMATION, VALIDATION, & DEVELOPMENT

This process has a three-fold purpose:

* To provide clients with a further means for clarifying and identifying one’s natural or “true type” where this is not obvious due to underdevelopment of personality traits or “falsified” traits.

* Provide a means for coming to grips with “problems” associated with behaviors that are too strong (exaggerated) or too weak (undifferentiated or underdeveloped).

* Provide significant means for “developing” goals and behaviors consistent with one’s natural preferences.

Some personality types are more difficult to understand and live out of than others. People with strongly developed tendencies (exaggerated behaviors) tend to be “one-sided”, dogmatic and opposed to those patterns different from their own. Weak tendencies often point to a life of underdeveloped behavior or “forced” behavior where one has restrained one’s true nature in favor of satisfying some strong parental, teacher, peer-group or societal expectation. For example, since introverted, intuitive and feeling types are not really as valued in our society as are extroverted, factual and logic-oriented types, there is a normal tendency for the former types to want to conform to the latter as a means to better “self-improvement”! Far too many books and seminar offerings encourage the development of behaviors which are not consistent with natural preferences, thus, fostering a delusion which is harmful inasmuch as it only serves to foster a confusion, anxiety or frustration which is already only too apparent. In some cases (again, depending upon personality type and circumstances), it may come to be nearly impossible to put even the simplest things in perspective, much less a “proper” perspective. One comes to feel tense or “out of sorts” in situations without understanding the reasons why. The extended validation process attempts to resolve these difficulties by helping to establish relevant points of understanding and to assist in setting and working with appropriate developmental goals.

Individual Consultations $35 P/HR

Small Group Interpretative & Support Seminars$20 P/Session
Participants are chosen on a basis of personal need as well as the service they can provide to other members within the group.

RESUME SERVICES

All resumes receive special attention to detail, organization, content, wording and layout. All have the singular focus of helping you to achieve your goal. You are given three choices depending upon

Basic Data Sheet
For those who wish to remain with the traditional approach to resume construction with brief histories Type-Setting, Formatting & Printing

Extended Composition
For those with extensive job experience that requires significant updating–compilation, synthesis, editing and restructuring of current information, in addition to new composition, as well as numerous informational and formatting enhancements needed for an effective professional presentation.

Personalized Resume
A comprehensive, uniquely profiled resume whose composition and thrust rests upon a firm base of identifiable personal characteristics. Price includes Basic Assessment Package (above) and inclusion of a written “Personal Profile” within the resume itself as well as other testimonial or reference resources.

May 31, 1992

One’s “appearances” can be opposite one’s preferences: long-haired hippie “J” or clean-cut “J-acting” “P”

Appearance_____Actual Behavior______Natural Behavior
(Verbal/Visual)___(Natural/Preferred)___(Unknown)
(Aware/Unaware)____(Aware/Unaware)

PPP
PPJ
PJP
PJJ
JJJ
JJP
JPJ
JPP

SELF-EXPRESSION/PERCEPTION: How one perceives one’s own expressions, appearance and behavior–private view based upon conceptual public criteria in addition to “private” feelings, intentions, etc.

ACTUAL-EXPRESSION: How others see and describe one’s individual appearance and behavior–collective view

PERSONAL CONCEPTUAL CORRESPONDENCE: Degree of agreement/disagreement between one’s private perceptions (conceptual and feeling) and the collective (concepts and feelings) of others

OBJECTIVE CONCEPTUAL CORRESPONDENCE: Degree of agreement/disagreement between the “personal” viewpoints of self and others and objective definitions, constructs, etc. made out of the same along with a pattern or system

TRIANGLE: Self-Perception–Other Perceptions–Objective Case/Description/Definition

WITTGENSTEIN: No private language, concepts… (What of feelings, emotions, pain?)

“Introversion” a concept developed out of personal observations

Do we look for “introverted” qualities to fit an already pre-existing concept of introversion?

Are concepts “developed” or “created” from activity and experience?

Concepts come to us–derive from activity–

Concepts are utilized to express, define, describe, relate, teach, inform, command, etc.–all action verbs and concepts in their own right… activities… “language games”

One needn’t be able to describe or “understand” one’s actions and feelings to act and feel

We like to think that we act out of “knowledge”–intend to act, etc.
But to express “knowing” in this regard is merely to be able to express the “objective” viewpoint.

“Personal knowing” derives from experience or relationship which precedes objective knowledge

Knowing in advance (having prior conceptions in memory) that what one is about to do is safe, or what it will look like when the action is completed, etc. is knowing in the “second degree” and is useful so long as it can be relied upon.

Knowledge stemming from one’s own previous experience is the most reliable

When personal action ceases because one’s “knowledge” is not sufficient to make “appropriate” choices, such knowledge is superfluous and dangerous. It is meaningless conceptual confusion far removed from one’s personal awareness.

We are reaching for “broad-scale” concepts which circumscribe “broad-scale” activities, such as a vocation for example. We look for general definitions which “focus upon particulars” which we hope to recognize as existing within us.

Perhaps we need first to focus upon the particulars which already exist in us and only after this begin to look outside

“CONCEPTIONS” and “FEELINGS” are everything in this regard. If one feels good, is comfortable with one’s actions–one’s conceptions are probably not in conflict with the objective world. One has a clear sense of oneself which derived from a healthy (adaptable) relationship between one’s own viewpoints and one’s actions.

To be restricted from taking action because either one does not have a clear perspective of self, or because one is allowing unclear “collective perspectives” to stand between himself and action. We desire to “know” before we act, but cannot know before we act (since true knowledge derives from experience), and thus hope to rely upon the prior experiences of others or “objective knowledge”.

All certainties must begin with uncertainty. We cannot find anchors unless we agree to begin with the illusion of having one. We are forever confined to knowing stemming from unknowing situations. To fear to act without the “safety” of prior knowledge is to cease living. When one cannot utilize a “collective” or “objective” view to serve the need to act, one begins to cut oneself off from life. One hides in fear of living.

How does the void between objective knowledge (derived from the experience of others) and personal knowledge (derived from one’s own experience) arise? From the fact that our concepts are general terms encompassing meanings which can never be experienced in their entirety. The world of vocations can never be experienced in detail. Thus, we must content ourselves with general descriptions supported by detailed characteristics. We then try to draw parallels between the same and our own characteristics and general terms defining ourselves. We look for matches.

Learning what is appropriate to one’s own case is a powerful means for adapting to existing circumstances. But what is appropriate to one’s own case is contingent upon where one is at present; that is, what one has experienced and knows.

If one’s experiences have been faulty in the sense of always emanating from another’s viewpoint, then one does not have a concept of self, or else has a very poor concept. We become what we experience. Not to experience is not to become anything at all. Very many adults have never experienced anything for themselves; that is, from a position of “not knowing”. This, then, is probably the source of “certainty”, or the most that we can expect to gain from daring to live. Only the courageous live, or are able to understand the fullness of life. We must look pitiable to them as they have us as a means for comparison. As for the rest of us, our deadened notions leave us little to serve as a comparison between ourselves and them.

Life demands that we employ “collective concepts” in life. But life does not seem to compel us equally to act out of the same. We can allow ourselves to sink in the quagmire of “collective” notions belonging to others and refuse to take responsibility for living life to the fullest. But why would anyone not choose to live life to the fullest?

Fear, low self-esteem, forced or commanded behavior, abusive and exploitative behavior stemming from others, fearful environment, etc. all could deprive us of our freedom to live. These would be outside factors and in such cases, it would seem more “natural” that we not live life in the way described.

There are also inside factors stemming from personality and genetic traits
which in part determine the effects of outside influences upon ourselves. One might respond with boldness and bravery as a result of being abused or deprived, etc. where another might simply succumb. Are both “natural”?

Why then do we want to aid others who appear to be suffering from the effects of life? Aren’t weaknesses and suffering all a part of nature’s plan? Or ought we to regard “compassion” for others as having an even higher status in the overall scheme of things? While fear and confusion may be natural to life, so too is their overcoming. And overcoming does not merely correct a situation, it adds to it in untold ways that go beyond the filling of a void.

For whatever reason, some of us are obligated to serve others in this regard. Or we could say, that for whatever reason, serving ourselves (by overcoming our own obstacles to life) leads us to a position of “knowing” for ourselves which may then serve as a stepping stone for others. Our place is to aid the weak, the bold, the confused, the good and the evil, not merely out of compassion–but out of the good sense of believing that “all” elements are appropriate to life and serve all of our ends. Even evil, or the avoidance of the it, must be viewed as contributing to the overall good. The “sun shines upon both the good and the evil”.

CONCEPTUAL CORRESPONDENCE

No “objective” knowledge–but must use semblance of “objectivity” as criterion?

Individual perception is ultimate goal and must be “objectively” understood against background of world?

One must understand one’s differences and likes, conformities and non-conformities and find a beneficial relationship with world.

Agreement or lack of agreement with the collective view is not important unless one’s views become a problem for either side. The degree of conformity to the “norm” only becomes an issue when something goes wrong–when one becomes dysfunctional, incapacitated, too confused or anxious to adapt to circumstances. When one can no longer adapt to existing circumstances, one can be said to be in need of help. But keep in mind that it may be due to conformity with the “norm” or so-called “objective knowledge” that originated the dilemma in the first place. One cannot follow even two directions simultaneously. And trying to follow twenty or more viewpoints at alternate times is of little help since these viewpoints could very well represent perspectives which one is not equipped to handle by nature. To maintain sanity, one has to be able to perceive several viewpoints and decide upon what is relevant. Or one goes with the flow rather than attempt to trace or sort the prevailing confusion.

UNAMBIGUOUS–COMFORTABLE WITH SELF
Natural–normal tendencies/preferences
Natural–normal effectiveness–useful or beneficial
Natural–normal development–no forced alterations

AMBIGUOUS–UNCOMFORTABLE WITH SELF, AWARE OF UNNATURAL TENDENCIES
Natural–exaggerated behavior–wish to let go, lessen or seek opposite
Natural–ineffective behavior–wish to change…develop, avoid own or seek opposite
Natural–subdued behavior–low development–lack of use rather than seek opposites
Natural–subdued behavior–low development–low tendency due to usage of opposites
Unnatural–low or high intensity–forced by self or others–aware of abnormal use of opposite

AMBIGUOUS–CONFUSED OR NEUROTIC, UNAWARE OF UNNATURAL TENDENCIES
Unnatural–low or high intensity–forced by self or others–unaware of abnormal use of opposites

Important for those with “less accepted” personality types to find the acceptance they desire and need to develop properly. May be through work, organizations, or leisure activities. Must find other types like themselves.

June 6, 1992

We adapt to the existing world through experience. To experience something is to relate to it, and any relationship presuppose some degree of modification (on both sides) as a result of reciprocal influence. Adaptation consists of these constant modifications.

Extroversion and introversion represent two differing attitudes or modes of “psychological” adaptation which, according to Jung, are grounded in the two “biological” forms of adaptation ensuring the survival of the organism:

The one consists in a high rate of fertility with low powers of defense and short duration of life for the single individual; the other consists in equipping the individual with numerous means of self-preservation plus a low fertility rate… It is sufficient to note that the peculiar nature of the extravert constantly urges him to expend and propagate himself in every way, while the tendency of the introvert is to defend himself against all demands from outside, to conserve his energy by withdrawing it from objects, thereby consolidating his own position (pp. 180,181)

Thus, the extrovert’s (subjective) attitude toward the objects of the world is generally affirming, making him constantly relate to it, and be oriented by it. The object in question (person or thing) can never have enough value or importance and the extrovert is always striving to increase it on both counts. On the other hand, the introvert’s (subjective) attitude toward objects is generally abstracting, always trying to withdraw energy from the object or thing in order to prevent it from gaining power over him.

The one [attitude] achieves its end by a multiplicity of relationships, the other by monopoly… The one allows himself to be oriented by the given facts, the other holds into reserve a view which interposes itself between him and the objective data. Now, when orientation by the object predominates in such a way that decisions and actions are determined not by subjective views but by objective conditions, we speak of the extraverted attitude. When this is habitual, we speak of an extroverted type. If a man thinks, feels, acts and actually lives in a way that is directly correlated with the objective conditions and their demands, he is extraverted. His life makes it perfectly clear that it is the object and not his subjective view that plays the determining role in his consciousness. (p181-183)

The introvert, on the other hand, orients himself by subjective factors, by interposing a subjective view between the perception of the object and his own action, which prevents the action from assuming a character that fits the objective situation. Although aware of external conditions, he selects the subjective determinants as the decisive ones; those factors in perception or cognition that agree with his own subjective disposition; those impressions which constellate in himself from having had the experience.

Jung points out that perception and cognition are never purely objective, but always subjectively conditioned. All experience–all psychic functions–must have a subject (which is ourselves) and must on that account alone, be considered as just as indispensable as the object.

June 10, 1992

Understanding comes through concepts
And so does confusion
But concepts are not primary to experience
And this makes all the difference

“He is stubborn!” may mean…
He is acting stubbornly…
Tends to be stubborn…
Is stubborn.

Stimulus, Response, Experience
Repetition, Recognition, Understanding
Event, Repetition, Memory
Action, Tendency, Quality
Perception, Abstraction,
Description, Concept, Assignment

CONFUSION

We are quantifiably less than what surrounds us
We are cognitively less than what surrounds us
Greater complexity, potential for new knowledge, etc.
We are compelled by nature in larger sense
We can compel and control elements of nature in smaller sense
Relative control, free-will, etc.
We have a conception of these within our conceptions of their opposites
We have both and this is appropriate
Two ways of looking at something
One gives credit to the whole, the other to the part
I can command even while I am commanded in different circumstances
Difference in point of view from “action” to “label”
I am a servant to the king but king of my family
My family and I belong to the king but my family also belongs to me
My family belongs to me and the king. But who is the “real” owner?
That depends on how you look at it.

Labeling things allows us to locate them, identify them, and communicate information regarding them. It also allows us to describe them, classify them, attribute qualities to them and all of these in turn allow further manipulations, alternate perceptions, abstractions, models, theories, etc. which others may contribute to due to the “common language”.

“Commonality” is key to understanding and seems to imply agreement and consensus which follow from similarity of perceptions and action (or activity). We may not agree with the classification of trees, but we can understand its structure or system. While the structure may be certain, its “proper” application may be in doubt.

When we describe or attempt to interpret behavior, we use common concepts whose meanings are fairly certain. We know what stubbornness is,–fear, anger, remorse, jealousy, etc. and have labels or words at hand to serve us. If we had only to describe a situation while it was happening, most of us would be in agreement in terms of relating physical and emotional characteristics. But if we were to attribute these same qualities

June 29, 1992

Expression of feeling seems the only certainty,
While reasons for the same go astray.
But feelings are not isolated sensations;
They are attached to things and actions…
What we desire, intend, or feel compelled to do.
We try to separate the emotion from its cause…
To stop the stream.

We would undoubtedly choose the lesser of two evils if it were of greater benefit to ourselves–or would we?

But we may also choose the greater of two evils because of its greater benefit to ourselves.

Why am I being taken off my conscious track? If my concentration is wrong, then lead me to understand why it is so. If my following your lead is of benefit to me or others, then first lead me to understand this much; the rest will be much easier. I can endure if my endurance is serving some good. Experiencing confusion and relative, piece-meal understanding does not seem good enough. I require ends, goals or relative standpoints to serve as anchors to my thoughts–I require relative satisfactions. I appear to be stretched in order to consume through perception; consumed in order to be structured through intuition; structured in order to know through experience–but my structures are many, and they are without cohesion. I tell you, my structures are themselves in need of structure! Are you listening?

So who is it that is really “knowing” in this relationship me or you? For whose benefit amI–mine or yours? “Am I” merely? Or do I have the right to assert: “I am!” Would it be true? Or am I to be kept in the dark, a mere tool for your benefit? Or might we both be coming to know for both our benefits? Is this it? a mutual thing? Are we both active and passive at different times? Do I sometimes compel you as you do me? Am I hidden in some respects from you as you are from me? Do you receive bits and pieces from me as I from you? Do we know together in relationship? Are we of equal stature? Are you a brother counterpart? Sister? Father? Mother? God? What exactly is our relationship!

I suspect that in some reciprocal and oppositional manner, we are together both brother and sister, father and son, male and female, mother and son, matter and spirit, active and passive–all and every relationship (and cross relationship) possible or made necessary by the flow of events. I can’t explain why, but I sense it in some way, that anything less would be overly simplistic and certainly much too restrictive. But is this merely my confusion speaking? or does it stem from you or other “intelligible counterparts” comprising myself? In any case, how will I know without relationship–without experience?

Is this the point? Am I, myself, holding knowledge at bay by refusing experience: by withstanding a relationship compelling me to action? Am I holding back the very satisfaction I seek? If so, why am I doing this? and why is this not clear to me? If so, why don’t you simply reveal this to me? Why must I feel compelled to leave open the flood gates of perception, even while I sense that such perceptions are drowning me? Okay, so I’m exaggerating somewhat… but not by much. Not knowing is fatiguing and is making me sick.

Might you be telling me that my intuitive wholes are really halves? That my dependency upon you stems from my captivation with the pictures given me rather than with their messages–their intended use? Then why do I resist the compulsion to act upon intuitions already given me? And why do I expect that more are needed, rather than less; that more will somehow deliver the “certainty” I seek? Does my struggle result from an over-dependence or under-dependence upon you? Again, am I the weaker side of this equation, resisting progression toward wholeness? I suspect that this may be true, but, here again, I need you to tell me.

Why do I persist in the belief that our relationship works in this way? My intuitions do come to me as pictures or wholes suggesting answers in conceptual terms; new ways of looking at things; new frameworks for understanding; different perspectives, etc. They do in fact seem complete in themselves, even if they are not always in harmony with other perceptions given me, or with other viewpoints existing in the world. But this too causes me concern. Which ones are right? Which ought I to heed and which not? Which ought I to act upon and which not? My conscious standpoint needs to deal with external circumstances since I need to live in the world; only I am finding myself more and more in the role of mediator between forces I cannot always discern. But this too may be an exaggeration inasmuch as the outside world compels me to act on its behalf while, at the same time, you seem to be pushing me in the very same direction. But if so, why the diversions? Why the stream of never-ending perceptions veering me in one direction and then another? Or is this just my conscious standpoint fighting against the need to go within?

Can “Self” and “World” conspire to work for me? against me? or against one another without benefit or recourse to me? An interesting thought.

How this state of affairs works is anybody’s guess, but there is a relationship present here. It is the same conscious “I” that is relating to both the world and the inner elements which periodically come into and go out of consciousness. And it is the same “I” who must balance ensuing differences or be able to withstand one or the other or both. Indeed, consciousness at various times seems to be a common battleground, treaty place, or fertile soil for both the production and battling over new knowledge. Is this, then, my role? Do either of these standpoints matter more than the other? Or is it to be my job to decide? to keep them in harmony as best I can? to wring from them new knowledge and compromises for the benefit of all? Again, I can’t help but feel an ameliorative progression at work here between “equally” beneficial and destructive elements. That there really isn’t a good or bad side at all–only sides which can be good or bad under varying circumstances, and depending upon whose perspective one is viewing from. Sound familiar? Neither is stronger than the other while both are dependent upon our part of the equation–consciousness. We would be the role of the equal sign, needing to ensure that both sides are in true equivalence!

I can’t help but feel that the overriding goal of this enterprise is one of progression through the dynamic interplay of satisfaction and dissatisfaction from the ultimate standpoint of the beloved Ego. That because of this, even the weakest and most passive elements are as crucial to this relationship as are the strongest and most active. The psychologist, Jung, claimed that the (inner) “Self” is commensurate with the “World” in terms of power, but that the Ego (standing between them) is a rather flimsy thing. I sense that the Ego can be perilously strong, but at the same time recognize that this strength may be owing to a mistaken identity with either or both of these opposing forces. Jung also reminded us that usurping the claims of the real subject” (that is, the “Self”) is an altogether common tendency of the Ego of the introvert. (Psychological Types, p376). But how can one not feel themselves a subject?

I sense myself between two seemingly different forces stemming from two seemingly different directions–the outside and inside worlds. Since I receive from both directions, I can’t help but feel that I am indeed the subject of these sensations and perceptions. And while it is possible for me to envision (or at least posit) another “subject” besides my conscious self as a source of inner experience, I do not look to the world as being anything other than a source. Why not? Both offer opportunities for perception. Both come to me, or develop within me, strong degrees of coherence, structure or form. Why not also posit a “thinking world” as another subject?

In spite of its tenuous and weakened nature, it seems that the role given consciousness is an extremely important one, and certainly central to any perspective we are capable of. In fact, it borders on nonsense to speak in such terms since “we” apparently are that perspective. The unconscious elements “residing” within us are also a part of us, and, together with consciousness and world are the source of the power we feel. And it seems right to feel this way, especially when we recognize the crucial role we play in our own equation. To be sure, without a source or sender, nothing could be received; but unless there were a conscious receiver, nothing would be experienced. This, if anything, seems to be the source of the power we feel. While we cannot resist the passive reception of perceptions from either direction, still we cannot help but believe that we are able to resist them. “Resist” what? This might serve as a reminder that perceptions are something more than mere “pictures”–they are also compulsions to act. Normal sensations and intuitions come to us as structures or forms suggesting closure. Closure (pattern, form, sense, insight, idea, etc.) always permits or compels us to action–if not at the moment, then soon after. This is because experience is revelation and the revelation is the apprehension. And even though we might resist the compulsion to do anything with such perceptions; that is, might choose not to permit such actions, we soon realize that this behavior can get to be very unhealthy. Thus, while I can certainly recognize the world (within and without) as being much more complex (perhaps even more “knowledgeable”) than my conscious self, still I can’t help but feel that I am indeed the supreme commander. But don’t be mistaken by these words; these are meant to be humbling remarks inasmuch as my mediation efforts to date have not been all that good. If my role is to balance the equation between world and all that I am, (my entire genetic history striving to enter the present world in Jungian terms), then I cannot be said to be doing very well either psychologically or materially. And I needn’t elaborate this point.

To imagine Earth at its simplest beginnings is still beyond even our present comprehension, even if we are inclined to believe otherwise. It is no coincidence that our view of the matter (as we imagine it to have been) corresponds ever so neatly with our current level of knowledge. I recognize that this sounds trivial and that one is likely to remark: “Of course it corresponds!” But try to recognize how our very limitations work to make such “solutions” possible. The problem is pictured, so to speak, the questions already phrased in a resolvable manner;–that is, in the current language, consonant with present-day knowledge! We view the problem from the standpoint of the solution which, of course, is already in hand. The two come together as a simultaneous process, perhaps in much the same way as the world comes to us through experience. Our inability to gain an outside perspective ensures that we remain on top–that everything that fits is fitting. We may even go so far as to create “unanswerable” problems in order to disguise the tautological delusion we sense is at work.

As I said, I suspect that consciousness may work in much the same way. We strive to be a template for everything meaningful to ourselves, even though we recognize that there are other templates (in other individuals) pointing to other sensibilia beyond our reach or scope of comprehension. And so we claim tolerance while shutting them out from view, lest we appear to be too scattered. But scattered we remain. No amount of certainty attached to any given particular is going to shut out the effects of the whole, especially when all such “wholes” are selected on the basis of individual, as well as general, structure. We are a part of that larger structure, and are in addition to other sub-structures, which may or may not agree with our own.

In terms of knowledge, we find that we are always behind in the sense of having to come to know, which is really no more than that which we derive from experience. I do not willingly deliver anything to the world or to my inner self to benefit either, but know that I derive a great deal from both these quarters. Only while my inner aspect seems to be both receiver and sender (that is, another “self”), the outer world does not seem so “mindful”. But, then, this may only be because we have unwittingly diminished the importance of the conscious component as a “co-creator”. Just as we are inclined to attribute a unity (through extension, intelligence and location) to the unconscious components of our being, that life-giving tendency may be a projection from our own sense of life. We simply do not know whether there is a separate consciousness contained within us–that is, another “conscious inner self” which remains relatively unconscious to our conscious outer selves! Shaky, isn’t it? Yes, and it should give us good reason to pause. But we don’t have to go down such roads if we don’t want to, and there is good reason not to want to.

We seem to want to make intelligence and awareness begin and end with ourselves. If there is a God, surely we must be central to his plan. If we cannot sense this, then God will become impersonal, and we will eventually do away with him altogether. In his place will remain a purposeless universe created in and of itself, whatever that might mean. Or we might take the agnostic view and simply disclaim our ability to understand any of it, though without denying any of it. In any regard, we cannot help but feel that the central focus, if not the reins of control, remain in our hands. That we can permit or inhibit the processes of life–choose, withstand, withhold, or temper inner as well as outer compulsions. This seems to be an undeniable fact. But is it?

We recognize our tendency toward anthropomorphisms, but how else are we to speak of, define or describe, “things” and “events” which seem to be beyond our ability to describe? We feel compelled to attribute our sensations to sources that are in relation to ourselves. If there are no other subjects besides ourselves, then we are alone and forced to talk to one another about experiences which none of us can understand. The dilemma remains. But is this really the case? What compels so many of us to imagine that there is a separate communicating entity within or without ourselves? Is it because we experience rather than create? Is it because we are first and foremost passive receivers, even if we do know how to take credit by rearranging such elements? Only, deep down, we know we are really stretching it if we try to present ourselves as anything more than “co-creators”. I suspect that what allows this is our sense of personal identity–that since it is we who are in relationship with the world, then the experience is ours rather than the world’s. After all, the world does not seem to care one way or another, or, at least, is not verbalizing any form of rebuttal. Rather, it leaves us to suffer our delusions in concrete events. But, again, we are compelled to conclude that even if our sense of self is more “delusion” than reality, still it must have a place in the overall scheme of things.

Returning now to my communication with “Self”

Well, am I on or off track at this point? Although I have received a number of seemingly relevant insights, I am still in a state of unknowing and dissatisfaction. What will it take for me to gain satisfaction? Or am I not to gain satisfaction because this is not the way of knowledge? or the way of knowledge from my particular standpoint? or from yours? I’ve come full circle it seems and I’m no closer to a solution. I remain frustrated, to be sure, but also feel somewhat angry. You are not personal in the way I would like, and this tempts me to discard you because of it. But you know that I can’t simply choose to ignore you, or cloak you in more acceptable garb–scientific constructs and terms and the like. I am only too familiar with the sheer boldness of their nebulous natures. In terms of personality, while different from what I am accustomed to, you are still a force to be reckoned with. But know that I am still not convinced that you are anything other than (or outside of) my conscious self. While this may be the lonelier view, which I would gladly give up were you to take on a more personalized look, I must continue to pursue this other possibility. Why? Because it is closest to my individual standpoint to think in this way. It is “natural” so to speak, and it behooves you to join with me in changing such a view if you know it to be wrong.

So where does this thinking (or stream of intuitions) leave me? In a lurch, as always. But why? Am I trying to understand the wrong things? Am I trying to understand the underlying structure when I only need to receive the messages coming through them? But what if the messages aren’t clear? What if acting on them comes into conflict with other messages which haven’t as yet been acted upon? What of the confusion of trying to act on several messages at the same time, and being unable to sort them, prioritize them, etc.? This morning, the message seemed to force me to think about enslavement in terms of debt and time. I am very much enslaved by both, and each can be said to be exacting its toll. I thought that I would think it out by writing, and this is the result! How and why do I always get off track? Or am I currently on the right track?

Ought I to permit the first or second or third impression of the day to take hold of me? Ought I to focus upon one of them and shut out anything new which may distract me? I remember thinking this morning about how much better it would be to be on top of things–to do all of the things which I have left undone or never started. Why can’t I feel compelled to attack such things and win over them? to make definite moves which might prove advantageous to our lives? Why can’t I dare to see the “reality” of present situations and circumstances and move to do something about them? Why do I continue to ignore or stave them off in favor of awaiting a more certain direction? What is it that is really preventing me in this regard?

Am I capable of sorting it all out in a systematic way? I believe so. Am I capable of prioritizing each and every function or task to be done? I believe so. Am I capable of carry all of this out without becoming disillusioned, side-tracked, frustrated or overly fatigued? No! While I might be capable of knowing what must be done, I cannot accomplish the same. Why not? What is it that is preventing me from acting? Why don’t I “feel” like acting? Where has my “energy” gone?

Whenever I think about expending energy toward whatever end, I can’t help but think about all of the things I cannot be doing because of it. Without intending it, I have in effect prioritized all action in terms of least effort required. I do the minimum of what I need to do because I cannot afford any more time. I am stretched out with minimums, or tell myself that this is so. But, in all honesty, I think this is a bogus claim. An orderly progression in terms of planning and implementing time and projects, would accomplish a great deal more than I would like to admit. But when I get free time, I mope, or read, or flit, or remain in limbo between doing little nothings or little somethings, until such a time as I am compelled to act. Thus, I shun opportunities which might serve to alleviate my situation–as though I want to remain in a quagmire.

And surely this is true since I always run from opportunity or do my part to destroy it when I come face to face with it. So the problem is with me, even while I may imagine it to be someplace else. My inability to take responsibility for my life is seriously in question, and my ability to act is causing a pile-up, or damming-up of unused, unacted-upon perceptions. I am filled to the brim and showing real signs of wear. And still, I cannot seem to act on my own behalf. Knowing this, I am tempted to force myself to action, but I suspect that it will end up like all the other spurts of initiative which spent themselves in short order. There is a wall blocking me that I can’t seem to climb. It is preventing me from gaining the satisfaction I long for, and still, I cannot bring myself to do anything about it. It’s like I said of the outer world and inner essence: While both appear to be much more complex (or knowledgeable) than I, the power still seems to reside within this flimsy narrow strip of consciousness called “me.” Only it may not be so flimsy after all. Since I seem to be acting against myself, while the world (inner and outer compulsions) seems to want to move on my behalf, I almost wish that the power didn’t reside in me. There is a definite block damming the flow of life in me, while the waters behind me grow ever deeper. If there is purpose in life, perhaps this is mine, only my time is not yet. It sure would be comforting if I could really believe this, only it seems to me that the benefits of knowledge do not derive from being dammed up, but by being released into the world through experience.

It seems more likely that my condition is growing increasingly neurotic, and that I may be heading for an eventual crash if this matter is not resolved soon. I suspect that I will seek “professional help before it gets to this point, but I certainly wish that I could resolve the situation for myself. Such an “overcoming” would be a major achievement if done on my own, and might have far-reaching significance, not only for myself, but for others as well. One thing seems clearer and clearer: any resolution to this problem will not come from the sphere of rational inquiry, but from the realm of expressed emotion and feeling,–even if expressed only to myself.

I had a dream the other night of what could be termed “my child within”; that is, me as a young boy six or seven years of age. To make a long story short, the child that I was (or remain), Raymond, did not want to die (or leave me) and I was not about to desert him until I had absolute assurance that he was ready. In my dream, I knew that I had to leave him–to let him go–but I couldn’t until I knew that he was ready. I tried to get him to smile but couldn’t. Failing this, I promised him that I would somehow give him what he has all along deserved and, upon waking from this dream, spent the entire morning mourning over this episode. Sitting up in bed, I talked to my child (myself) as a father would to his son, telling him how much I loved him, how good I always knew him to be, and how very proud I was to have him for a son. I have yet to get over this.

I looked upon this episode as a benevolent move on the part of my unconscious, striving to balance a situation which has surely taken its toll. On the other hand, I couldn’t help feeling that it was much too little much too late, especially since I am fifty-one years of age and still without any obvious end in sight. To think that one’s entire life could be wrapped up, strangled, or restricted from a proper evolution is disheartening, to say the least. But what is a “proper evolution”? It occurs to me that all of us are pretty much in the same boat, to one degree or another, and that for this reason alone, no part of our lives should ever be considered a waste. Rather, we might as well admit that, in many respects, oppression, restriction, opposition, etc. can oftentimes prove to be our means to progression. We can all elaborate this point, I’m sure. Nonetheless, something more than mere acceptance seems to be in order–perhaps that we not only have the right, but an obligation to act first and foremost on our own behalves. Following this, to whatever degree possible, we would then be obligated to act on the behalf of others. There are some persons who claim that if we are successful in the first regard (that is, satisfying ourselves), there would be no need to concern ourselves with the second half of this equation. An interesting thought.

June 30, 1992

I am constantly teased or lured by intuition. My intuitions bring with them fringes of new meaning which are exciting to me. I suspect that they do not, as I previously thought only yesterday, come “whole” to me, but rather, are a “blending” of conscious and previously unconscious elements coming from within in the same way as sensation works on previously unconscious external elements. What comes to me is not clear in the sense of being worked out. As I said earlier, they come as a conceptualization, picture or form, which, although complete in itself, also points to something which needs to be worked out. Intuitions compel further action. This morning, I heard a member of the news media ask whether or not teenagers should have the right to keep an abortion a private affair, and the generality of the question simply overwhelmed me. Not that I hadn’t previously thought about how arbitrary general terms, laws, sanctions, rules, etc. can “benevolently” lead us from adverse “particulars”, only to wreak confusion upon us when those particulars spring back with a vengeance at some later date. Fostering a sense of “general progression” by carefully selecting only those particulars conducive to what one is trying to accomplish, is a foolhardy, if not dangerous procedure–but it does seem to be a way of life. Ignoring counter particulars (staving them off) while the deed is done, seems to do nothing to make those particulars disappear. And, invariably, they return to “test” the line, be it “Roe vs. Wade” or any and all other decisions binding a general populace. The confusion thickens to a point where there can even be an interposing of contexts such that the one (which initially justified the one side) eventually comes to be used to justify its counterpart. For example, who would deny a person suffering from Alzheimer’s a cure from an unborn fetus? Too many undertones? Let’s phrase it this way: Who would not save a life by utilizing an already dead object? In such ways, by and by, reason gets stood on its head.

Another fringe intuition that came to me this morning had to do with the `having of intuitions’. I sensed a duality of presence as though there were a partnership at work here, and suddenly sensed that it could be no other way!–that reflexiveness of this kind could not result unless there were a cross communication or relationship present. While this relationship was not clear, there was a definite feeling that there were at least two “entities” at work here. Of course, the question which continues to perplex me is whether or not that second entity is really an entity in the same sense as I recognize consciousness to be, or whether it merely comprises random elements serving consciousness, though controlled by some process in the brain. This at once opens up a Pandora’s box regarding `brain vs. mind’ or `physical vs. mental’ considerations. I have traveled these roads before and have found that they lead further away, rather than closer, to answers.

I am, however, tempted to embark on a discussion of the conscious and unconscious elements of mind; but just saying this, almost precludes any possibility of my saying anything relevant. Can we really discuss or describe “elements” belonging to something which itself has not been described? In a manner of speaking, yes–but it is just this “manner of speaking” which is in question. Nevertheless, we have been able to imagine and attribute such elements (by means of general terms, theories and constructs), as belonging to objects, which in turn serve as substrates or containers for the same. We seem to need a body (ironically for both extension and restriction), and also require a location for it. We don’t quite know what to do with “unconscious elements” since we cannot go to them at will as we seem able to do with outside objects. Our inner life seems to be a one-way street in this regard, and philosophical and psychological constructs have pretty much followed these general “forms” or “tendencies” of life. To my way of thinking, here is where the ground needs to be bared; and this is because “my way of thinking” is pretty much the same as everyone else’s way of thinking. Therefore, we must look to our common ground for the variations we seek to explain.

I am not trying to rid myself or others of the variations we witness through understanding–this would amount to stagnation. Nor do I wish to continue the pretense of being able to stop life in order to understand it–or worse, proceed to imagine it then to be at my level. Rather, I want to understand its dynamic variations–purpose and use–in order to come to an appreciation and acceptance of the same. I feel a sense of needing to return something which may have wrongfully been taken by our forbears. I feel a need to reach back for a normalcy which may long ago have been forsaken for reasons of pride and arrogance. I feel a need to confess my ignorance and feelings of helplessness as I (we) continue to choke on the very delusions which were supposed to safeguard us.

And what is it that compels and propels me toward this end? I don’t know for sure. Perhaps it’s no more than a longing to satisfy my “inner child”–a compelling desire to want to make up for his pain. Perhaps I want to sanctify his presence by making the world more worthy of himself,–or of myself–or myself more worthy of the world! Who knows. Only I already do feel worthy of more than I’m getting, and can honestly say that I feel the same for everyone else. We all deserve more that what we are getting! This is not to say that I like everyone; on the contrary–I like very few people since I tend to be very much disappointed, if not ashamed, of the whole damn lot of us. Our cowardly, yet continuing flight into ignorance and confusion, perplexes and disheartens me to no end. It is this more than anything that compels me to search for answers.

Aside from all the intellectual jargon surrounding our dilemma, it all seems to boil down to a matter of confidence and self-respect. We seem to have given up our individual sanctity as human beings by turning our backs on ourselves. We will even go so far as to deny our perceptions and feelings, even when they are blatantly obvious to us. Why? If they exist, then they do so properly! No morality ought to turn its back on the human condition, whatever it may be. I know that saying this can evoke cries of our need to struggle against evil and exact punishment or retribution, etc. And I’m not about to take issue with such claims as I am only too aware of the many wrongs existing in our society and others. But what have we done to ameliorate the situation? No philosophical or sociological treatises, please! You are only fooling yourself! As I said, so low has our condition become that we are even ready to place other voices ahead of our own–even when the message is about ourselves! In the strongest sense of the word, I believe we are sick and growing ever sicker.

UNPUBLISHED THOUGHTS
1993

January 1, 1993

What would happen to me if I simply followed my intuition? My intuitions are ideas, patterns, different ways of looking at or organizing things, all of which suggest “appropriate” actions in light of them. To follow any one of these roads is all but impossible since intuitive offshoots continue to appear (seemingly at random), making adherence to a single theme next to impossible. Without sustained and concentrated focus and judgment, it is all but impossible to force a useable yield from them. Then what is their purpose?

If I accept that intuitions are perpetually appearing entities, non-faithful to a thematic pattern for any length of time (at least, not recognizable from the conscious standpoint), then why suppose that such a cohesive pattern exists on the “unconscious” level? Why not, instead, regard them as random spin-offs from life, with a finite or particular usage–without any long-term purposive view in mind? The same is true with thoughts and emotions. Why should we look upon these as random, while external stimuli appear to us to have all the qualities we associate with cohesiveness, order and stability? If these elements of perception exist on both sides, why, then, are they not considered in the same light?

We can remember an external object or event and also re-visit or repeat it; but the two events are very different things. This is quite different with internal events–the remembrance is the visit. The one environment appears stable and not dependent upon ourselves for its existence, while the other appears fluid and very much dependent upon us for its existence. But why is this? Is it because we recognize so many familiar things in the latter case as to make us believe that these elements must have had their origin in conscious first impressions derived from experience?–that, although internal events come to us through conscious perceptual experience (in the same way as external), they are still secondary because they comprise the same elements, even if they are rearranged or reconfigured for some unknown reason. Well, what of this? It seems logical to assume this to be a correct version of the way things are–but is it?

Who among us can lay claim to having experienced an external idea, insight or thought? I doubt that anyone could. Rather, we experience such things outside of ordinary sensations–outside our five senses. An imaginative construction within our minds may picture an idea in order to better formulate it, but it is not the idea. The world, it appears, comes to us from outside ourselves as well as from within. We are inclined to view this as an example of perception operating in two opposing directions, but this is only because of the distinctions we have made. I recognize that we are not accustomed to thinking in this way, but abstracting and making distinctions is as much a pattern of life as having a thought, or adhering to a rational model of inquiry, or acting out of a cultural bias or belief, etc. Obviously, no one would believe that a sensation alone could be an idea, insight or thought, but, then, this may only be owing to the fact that our concept has already been distinguished (that is, severed) from its background counterparts. Now we have the eye–and we have an observer to which it belongs. But in reality, there are no separations that are not arbitrarily formulated in this sense. But what of this? Can anything be said to be arbitrary if it in fact takes place–especially when it becomes an established view, mode of action, or general way of thinking?

I can think of a case for claiming that to act spontaneously is a far better example of acting from an integrated whole, than it would be to act following lengthy consideration. If it is true that unconscious elements are there to compensate and provide prospective directions for the good of consciousness and, indeed, for the whole personality ultimately, then how are we to make such distinctions? How are we to tell which elements are superfluous and which not? which of external origin and which of internal? Such problems in thinking stem from our having already conceptualized experience. But how could it have been any different? Are we to believe that mistakes have been made? No! We must not allow ourselves to be so presumptuous–so arrogant–as to ever think that we have such power. And yet, we do think it; and because we do–it must be alright on nature’s account. But what, then, are we left with?

Are we to regard ourselves as helpless particles in the flow of life, drifting aimlessly in a sea of confusion, for some purpose or another which we are not privy to–that is, without any real sense of control over our fate? Is meaning, then, also an illusion? And what of all the other bumps and obstacles, fits and starts of life–are they illusory too? But, why? If there is a controller, then why not smooth things out? Or are we in the hands of a mindless machine set to motion, or, perhaps, a self-propelled universe borne of itself, operating out of its own motion, and doing so for no apparent reason at all? How flimsy it all is. How pathetic are these very questions–mindless, detached words short of sense–groping to understand an ephemeral substance which continually lures us on, but always remains beyond grasp–groping for a feeling of integration to serve as an anchor, support or foundation for our striving. Foundation! Foundation! Foundation!

How did we get to this pathetic stage of life?

Did Jung uncover his notions empirically by observation? or by constructing what needed to be there in order to tie his notions together? When one adheres to a rational model, one is biased already. What we forget is that the rational model itself is an inherited, natural phenomena in the same way as everything else. It is a big template to be sure, but one of many all the same.

January 1, 1993

Synopsis of Jung’s General Aspects of Dream Psychology

Dreams do not have the same psychic structure as conscious contents because they are remnants of a peculiar psychic activity taking place during sleep; an essentially fantastic combination of ideas whose linkage is quite different from reality thinking. “… the dream is a spontaneous self-portrayal, in symbolic form, of the actual situation in the unconscious.” (p49)

Since dreams are psychic products, they should be regarded from both the “causal” and “final” standpoints since the former will yield the results of antecedent contents, while the latter may yield a peculiar meaning and purpose.

In analyzing dreams, we must first reduce the dream-picture to antecedents and then amplify those antecedents (by means of associations) and finally sift the material in a comparative manner. Considering the dream from either standpoint alone will yield two different interpretations. For example, while one may see an element of “guilt” linking together all of the associations, it is not sufficient to point to this causal factor alone to explain the dream. In fact, it may prove to be of no consequence whatever to the dreamer in knowing this fact if he does not consciously feel guilty nor see in his behavior any reason for guilt. Instead, we need to go beyond the causal and apply the “final” standpoint. We might ask, says Jung: What is the purpose of this dream? What effect is it meant to have? What is its purposive orientation? We would need to ask why there exist in the dreamer an unconscious propensity or tendency to represent his experiences as guilt.

Even though the dreamer does not feel guilty about his behavior, we must not take this representation of guilt in his dreams too lightly, says Jung, for whether or not his behavior is viewed as immoral from the modern standpoint, it may be quite important to the whole of humankind, or else it would not have been handed down through the ages .

Understanding is not an exclusively intellectual process, for we can be influenced by symbols and effects of numerous kinds. “The function of dreams amounts to a psychological adjustment, a compensation absolutely necessary for properly balanced action” The evaluation of the symbolism of dreams will vary according to its consideration from the causal or final standpoint. Causal tends toward uniformity of meaning–fixed significance for symbols–while the final standpoint sees an altered dream-image as expressing an altered psychological situation. It recognizes no fixed meaning of symbols. (p32) Dreams should be regarded as a phylogenetically older mode of thought belonging to the mind, much the same as the body bears such traces in its own development. Dreams, then, reflect unconscious contents which are linked together associatively and selected because of the conscious situation of the moment. If we want to interpret a dream correctly, we need a thorough knowledge of the conscious situation. All dreams are compensatory to the contents of consciousness–they try to rectify the situation. (p36)

Dreams have a “prospective” function as well as a “compensatory” function. [Jung’s explanation of the former appears weak and probably would have been better had he simply regarded the prospective function as a single instance of one of several types of compensatory functions–p41] The compensatory function adds repressed or subliminal elements to the conscious situation while the prospective function appears to anticipate (in the unconscious), future conscious achievements, events, etc.–a combination of probabilities and no more prophetic than a medical diagnosis according to Jung. When the conscious attitude is “normal” or adequately suited to adaptation in the world, the meaning of the dream will be primarily compensatory; when the conscious attitude is unadapted both objectively and subjectively (such as in a neurosis), the prospective function comes to the rescue and tries to lead the dreamer in a different direction. The unconscious may also choose a negatively compensating (reductive) compensatory means which is the opposite of anything constructive, preparatory or synthetic. Rather, it is meant to disintegrate, dissolve, devalue or destroy in order to protect the entire personality .

In order for an analyst to interpret dreams correctly, he must understand the analytical point of view and have gone through analysis himself. The mechanism of “projection” is the reason, and there can be no greater mistake made than to assume one’s patient has a psychology similar to one’s own. For this reason, an analyst must be conscious of at least the most important contents of his own unconscious.

Projection is integrally bound up with the operation of our psyche. We continuously and naively suppose people to be as we imagine them, and we (unconsciously) imagine them to be quite like ourselves. “All human relationships swarm with these projections… Unless we are possessed of an unusual degree of self-awareness we shall never see through our projections but must always succumb to them, because the mind in its natural state presupposes the existence of such projections. It is a natural and given thing for unconscious contents to be projected” (my italics–pp50, 51).

Projection is a difficult phenomena to understand. On the one hand, it is a “natural state of affairs”, says Jung, while, on the other hand, it prevents us from seeing the world as it really is. In fact, projection creates in us a series of more or less imaginary relationships. It is strongest in primitives who can be seen to be tied to the magical influence of objects which is more like a “mystical identity” with them. Like ourselves, primitives perceive the world through “imagoes” or symbols, stemming from the unconscious, only we are more conscious than they concerning what is taking place. In fact, it is because we have recognized certain properties of objects as (subjective) imagoes that we are able to distinguish them from real properties. Again, these are difficult notions to understand and much of it is tied to Jung’s view of the origin of consciousness which he does not go into here. The idea is that primitive man, much like the lower animals, is so integrally bound up with nature as to make “self-awareness” or any sense of “personal identity” next to impossible. It is man’s ability to distinguish himself from his surroundings that has given birth to consciousness, even if the separation proves to be illusory. And it is because of this achievement that it has become possible for us to distinguish between our own projections and the “real” or “imagined” properties of objects. “Self-awareness supposedly developed out of this initial state of identity and went hand-in-hand with the differentiation of subject and object. This differentiation was followed by the realization that certain qualities which, formerly were naively attributed to the object are in reality subjective contents.” (pp56,57)

This thinking is fraught with entanglements of every kind and it doesn’t appear as though Jung himself had escaped them. At bottom, it is safe to say that he sees the projection of unconscious symbolic contents (which turn out to be eternal “archetypes”) as the true state of our natures, and the means by which we identify with the world. The unconscious uses the mechanism of projection to accomplish this feat, and, presumably, does so by degrees of development of consciousness. It may be helpful at this point to understand that Jung believed in the Kantian notion of “noumena”, or in a world of “things existing as themselves”; that is, apart and in an obviously different manner from the way we perceive them. Thus, our view of objects is dependent upon our subjective perception of them, and in perceiving them, we may even go so far as to say that we create them! Edward Edinger discusses Jung’s notion of human consciousness being responsible for the “creation” of objective existence and meaning–that we are, in fact, “second creators” of the world for the benefit of God! I mention this only to show the extremes of Jungian thought and, perhaps, the source of his own confusion.

Again, the notion is that the unconscious affects and, indeed, compensates consciousness on an on-going basis, and it does so through the projection of unconscious, as well as conscious, influences. The projections may be seen or felt as “imagoes”, “urgings”, or as definite, preferred ways of reacting or relating to things. Since so-called “primitives” are thought to be closest to nature (and, therefore, closest to the direct influence of the unconscious), it is supposed that their unconscious projections will be stronger than our own; that is, less understood due to an inability to distinguish them. They may cause him to identify with a stone, for example, while our own “level of consciousness” assures us that there is little we share in common with it. It is our self-awareness of the subjective nature of the projected elements of the unconscious that gives rise to the differentiation we claim between objects and ourselves. Self-awareness may be construed as consciousness itself, or as something that rises in relationship with it. Presumably, each of us is at a different level of awareness regarding the contents of our individual or collective unconscious, and such levels are, themselves, dependent upon the degree to which we have successfully differentiated ourselves from the objects in the world. But, we might ask, how can we differentiate ourselves from projected contents when we are made up of these very things? Put another way, if our perceptions are in fact projected contents, how can we distinguish them from themselves? It appears as though consciousness is needed to establish itself.

Now it is a characteristic of projections, says Jung, that so long as they remain undisturbed, we are totally unaware of their existence, or of the compulsive, “magical” effects they have upon us. So long as everything is normal, our “libidos” will use them as agreeable and convenient bridges to the outside world which will serve to alleviate life in a positive way. But, introduce a paranoid disturbance and these unconscious relationships will turn into so many compulsive ties, (made up of the same unconscious material), and prevent any real detachment from the former object. In such cases, we will witness a person trying to devalue the former object in order to detach his libido from it.

But as the previous identity is due to the projection of subjective contents, complete and final detachment can only take place when the imago that mirrored itself in the object is restored, together with its meaning, to the subject. This restoration is achieved through conscious recognition of the projected content, that is, by acknowledging the “symbolic value” of the object. (p51)

Once again, how do we achieve a conscious recognition of the projected content? Jung’s thought remains confusing in this regard. Who is to be regarded as normal?–the primitive? the neurotic? the undisturbed individual whose projections simply continue unhampered? Jung seems to be saying that human advancement (that is, the successive approximation of perceiving objects as they really are–that is, as subjective contents existing apart from objects) is actually owing to an “abnormal” state of affairs restored to normality through an acknowledgement of the symbolic value of the object. Jung’s thinking seems to reflect that real strides can only be made by overcoming abnormal conditions (or neuroses), while the manner in which we are able to distinguish between subjective contents and objective qualities remains anyone’s guess. Perhaps Jung’s point is that there are no further qualities inherent in objects other than our projections.

The whole dream-work is essentially subjective, Jung says…

…the dream being a “theatre in which the dreamer is himself the scene, the player, the prompter, the producer, the author, the public, and the critic. This simple truth forms the basis for a conception of the dreams meaning which I have called interpretation on the subjective level. Such an interpretation, as the term implies, conceives all the figures in the dream as personified features of the dreamer’s own personality.” (p52)

Images are composed subjectively on the one side and conditioned objectively on the other side; thus, they are determined as much by either side. If we want to know which side is most significant, we need to look to see whether the import of certain contents of dreams has more of an outside or inside influence. If a person in a dream is of vital significance to the dreamer in real life, then the dream most probably has objective significance. If the person is insignificant, a “softening” agent really standing in for some other significant person, then the dream probably has a subjective purpose.

“… our self-awareness is still a long way behind our actual knowledge. When we allow ourselves to be irritated out of our wits by something, let us not assume that the cause of our irritation lies simply and solely outside us, in the irritating thing or person.” (p57) If we do, we endow the thing or person with the power to irritate us while all the time we are really raging against an unconscious part of ourselves.

It is characteristic of projections that unfavorable ones are usually projected outside our circle of intimate relationships (the neurotic once again being the exception), while favorable ones are kept more close at hand. The neurotic, however, consciously or unconsciously has such an intensive relationship to his immediate surroundings that he cannot prevent unfavorable projections from flowing into the objects closest to him and arousing conflicts. “He is therefore compelled–if he wants to be cured–to gain insight into his primitive projections to a far higher degree than the normal person does.” (p57) Again, it seems ironic that the neurotic has a need to understand his projections (in order to free himself of them) while the “normal” individual does not. Jung goes on to say that if we make ourselves conscious of these projections, it may prove to be an impediment to our relations with others: “for there is then no bridge of illusion across which love and hate can stream off so relievingly, and no way of disposing so simply and satisfactorily of all those alleged virtues that are intended to edify and improve others.” (p58) (Again, normalcy seems dependent upon illusion). What results is a “damming up of libido” which results in negative projections becoming increasingly conscious, while the individual has to shoulder the blame. And, once again, the neurotic is forced by his neurosis to take this step while the normal person is not. The “normal” person only has to act out his psychic disturbances socially and politically… in the form of mass psychoses like wars and revolutions, etc. Again, the normal individual “relieves” himself via projections which can only mean that he is unaware of them as projections! Like the neurotic, he is, in effect, in a more primitive, less conscious, state of awareness regarding his projections.

There is an important distinction to make between the quality actually present in the object, without which a projection could not take place, says Jung, and the value, significance, or energy of this quality. The object very often offers a hook to the projection, and can even lure it out of the subject. When the object (or person) is not conscious of the quality existing in himself, a counter-projection is provoked and projected back upon the subject much as a transference is answered by a counter-transference in analysis, so long as it is a content of which the analyst is unaware. Like the original projection, the counter-projection is also a compulsive, forcible tie. And because it is unconscious, it is felt as a mystical identity, although there are always resistances at play–conscious if the subject’s attitude does not want give up his libido involuntarily, unconscious if he likes nothing better. Thus, if their contents remain unconscious, transference and counter-transference (or projections) create abnormal and untenable relationships which aim at their own destruction. (p59)

Once again, it is not altogether clear as to why “unconscious contents” should create abnormal, untenable, self-destructive relationships, when formally this state of affairs seemed to constitute a healthy disposition with the unconscious compensating for consciousness in a favorable manner.

In a long and tedious paragraph, Jung attempts a workable framework for his ideas regarding projection:

When a projection corresponds to a quality actually present in the object, the projected content is nevertheless present in the subject too where it forms a part of the “object-imago” The object-imago itself is a psychological entity that is distinct from the actual perception of the object; it is an image existing independently of, and yet based on, all perception, and the relative autonomy of this image remains unconscious so long as it coincides with the actual behavior of the object. The autonomy of the imago is therefore not recognized by the conscious mind and is unconsciously projected on the object–in other words, it is contaminated with the autonomy of the object. This naturally endows the object with a compelling reality in relation to the subject and gives it an exaggerated value. This value springs from the projection of the imago on the object, from its a priori identity with it, with the result that the outer object becomes at the same time an inner one. In this way the outer object can exert, via the unconscious, a direct psychic influence on the subject, since, by virtue of its identity with the imago, it has so to speak a direct hand in the psychic mechanism of the subject. Consequently the object can gain “magical” power over the subject. (p60)

This penetratingly powerful paragraph is extremely compelling inasmuch as it appears to bridge the philosophical and psychological “gap” which has existed between inner and outer reality from the earliest thinking. The “object-imago”, formed by thousands or millions of repetitively similar past perceptions, is unconsciously projected upon objects and unconsciously reflected back upon the subject. Unknowingly, the subject believes the object to be the source of the accompanying feeling. Philosophically, the mechanism of projection represents a connective between outer world objects and inner world “symbols” or “archetypes” (which themselves are the result of earlier projections), and continues to form relationships between mutual contents existing in both realms. As was said, in Jung’s view, we do not perceive the objective world as it is, but only in accordance to our individual and collective psychic makeups which comprises both our instinctual and psychical histories or adaptive tendencies and preferences which have proved successful in life. So long as the underlying images remain identified to their objects, their autonomy remains unconscious. If the object dies, the image lives on, although now as a ghostly-like “psychic phenomena”.

Every advance, every conceptual achievement of mankind, has been connected with an advance in self-awareness: man differentiated himself from the object and faced Nature as something distinct from her. Any reorientation of psychological attitude will have to follow the same road: it is evident that the identity of the object with the subjective imago gives it a significance which does not properly belong to it but which it has possessed from time immemorial. This identity is the original state of things. (My bold, p61)

In summary, Jung’s ideas can be seen to be very much tied to an earth-bound “natural psychology”, while at the same time, suffering all of the difficulties associated with trying to explain unconscious phenomena from the standpoint of consciousness–two parts of a relationship from a single perspective. While Jung apparently sees “differentiation” away from objects as a goal of humankind (having been instrumental in providing us with a sense of separateness or identity–perhaps consciousness itself), and warns us of the perils of becoming too attached to objects–that is, placing too disproportionate a value upon objects by overvaluing them, it is not altogether clear as to how or even why this should be done.

It seems reasonable that we should want to heed abnormal tendencies and pay closer attention to the unconscious directives to which they give rise, but this presupposes that we are actually in a position to do something about it. Jung’s views, in my opinion, point to a rather flimsy view of consciousness. True, consciousness is said to play a very important part in our lives, and unless we are in the throes of a neurosis, Jung does tell us that we should give it first preference, and not the previously unconscious material streaming into consciousness through dreams. But it is altogether difficult to circumscribe consciousness in such a way; altogether difficult to distinguish ownership. To which side belongs intuitions, imagination and day-dreams, all streaming into consciousness, mixing with, and, perhaps, the direct result of, perceiving, thinking and acting? And couldn’t these in turn have contributed or given rise to, or resulted from, the former? It seems to me that whether or not we view the unconscious as a receptacle filled with contents, able to blend with consciousness seemingly at will (its will), or as elements created spontaneously to fit the occasion, it really doesn’t matter. History invariably reminds us that whatever our visions are at a particular time, we can rest assured that we will disavow them at some future time.

Jung’s view of “normalcy” is that of an unconscious successfully offering compensatory aid to a consciousness which, presumably, serves it as a sort of bridge to the outside world. On the other hand, the “abnormal” state amounts to a one-sided exaggeration which can take place in either consciousness or the unconscious. Although it is tempting to anthropomorphic the unconscious, believing it to be a separate, perhaps more powerful thinking entity controlling consciousness, it is doubtful that Jung saw it (or wanted to see it) this way. Rather, he posited a “psychic reality” existing alongside of, perhaps owing to, the “physical realities” of brain, body and nature. While he vehemently opposed the materialistic point of view, it was not because he was lacking an empirical standpoint of his own, but because he objected to this standpoint being reduced to extreme shallowness. If anything characterized Jung, it was openness. And if anything characterizes the tenets of behaviorism and positivism, it is restriction and closure–the very antithesis of all that he stood for. The last five pages of his paper are spent in defense of his own point of view against his adversary’s. He launches a cutting attack on the medical profession, suggesting that practical-minded types may be ill-suited for the subject matter of psychology, and that academic types need to get serious about something more than lab experiments. And to counter objections directed against his own “philosophical” attitude, he says:

… The study of medicine consists on the one hand in storing up in the mind an enormous number of facts, which are simply memorized without any real knowledge of their foundations, and on the other hand in learning practical skills, which have to be acquired on the principle “Don’t think, act!” Thus it is that, of all the professionals, the medical man has the least opportunity of developing the function of thinking. So it is no wonder that even psychologically trained doctors have the greatest difficulty in following my reflections, if they follow them at all. They have habituated themselves to handing out prescriptions and mechanically applying methods which they have not thought out themselves… (p63)

The attack against his critics continues for several more pages and one is left with the definite impression that these emotions interrupted a line of thinking which may have gone further. On the other hand, the interruption could have represented a breaking point in a stream of thought which suddenly stalemated itself. Following the first phase of his attack, you can almost hear the pompous, arrogant little boy in Jung as he tries to wind it down with himself the winner: “I regret having to repeat such elementary truths. Herewith I have said pretty well all I have to say about the general aspects of dream psychology. I have purposely refrained from going into details; this must be reserved for studies of case material.” He then goes on to speak of the need to tackle a “thorough-going description of therapy” through preliminary studies tackled from different sides of the issue, and not through simplifications, and, finally, feels still another compulsion to launch a final attack on the materialistic point of view. Here, however, one begins to see evidence of Jung’s own uncertainty and vacillation between the two viewpoints:

… Even if it were true that all mental diseases are diseases of the brain, that would still be no reason for not investigating the psychic side of the disease… life can never be thought of as a function of matter, but only as a process existing in and for itself, to which energy and matter are subordinate. Life as a function of matter postulates spontaneous generation, and for proof of that we shall have a very long time to wait… We have to consider the psychic process as psychic and not as an organic cell-process… (p66)

Jung winds up his essay by informing us that materialist think it “scientific” to explain psychic phenomena “vitalistically” (so long as it is done in organic terms), while a similar vitalistic explanation of psychic phenomena is accused of yielding only “metaphysical phantoms”. What is this talk all about? And how did this vindictiveness originate on either side?

When Jung says that life must never be thought of as a function of matter, and that we need to consider the psychic process as psychic, he is clearly beckoning us away from the “reductive” standpoint or perspective. To him, looking (solely) in the opposite direction amounts to a direct affront on experience; that is, it represents a gross and extremely arrogant violation of all that is given us, and all for the sake of the flimsiest of viewpoints. Rather than take advantage of the full extent of experience (all that we are capable of receiving), the materialists have chosen the shallowness of an extremely singular point of view. Whether psychic material can ultimately be traced to the brain or not should not be of primary concern for us (and, might itself, be regarded as an unreachable, diversionary “metaphysical phantom”); rather, we should allow into the picture all of those elements which we find to be existing and relevant to the tasks we have set ourselves to.

Again, one could regard such openness as representing a “perceptive” standpoint and the tendency opposing it, a “judging” one. The first wants to allow all that can be allowed to enter the picture, while the latter wants to close the door on anything that is not pertinent to the material (or idea) already accepted. In a later work, “Psychological Types”, Jung expounds upon these typical characteristics of personality from the standpoints of the introverted and extroverted attitudes. But for our purposes, it is sufficient to understand that the one attitude seeks openness while the other seeks closure; the one is liberal, the other conservative. It seems clear that Jung favored the perceiving attitude, even though his thoughts were formulated and expounded upon, over thousands of pages of written material. But anyone familiar with his writings (or having like characteristics) can recognize that here is a man who is thinking aloud as he writes. It is an intuitive thinking which has all the earmarks of blending with present on-going insights as well as former ideas gleaned from his own experience as well as from the experience’s of others. Jung was very well read.

Partly because of his outlook, and mostly because the subject matter of psychology warranted it, his thinking was forced into the realms of “metaphysics”, “theology”, “anthropology” and many other fields as well. Because elements from such diverse fields as these kept springing up in his own practice of psychology, he felt that he had to deal with them–that for this reason alone, they couldn’t be ignored. Nor did he. But with this wealth and breadth of new material came profound changes in his psychological outlook. Many of his contemporaries were overwhelmed by the material and found themselves grossly unprepared for understanding it. It seemed almost natural that they would want to exclude such material from the proper domain of psychology, and eventually, Jung along with it.

January 15, 1993

What is my complaint really. As a fatalist, I recognize myself as a part or portion of something larger and more powerful than my being; something to which I belong and long for, but can neither comprehend nor locate; something more, I think, than earth and sky. And yet, if I note those characteristics which I possess–I find salt and carbon; or what sustenance I require–I find air and food. What, then, can a search for self and need mean when all that I am and require already surrounds me? Why won’t “nature” suffice?

Of course, in a different sense “mother nature” does suffice, for no matter how lofty my thoughts become, my fate seems no less integrally anchored to Herrs–for better or for worse–desired or not. And yet, my being a fatalist does not warrant sitting back and doing nothing (as is sometimes thought), for if we are truly compelled by nature (or by God), then it behooves us to understand the “nature of the compulsion”. We have all heard it said that “nature can be cruel”; or that she is “aristocratic” or “impersonal”, meaning that she obviously favors the “best adapted few” at the expense of the “least adapted multitudes”–and will even sacrifice her “chosen” (as well as yet untried “innocents”) through accident and circumstance. It is for these and similar reasons that nature does not seem to suffice. If we are stuck with an “impersonal deity” whose characteristics are not appreciated, then we will seek one elsewhere!

At this juncture, I can almost feel the ground softening under me–I am no longer of firm mind. Several intuitive patterns and possibilities are emerging within my mind–each pointing to a different direction (or presenting a different perspective)–each tempting thought to follow its lead. Experience has shown me that there are treasures awaiting me no matter which intuition I choose to think upon; that more and more enticing possibilities will continue to present themselves along the way, like a Peter Pan or Pied Piper, luring me further and further down a road which has no end. Whenever I do reach an end to thought, it is either because I am too exhausted to continue the chase, or simply because my intuitions have outrun my ability to integrate them. There’s a certain irony to considering that intuitions may be in “natural competition” no differently than we are as a whole–all part of the same mechanism–all working toward the same end–adaptation. In any event, my intuitions invariably accumulate into a kind of untamed, stalemated confusion, where my psyche simply dams up. Every foot I climb up the mountain adds two or three more feet to the top. And whether I am shrinking, or the mountain is growing, seems to me of no consequence–only that it is happening. But why should this be? Why should nature parade before me intuitions too numerous to follow? Why challenge the intellect so forcibly when a clash is inevitable? Or isn’t this so? Perhaps the clash is more the result of trying to control the situation rather than accept it for what it is. But, again, why allow them into consciousness if we cannot make good use of them? Or is this the illusion! Rather than subject intuition to reason, perhaps we should merely accept them as they are; after all, they do come to us as whole pictures, ideas or insights. Why insist on trying to use them as templates for other purposes? Why force the issue? But, then, are these very words and questions I am raising the result of intuition or of thinking? It is easy to see how intuitions can indistinguishably blend with thought so that there are no clear patterns left to discern? Which characteristics demarcate the intuition and which the thought? And can you begin to see the “compulsion” for what it is, and how little control, if any, we are able to exercise over it?

Of course, I could simply insist on thought over intuition, (which may consists of holding a particular intuition to logic while refusing to consider any other), and, in fact, logic dictates that I do so since we really do not understand any other means. Intuitions, like dreams and imagination, are always suspect, and are considered factually “soft”. In a practically-oriented, scientific society, this translates to less important, if not superfluous. So in this vein, I should feel compelled to consider the logical possibility that nature might well be an impartial, accidental mass of integrated matter in the final analysis. On this account, we might believe that we ought to speak of nature in terms of cause and effect, and not in terms of purpose or meaning;–that, in any event, we should probably regard ourselves as its highest achievement;–that “conscious choice” is foremost in our hands and has provided us with a unique means for controlling our environment;–that we are, in fact, superior to all that surrounds us (though, admittedly, not in every way),–and that this would include nature itself. “The oak is mightier than the acorn!” we cry, and while we do not wish to scorn the fact of our primeval origins and integral nature with all that surrounds us, still, it is something of an embarrassment to admit it. It seems to hold us back from attaining the heights.

Well, what of this. Intuition and thought; fate and free choice; compulsion from within, from without, or from “in-between.” Why don’t we try to get to the bottom of the matter by putting first things first–by putting intuition to the test. I am going to present the first intuition that comes to mind, in the way that it comes to me, and see whether or not it compels reason or action, answers puzzlement, points to one thing or another, directs or rounds out the understanding, whatever. Let’s do it!

The first thing that came into my mind was the memory of a dream I had last night and then another one besides. Nothing more seemed to follow except the anticipation or compulsion to explain them. And why shouldn’t this be so since this is exactly what we set out to do.

The first dream followed a 4:00 a.m. awakening and thinking session as I lay in bed. I remember that I was milling over something I had written previously (actually the result of a form of auto-writing which I experienced and wrote down) and how I was still plagued by the gulf between “Mammon and Christ”, or acceptance and denial of the world. I asked for an answer, and immediately thought of something that I saw on television just a few days earlier. President Bush had invited a comic to the White House who was famous for poking fun at him. I remember the comic saying: “I hope that I did not cross the line, Mr. President”, and the President responding, “I know what you mean, and you did not.” It seemed like the message to me was that the outside world was not a bad thing in itself, that is, unless one crossed the line and made it so. Relatively satisfied with this seeming feat, I then fell back to sleep thinking how marvelous it could be if I were able to have such requests answered on a routine basis. However, the next dream was even more disconcerting. I dreamt that I entered an elevator (for what purpose I can’t remember), and no sooner had I pushed the button to go up when the elevator began to move faster and faster, leaning now horizontally and rolling slowly much as a rocket ship would. I had to shift my position inside in order to keep from being thrown around, and rolled over to one side and then another as seemed fit to do. I vaguely remember thinking that the elevator might be traveling under the Hudson river to New Jersey (I felt as though I were in New York City at this point) and I seemed to dread its going somewhere even though I didn’t know where. When the elevator finally stopped, I stepped out onto the floor of a hospital. There were nurses milling around and patients sitting on beds laughing and playing cards. They seemed like normal, intelligent types to me, but I was concerned that I might be in a psychiatric hospital. I remember making it a point to find this out, but awoke from my dream.

I immediately considered this dream as a sort of warning to me. That rather than gain the heights, or avoid the outside world at the expense of my own health, I might wind up in a hospital instead! Again, my dream was very meaningful to me and most certainly with a purpose in mind. Without going into it in more detail, I have in fact secluded myself for some time now while trying to work out personal problems with integration. The message seems to always be the same: “that I had better get myself into the world”. In another “pseudo auto-writing session” (I don’t want to leave the impression that I am “taken over” by some mysterious force–it is more like a relaxed blending of consciousness and unconscious elements), I was told that “the body cannot withstand the tormenting disposition imposed from without…”, and that, again, I needed to go without. On the surface, it seems as though the message was that I ought to go “within” since I am being punished from without. But Jungian psychology (if not common sense) makes it quite clear as to why this is not so. The point being that the world is punishing me for ignoring it. All of the stresses and strains caused by my relatively poor association with it come back upon me in a punishing, if not menacing way. Even my physical state has been affected. And yet, I persist in following this dangerous path.

[Intuition] I am weighted down with confusing and conflicting elements and situations which results from my lack of attention. They have piled up on me much as my reasoning has.

I am somewhat numbed by this and simply have a general feeling of weariness or fatigue. I reread the last paragraph above, and Jung’s description of the “introverted thinker” and “introverted intuitive” (Psychological Types) came to mind. While I feel closest to the introverted thinking description, Jung’s mention of another variety of introverted intuitive “with a strengthening of the judging functions” also hits the mark. This difference makes a moral problem of perception, says Jung, producing a variety of personality different from the purely aesthetic intuitive. “The moral problem arises when the intuitive tries to relate himself to his vision… when he confronts the questions: What does this mean for me or the world? What emerges from this vision in the way of a duty or a task, for me or the world?” Again, while I thought that I was re-reading the above paragraph because I was without an intuition, it may well have been intended since I was led to these remarks of Jung’s.

I feel compelled to re-read the full passages of both, and suspect [just received a hunch] that I will reread the passage on “introverted feeling” in addition. Even though I can almost identify with every word and problem associated with the introverted thinker, I cannot help but feel as though I belong to the “feeling” side. I have considered the possibility that I may have falsified my true personality throughout my life, and perhaps have developed the wrong side. If this is so, it is bound to lead to neuroses says Jung, and the trick is to get back on track. But is it true?

I have always longed and searched for the ideal for as long as I can remember. It is significant that I have both “longed” and “searched” inasmuch as the one word seems to point to feeling while the other to something more substantial, like the rational approach. I have always sought to do good, and was willing to sacrifice my own needs and desires for the benefit of others or for God. Proving myself–my strength–to God was a mainstay for me, and I always considered that I would be rewarded in the end. Like my father, I found hypocrisy abhorrent and belittling, and it everywhere surrounded me. Like Schiller’s poem “Light and Warmth”, little by little, I began to lose my faith in humanity. “…The lowness and the littleness / Of all so soon is shown, / That through the throng, and from the press, / He guards himself alone; / His heart in haughty cold repose, / From love at last itself doth close…”

What drives me–what has always driven me–I do not know. But what I do know, and have always felt, is that I have never been alone. That presence, however, seems to be more of an observing presence than a guiding one; as though it was left up to me alone to face the trials of life. How many times have I longed to hear my inner voice, that feminine presence which is sometimes felt as my ideal of a loving “mother/wife” (my “anima”), and sometimes as Christ who seems to be without a feminine or masculine character. I picture my female presence as a women who remains approximately fifteen to twenty years older than I. She is beautifully neutral in every respect; above all, sensitive, loving, peaceful and wise. She is attractive, though not beautiful; full-bodied, though not heavy; fair-haired and fair-faced, though not Nordic. Her beauty lies in her absence of extremes which always seem to carry countering negatives. She is not fawning by nature, but genuinely compassionate and somewhat aloof unless circumstances call for a different attitude. How I long to speak with her, feel her presence, share counsel, sadness and joy–her love.

At the moment, I feel somewhat morose if not depressed. What the nature of this longing is, I do not understand, only that I cannot avoid it, nor can I seem to prevent it from wearing me down. Yes, I remain lonely; and no, I don’t know what I can do about it. At most, it is a moral dilemma [intuition occurred]–at very least, a matter of having made a mess out of my life.

[Intuition] At the point of considering my dilemma a “moral” one, I received an insight informing me that it might be more the result of my passive nature than anything else.

I have never really sought life on my own terms but have simply given in to it (and others) on their terms. In such a way, decisions on my part have been more a matter of assenting to another’s wants and needs than it was to seek to safeguard my own. At fifty-two years of age, I am only now beginning to appreciate the true significance of such an attitude, and why it is wrong. It is obvious to me that the ultimate sense of “knowing” I aspired to; that reaching for a certainty and conviction which would not be wrong–was for me not only unattainable, but the reason for my passivity. To fight is to be wrong and to be wrong is to be degraded, etc. Thus, I could never bring myself to strike another person; I could never choose a benefit for myself if my choosing caused someone else pain; I could not bring myself to take advantage of anything because this would be self-deprecating. Again, it is obvious that I wanted to be loved and respected more than anything else, something which I have probably carried forward to the present time. But why have I been unsuccessful? Why hasn’t my behavior attracted the same? I suspect that it is because I did not attract what I wanted and win it over–did not dare reach for the fruits that can only come with having risked and won! Without this personal motivation, everything else was suspect. I don’t exactly understand why this is so with me–but it is.

Everywhere the messages are the same. I am to venture forth into the world. I am to risk failure in order to ensure success. I am to be vulnerable in love in order to gain it. I am to act in order to know and understand. As Emerson put it in his essay on “Self-Reliance”: “…one cannot know what one is capable of doing until he does it”. Only my life is so messy; so heavy with past mistakes and present reparations to be paid, that I can hardly move, much less, understand what to do. But, maybe this is the point–just move!–and trust that the rest will fall into place.

January 16, 1993

I feel that I am nearing the end as well as the beginning of my purpose in life; that a central truth is dawning, and from it, I will understand my future direction. A few minutes ago, while looking at a marvelous picture of the planet Venus in this month’s National Geographic, I couldn’t help being awestruck by the incredible achievement of the Magellan project and also by the inherent possibilities suggested by this picture. The power of thought upon a single intuitive insight can be astounding. If one, for example, understood and could measure (with exactness) the degree to which an image loses clarity through space or through particular atmospheric conditions (presumably through the diffusion of light (?)), one could then take just any picture and reverse the process of going from a diffused state to one of relative, normal sensing clarity. Of course it would take an extremely sensitive instrument which could scan the photograph in highly minute detail (like a laser or electron microscope), thus picking up finite nuances of light which themselves could be measured, quantified, and reproduced by a computer. Even the relatively diffused density of a video tube could be overcome, not by increasing its resolution, but by simply measuring the effects of its own density (or resolution) and successively reproducing it again and again much like one can continue to enlarge a photo on a copy machine. The amount of resolution lost to each successive enlargement can be noted, translated, and reconfigured as the process continues. In theory, the power of any earth-bound technology can be “reflected” from an outside perspective (no little achievement!), and, yes, conceivably from the farthest planets and stars.

This means that we can remain at our given location, much like the duplicating effect of having a handle connected to another handle such that the movement of one causes the identical movement of the other. This, of course can be done at a distance and there needn’t be a physical connection between them to get the same results. In such a way, it is (or soon will be) possible to travel anywhere in the world without leaving one’s own home. Our handle will likely be a computer keyboard or “joy stick”, and “its other end” will likely be a whole region or the entire planet earth as it is viewed instantaneously by sophisticated satellites in space. While most of this technology is currently in the hands of the military, it will not always be so. For it is characteristic of ideas (I should really say “the power of nature”) that they will invariably spill out over the general landscape. This, in itself, should not be regarded as dangerous situation–only another all to familiar situation would be. Let the Soviet example serve our understanding in this regard. To attempt to control the power resident in “communications”, they had to use force. And as they lost more and more ground to this greater power, they discovered that they had to use more and more force to contain the “enemy”. Like a psychological neurosis on a personal level, the more they struggled to ward off the danger, the more dangerous the situation became. In the end, they had painted themselves into a shallow, though tightly controlled, corner. They lost the opportunity that availed itself to correct their situation. Nature won out in the end by bringing the empire to its knees in order to satisfy a necessary equilibrium. But what about this equilibrium.

Perhaps I could explain it best and most concisely if I were asked to sum up my thinking to date. In this way, I could cover a broad surface in a very short space, although, what I have to say can be challenged or misunderstood on every count. In any regard, let me imagine myself complying to a rather “heady” request by the incoming administration to offer some great truths for the benefit of themselves and, ultimately, for humanity. I would offer the following:

That each of us must learn our place in life by first noting our place in life; that the best means to discovering this is to allow ourselves the opportunity to follow nature’s course!; that it is primarily through fear, arrogance and ignorance that we have believed ourselves singularly capable of creating and controlling; that the evidence refuting such notions is everywhere present if we only dared look; that our refusal to acknowledge this truth points to a serious illness on all our parts; that our salvation rests in correcting the imbalance, and that our failure to do so will only lead to our demise; that we are presently in a “countdown” whose anticipatory effects will surely be understood by century’s end; that the real hope for humankind rests with the possibility of “self-overcoming”; that this is undoubtedly a part of nature’s plan, and thus within our reach; that by daring to surrender ourselves to nature’s ends, we will be able to bridge the gap between fear (arrogance) and faith (ignorance); that by doing so, it will enable us to enjoy the inevitable fruits of harmony through the reestablishment of a long-lost equilibrium; that suffering will be greatly lessened and more easily tolerated through understanding and identifying with a whole greater than ourselves; that it is quite proper, and in keeping with harmony, to describe this whole in spiritual, psychological, or physical terms; that the only sin, it seems to me, is the sin of self-denial, an affliction of the soul tantamount to denial of life (something which is becoming more and more prevalent in today’s society); that to acknowledge the superiority of God or nature over ourselves is to finally share the burden that Christ and many others like him carried for our benefit–with the goal of eventually placing it squarely upon the shoulders of each and every one of us; that, because it is absolutely necessary for life to be in equilibrium, each of us (like whole societies) will be forced to suffer to the extent we deviate from this equilibrium; that hardship is no more than challenge which is as necessary to life as is personal responsibility and self-acknowledgment; that it is of the utmost importance that we take our given responsibilities from nature and not to her; that “each self” must discover for the benefit of “each other” what are the appropriate guideposts to follow; that it is right and proper, as Emerson put it, for each of us to discover, enjoy, and care for those in whom we share a spiritual affinity, and not be overly concerned about the rest!; that worrying about something outside our given sphere of influence will be of little or no consequence to humanity; that rather than diffuse our force, we should each concentrate it by paying closer attention to our immediate surroundings, and allow whatever power resides in us and our actions to spread to others as befits nature; that by paying closer attention to what is in each of our individual souls, and to what immediately surrounds us, is to have all the mechanisms necessary to understanding the world–or the universe!; that personal limitations are the means given us for understanding and we should rejoice on that account rather than decry the fact; that understanding is not something that can ever come from isolation–but only through activity or experience; that we can only know what we are capable of–by doing it; that knowing (true understanding) can only derive from relating to the world as it comes to us–that is, from “within” and “without”; and that the sooner this fact is realized, the sooner we will be able to right a good dealing of suffering caused by our abandonment of this “holistic” approach to life; that everything which is necessary to life is already within and immediately surrounding us; that there are “no precepts in nature obliging the eradication of perennial problems”, and that it should not be considered an “unseemly point to know whatever is necessary in the span of time. Outer world confusion / Inner world illusion / Consciousness is not a goal / Nor a seemingly source to soul.” These last words were given me through an “auto-writing” episode.

I will leave it to the reader to judge for “each self” the merits of the above remarks. Only, I will not refrain from being open about the true source of these thoughts. Over the past six or seven years, I have subjected myself to a great deal of self-reflection which has run the gamut of so-called philosophical reflection (that is, logical thinking applied to intuition), to a purer form of intuition coupled, perhaps, with a good smattering of feeling, something which I’ve shunned “for the sake of reason” for most of my life. Needless to say, this change in thinking brought me into the field of psychology, and in particular, to Jungian psychology. Once I began reading Jung, I began to see definite parallels between his “psychological types” and some of my own reflections, and was amazed to discover how differing viewpoints and perspectives from the various disciplines could all point in the same directions. There was a definite affinity between the materialist and spiritualist, between questions asked by philosophers and psychologist, physicist and politicians! It grew increasingly clearer to me that complexity and difference is illusory; that what we see in this world is, perhaps, a mere reflection of differing possibilities of the very same things; that all our knowledge, in the final analysis, may only reflect a single process, mechanism, or unity. While thinking along these lines, I began exploring my own personality in light of Jung’s remarks, and began to discover not only the origins and characteristics of neuroses, but that I most surely am in the grips of one. Notwithstanding this, I grew to understand how most of our members are, in various degrees, suffering from the very same conditions and consequences; that even social problems might be said to parallel psychological problems, meaning that whole societies might possibly suffer neuroses in the same way as do individuals!

Working within my own psychological frame of mind, and also having the opportunity to assess and discuss other personalities (through the administration of various assessment instruments in my occupational consulting business), I began to learn a great deal about “typical” psychological characteristics and the mechanisms underlying them. And, again, the more I learned, the more I saw the same elemental design on the lowest and highest levels. So much so, that like the “Gaia Theory”, and its view that the entire earth acts as though it were a single organism, so too have I come to view the possibility that the whole of nature might be acting as a single “psychological organism” as well. And it goes without saying, that anthropologists, historians, geologists, etc.–that is, writers and thinkers of every persuasion–can, and often have, hit upon these same elements–and thus, can make the same claim from their own perspective. We are repeatedly reminded that what is individual in one context is a whole or complex in another–simple and complex being as relative as are all things to our understanding.

January 19, 1993

TO BE OR NOT TO BE

The more I struggle with self-understanding, the more images I receive pointing to ego inflation and a will that is in bondage. For example, this morning in my reflections upon awakening, I found myself standing in a tremendously large, airy and billowing tent, alone. It was empty and I sensed that no one is going to come into it. I was disappointed, and I couldn’t understand why I was being treated so unfairly. When the image faded, I remember that my biggest fear was that my unconscious was informing me that my thinking is also airy and of no consequence. Another image showed me as a rather intelligent, pompous man who had committed a crime and was having to face the tormenting questions of no other than Detective Colombo. Again, it was clear to me that I was the criminal and that my unconscious was, perhaps, informing me of the my exact situation. Like Colombo, it will continue to wear me down or wear me out until I either give up or fall apart. I then asked myself for evidence of my crime, and I received an image of Peter O’Toole playing Hamlet. The first sentence of the great soliloquy came across to me: “To be or not to be, that is the question.” I then tried to remember the next lines, but I couldn’t get past “Whether tis nobler…” Rather, I found myself repeating the first line over and over again, now convinced that I needn’t go any further–that this was my message. I continued to ponder it in my mind: “Am I stuck between choosing life and not choosing it? Is this my crime?”

Well, it’s true that I’ve continuously been at odds with nature due to her “life consuming life” behavior, as well as her “selection of the fittest” for survival. And, in fact, I do go out of my way to disengage myself in as many ways as I can. Only, I always felt that I was some kind of hero for doing so–that this was surely in the Christian tradition? But now I am forced to face the question as to whether a denial of nature is the same thing as a denial of self?–that the dilemma arises because we’re made of the same stuff! As a popular expression puts it: I must either “shit…” (that is, accept my nature–the good, the bad, and the ugly–and act accordingly) “… or get off the pot!” (that is, allow the “living” to use it if I’m not). “To accept life or not to accept life–this is the question”, and I guess that this has truly been the my cross. I can see now why “Mammon” (or the world) in its message to me said: “I bring this to you knowing that I cannot compete with his hold”. It would seem that my “problem” comes down to my being too strongly in the grip of Christ!

How ironic this all is when you consider how much ill spills forth from such entanglements. I deny nature, and in so doing deny myself. Nature rights herself by striking back. My pain is projected onto others who are closest to me, and who do not share my indifference to life–and the “slings and arrows” wind up striking the innocent, or those who I presumably love. Love? Well, I desire it–that’s for sure; but do I know it? Or did it go the way of Shiller’s “Light and Warmth”: after seeing the “lowness and the littleness” of life”, even the “nobler man” can find himself retreating, until… “His heart in haughty cold repose, / From love at last itself doth close.” If avoidance of the “low” and “little” can cause all of this to happen, we might wonder if the results might not be worse than it would to simply have acknowledge the worse! After all, acknowledgement is not the same thing as acceptance. One could acknowledge the existence of evil, and still fight against it. But to do neither–now that would be a crime!

Another questions which is looming in the foreground has to do with whether or not my understanding of Christ’s teachings is accurate. It is possible that I have been acting out of a mistaken belief!

January 20, 1993

I went to sleep last night pondering the significance of what had taken place the night before as well as yesterday in my writing. I seem to have deposited myself at the doorstep of nature, leaving me with no choice but to accept or reject her. Any ground in-between turns out to have been illusory on my part; an illusion paid for by a lifetime of relative frustration and mental suffering. Like every deviation from the norm, there is a compensation to pay for my “transgression.”

I awoke at 1:30 a.m. and recall a dream I had (or else had an image while pondering my dream) in which I was flying over the landscape in a “flight simulator”, thinking how great such an experience was. However, knowing that I was in a simulator and not really flying, I decided to let go of the controls and, of course, crashed into the ground. I remember “feeling” a sort of mild explosion in my head, making me now believe that I was not actually dreaming, but in that stage between, where one crosses the threshold from consciousness to imagination and returns again. Sometimes, upon returning to consciousness, it is difficult to remember what had been the starting point (or catalyst). Nevertheless, this slight explosive effect imprinted the experience on my mind and upon crossing back over, I did in fact remember it as well as my starting point. I recognized this image as still another (symbolic) expression of my mental situation. For if we are in the hands of fate, then why bother to pretend any different; why continue to fly rather than simply let go? Only with this image in (conscious) mind, there came an intuition which informed me that to do so would be to throw away a learning opportunity. For the fact is, even if we are in a simulator of sorts, we can still learn to fly!–could still learn to live! To learn to fly well or live well was the point of the whole matter. I pondered this for awhile longer, “thinking” this experience in differing terms. I considered the possibility that the simulator might represent the illusory quality of consciousness, for example, but recall that such thinking led to the usual muddle of possibilities and short-comings. Another intuition quickly informed me that, perhaps, this was another lesson for me–that I shouldn’t be thinking on something that was already complete in itself–and that this has been my problem all along. So I decided that it might be more appropriate to simply accept the images for whatever they conveyed; after all, it was imagery that was taking me beyond a threshold that thinking couldn’t manage. How could I argue with the results? From now on, I thought, I would allow my intuition and imagination to take the lead, and refrain from trying to get beyond each occurrence, I would simply await the meaning of the next. I fell back asleep pretty excited over this new finding.

This time I dreamt that I was in a room with several young college graduates. They were girls and I remember them to be very bright (anthropology graduate students?) who were embarking on great humanitarian causes. They were very confident and very genuine young ladies–the very best I thought. I also remember that there were ten or so young four and five year olds who werereceiving dance lessons and that there was a square glass (more like a 6″X6″ lens which a frame around it) in the upper corner of the room. It acted like a convex mirror [why not a wide-angle lens?] and was recording everything going on in the room. I can’t recall some other material which I feel was important to the dream except that I was very fond of one of these young ladies. I recall enjoying a conversation with her, squeezing her hand, and she responding in a kind, soothing way. I also remember being in another room (different location) with these same girls. I had my arm around my daughter Catherine (who happens to be an Anthropology student) and both of us were admiring the fine qualities of these young ladies as they were making their plans. I sensed that she and I both felt that she might not have been in such close association with these girls had it not been for my contact with them. I also recall both of us gazing into a duplicate “lens” (which was now a viewing screen) and seeing the young children dancing at the other location. I commented to the girl I was attracted to that this was a strange thing to allow–that it was like spying. She didn’t seem to care if someone could look in on her, and commented that she had nothing to hide in any regard.

The next thing I remember is that we were getting ready to go somewhere to eat and that several members of my own family (brothers and sisters were going as well). The place turns out to have been a party house and there were several long tables to choose from. I made my way to a particular table and several family members (who were close behind me) began taking up the other places. I remember thinking how I would not be sitting next to the girl I liked (which would be a typical situation for me in real life), and that this time, I was going to do something about it. I shifted to another table which was perpendicular to the first and took a seat. There were no other persons sitting at it. One of graduate students finally sat down to the left of me while the girl I was fond of sat directly across from her–and not me. I noticed that the girl to my left had on a sort of wedding dress, although it was not really a full gown. She looked more like a bridesmaid. The girl I was fond of was also dressed in a white “bride-like” gown, only I think that she had on white corduroy pants surrounded by more characteristic “gown-like” attire around her upper body. She commented that perhaps her outfit was not in the best taste, but it was suitable for the occasion. I was aware that there was another bride and groom (at a head table) whose wedding reception it really was. The two girls were in some way riding “coattail” on this wedding and for this reason didn’t want to be overly conspicuous. This is all I remember concerning the dream. I know that while I was dreaming, I didn’t sense a potential lesbian relationship existing between the two girls, or what my relationship might be in this regard; but, there are a number of things (from previous thoughts and writings) which I can and will draw upon in future thinking.

There were two other faint recollections of dream or image elements which I cannot quite piece together. The first was an awareness that my own life parallels my father’s, and this in the sense of being superfluously illusory, even if in a different way, or on a different plane. You see, in my view, my father has been entrapped by a life-long struggle for recognition (affection, self-respect or esteem), and this has (embarrassingly to me) led him to an almost exclusive preoccupation with identifying himself and his birthplace (Sicily) with “the glory that was Rome and Italy’s”. In so doing, he has forsaken and belied a truer representation of himself and his origins. For example, he has grossly underestimated his own value as a person, not to mention the valuable contributions which other cultures have given the world and to his native Sicily–the Greeks, Spaniards, Normans, Arabs, etc.–and has grossly overestimated the value of Italy’s own, considerable though it’s been. In any regard, my intuition was now informing me that I am really in no better situation than he, and, worse, that I am wearing the same kind of blinders which is preventing me from seeing my situation for what it is! Needless to say, this was no small statement.

My second faint recollection had something to do with a long (gondola-like) boat. I remember that it was very valuable (I think historically significant), and that I was entrusting it to someone who I knew would safeguard it, rather than sell it or take it apart. (I vaguely recall that its “parts” had significant value). I can’t recall anything else, but, like the first recollection, this is no small matter. When it comes to matters of personality, “parts” and “wholes” are to be taken seriously.

Upon waking, I considered the mirror (lens or camera), flight simulator, as well as my previous day’s thinking regarding the “connection between handles” as a controlling or duplicating device–all representative examples of my present state of mind and life situation. The reminder that I might be in the same “illusory trap” as my father, has also had large impact upon me. I realize that much has been given me this past week, and that these (large) gifts–highly significant dreams, images, and intuitions–are meant to impact me. It seems that my unconscious considers me ready to take on larger truths about myself, and perhaps I am approaching my “journey’s end.” At any rate, I am beginning to see the inherent power contained in a new method of “reflection” (I no longer wish to use the word “thought” as it seems to grossly undervalue what is actually taking place in me). I am also beginning to anticipate (without fear I might add) that the consequences of these experience will be good–if not for me, then at least for humanity. I sense that not only is my own load being lightened somewhat, but that I will be making some sort of general or specific contribution to society as a whole.

January 23, 1993

I had three dreams last night. The first occurred during the first half of the night (sometime between 10:00 p.m. and 3:00 a.m.) when it is customary for me as of late to wake up, “reflect” upon my dream (feeling and remembering its elements or general thrust), utilize the toilet, drink a glass of cold water, and return to bed. I usually then “think” about the significance or consequences of the dream until I fall asleep again.

I recall that this first dream was highly disappointing as it simply reflected my state of mind without a story-line. It was austere, I thought, lacking in imagination, and I remember thinking how foolish I’ve been to have regarded the unconscious as being anything more than a non-animated, rather dumb entity. Far from “thinking” in its own right, it could merely reflect my condition in simple terms. From now on, I thought, I would have to lower my expectations considerably. I went back to sleep.

Only this time, I had two more dreams, the first of which, was a fantastically animated, cognitively powerful, presentation which most certainly reflected preparation, meaning and intent on the part of my unconscious. The second was not as cognitive as the first (though intriguing, nonetheless), and, in fact, made it somewhat difficult for me to recall the events of the first. For this reason, I was somewhat disappointed over the fact that it did not occur last, but as I began to recognize some of its elements upon reflection, I grew immediately excited over its prospects.

The most astounding thing about first dream was that it was a “special feature”; a story or work of art designed with me in mind, and intended to convey something of significance for me! In a very imaginative way, it dealt with the subjects of polarization, differing perspectives or points of view, and having to make choices. This is not, after all, some “dumb” entity at work outside of consciousness; it was, perhaps, another side of myself which was making itself more and more known to me (or a side which has been there all along–but ignored by a non-accepting attitude), or some other force that in some way or another works through us, if not residing within us. It’s anyone’s guess really, and I seriously doubt that “thinking” will ever “hit upon” the correct “hypothetical”! No, truth for me is beginning to take on ever new dimensions; and although the information coming to me is superbly rich in possibilities,–their consideration is not the way to understanding!

I recall myself and several other individuals being forced (or allowed to chose) to make a journey down a particular path which was kind of like a section of an outdoor amusement park which had more than one theme to it. I believe we “chose” to walk down this path and, although I can’t remember any of what happened to us on this journey, I do remember that it wasn’t a great experience and that, upon coming out, several members of the group regretted participation and refused to consider trying another. I remember some of them simply walking away, presumably out of the park. But there was a second event or theme pathway beckoning us, and I felt compelled to take it. The first event had informed me of the need to “live through experience” no matter how it presented itself–that we should not turn our backs on life, not matter how distasteful a given experience may be.

I remember walking down some wide steps with a few of the members who were still with me. As we entered this land, some of the residents were remarking to us just how regimented it was. I remember our entering a room where an officer (Colonel or General dressed in a German uniform) was standing rigid behind a desk. He was extremely agitated, nervous and twitchy. I don’t know if I was mocking his demeanor or not, but he stormed across the room, still twitching and shaking and obviously very angry. I do sense that I felt the whole thing to be rather comical, and this may have set him off. Or, perhaps, he simply dreaded my coming–had known that I was coming. I can’t remember what happened after this except, like the first journey, it wasn’t pleasant. I do remember that the journey ended in a room where I received a message on a piece of paper. I do remember that I was surprised, astounded and enlightened by it. It was a simple, though powerful, one line sentence and I’m disturbed over the fact that I can’t remember what it said. I do remember that it had some markings on the top of the page that identified it as having come from the “gas pump”. A person next to me drew my attention to this: “You see those markings on the top of the slip? It was the gas pump who was leading us all along!” I vaguely remember seeing a friendly, plump, red gas pump standing against the wall behind us. It had a smilingly face on it. Again, I can’t help but feel cheated about this dream. It had all the makings of a good fantasy, sort of like Kubin’s “The Other Side” which I read because Jung had mentioned his name as expressing a certain “psychological type”. I know now where such stories come from. I suspect that we will one day have to go through the literature with a much different frame of reference than we employ today, much like Jung introducing us to a new way of looking at mythology and cultural traditions.

The third dream had to do with me flying an airplane down a road (it was an old fabric-covered WWII Aeronica–the one I used when taking private lessons in the mid-sixties), very slowly (3 or 4 miles per hour) but only four or five feet above the ground. I don’t know where I was going or why I wasn’t flying faster or higher, but I do remember that someone was with me. I also remember thinking how someone (other than myself) might be able to ride an airplane down railroad tracks if necessary and I considered how this might be done. If the prop could pull it for long distances, and if the railroad bed had sufficient clearance on either side (I considered that a saw would be needed for cutting trees and shrubs when necessary), we would only have to be concerned about the tracks and ties. I considered that the wheels of the aircraft would fit nicely on the outside (maybe inside?) of the track, but that some kind of smooth surface would be needed. After considering how long strips might be laid out and then picked up and moved ahead of the aircraft, etc., I thought it would be better to simply have a single large circular surface (a huge wheel about thirty feet in diameter) which would surround the aircraft and roll along as it propelled itself forward. I would be made of a smooth, hard, thick plastic material and would rotate as the plane moved forward.

As I said, I don’t where I was going except that I do remember not having any money. I pulled two handkerchiefs out of my pocket and noticed that neither of them had currency signs on them as I thought they should. I expected that handkerchiefs had this dual purpose. Upon arriving home, I went through my dresser drawers looking for “currency handkerchiefs” but couldn’t find any. Jane (my wife) informed me that there were no such things. I vaguely recall that I was also naked and that I needed to get some clothes on. And, again, I was worried about what I would do for money.

I also remember wondering whether or not I owned this airplane, and, if so, where was it or had it been? It needed to be tied-down for winter and I couldn’t remember having it at home–it wouldn’t fit in my garage. I considered that it must be kept at the airport, but I couldn’t remember if anyone was taking care of it. Worse, what if I did own it and simply didn’t know it for all these years. The airport had probably been using it for flying lessons all these years, or some friends (I thought in particular of Danny Frost, a childhood friend who had taken private flying lessons with me and later flew fixed-wing aircraft in Vietnam). I thought that Dan might be using my plane and that I would never know it since I have no idea whatever of what the mileage was when I first bought it. I felt that the airport would probably be calling me to remind me that it was time for major maintenance.

I also remember standing outside the plane as a “prop man” and being puzzled over which way to pull the prop. I couldn’t remember if it was clock-wise or counter-clockwise. I recall my fear of falling into it, and had a vague sense of feeling “compelled” to be drawn into it.

While trying to recall some of the episodes of the airplane dream, I now recall having had other airplane dreams years ago. One of those dreams had to do with flying a small fixed-wing aircraft cross-country over the Central New York landscape, the other (and I recall having had several of these) had to do with my flying jets airplanes from nearby Rochester to several locations in and about New York State. (I do not know how to fly jet airplanes in real life!) Since they popped into my head, I feel that they may have some significance for my present dreams, and for this reason, have written them down for future reference.

February 11, 1993

Excerpts from “Self-Reliance”

Ralph Waldo Emerson
(1803-

To believe your own thought, to believe that what is true for you in your private heart is true for all persons,–that is genius…

A man should learn to detect and watch that gleam of light which flashes across his mind from within, more than the lustre of the firmament of bards and sages… In every work of genius we recognize our own rejected thoughts…

The power which resides in him is new in nature, and none but that person knows what that is which he can do, nor does he know until he has tried… A man is relieved and gay when he has put his heart into his work and done his best; but what he has said or done otherwise shall give him no peace.

Trust thyself: every heart vibrates to that iron string. Accept the place the Divine Providence has found for you, the society of your contemporaries, the connection of events… Society everywhere is in conspiracy against the manhood of every one of its members… It loves not realities and creators, but names and customs…

Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind. Absolve you to yourself, and you shall have the suffrage of the world… No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature. Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this; the only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong what is against it… I am ashamed to think how easily we capitulate to badges and names, to large societies and dead institutions… I ought to go upright and vital, and speak the rude truth in all ways… Your goodness must have some edge to it,–else it is none…

I shun father and mother and wife and brother, when my genius calls me… Expect me not to show cause why I seek or why I exclude company. Then, again, do not tell me of my obligation to put all poor men in good situations. Are they my poor? I tell thee, thou foolish philanthropist, that I grudge the dollar, the dime, the cent, I give to such men as do not belong to me and to whom I do not belong. [But] There is a class of persons to whom by all spiritual affinity I am bought and sold; for them I will go to prison, if need be…

Virtues are in the popular estimate, rather the exception than the rule… Men do what is called a good action, as some piece of courage or charity, much as they would pay a fine in expiation… I do not wish to expiate, but to live… I ask primary evidence that you are a man, and refuse this appeal from the man to his actions…

I actually am, and do not need for my own assurance or the assurance of my fellows any secondary testimony. What I must do is all that concerns me, not what the people think… It is easy in the world to live after the world’s opinion; it is easy in solitude to live after our own; but the great person is he who, in the midst of the crowd, keeps with perfect sweetness the independence of solitude…

The objection to conforming to usages that have become dead to you is, that it scatters your force. It loses your time and blurs the impression of our character. If you maintain a dead church, contribute to a dead Bible-society, vote with a great party either for the government or against it… under all these screens I have difficulty to detect the precise man you are… But do your work, and I shall know you. Do your work, and you shall reinforce yourself…

A man must consider what a blind-man’s-buff is this game of conformity. If I know your sect, I anticipate your argument… conformity makes them not false in a few particulars, authors of a few lies, but false in all particulars. Their every truth is not quite true…

For nonconformity the world whips you with its displeasure… the sour faces of the multitude, like their sweet faces, have no deep cause, but are put on and off as the wind blows and a newspaper directs…

The other terror that scares us from self-trust is our consistency; a reverence for our past act or word, because the eyes of others have no other data for computing our orbit than our past acts, and we are loath to disappoint them. But why should you keep your head over your shoulder? Why drag about this corpse of your memory, lest you contradict somewhat you have stated in this or that public place? Suppose you should contradict yourself; when then?… A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do… Speak what you think now in hard words; and tomorrow speak what tomorrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict everything you said today… Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood?… To be great is to be misunderstood… Let me record day by day my honest thought without prospect or retrospect, and, I cannot doubt, it will be found symmetrical, though I mean it not and see it not… Your genuine action will explain itself, and will explain your other genuine actions. Your conformity explains nothing. Act singly, and what you have already done singly will justify you now. Greatness appeals to the future… Be it how it will, do right now.

The force of character is cumulative. All the foregone days of virtue work their health into this… Let us affront and reprimand the smooth mediocrity and squalid contentment of the times, and hurl in the face of custom, and trade, and office, the fact which is the upshot of all history, that there is a great responsible Thinker and Actor working wherever a person works; that a true person belongs to no other time or place, but is the center of things. Where he is, there is nature…

The magnetism which all original action exerts is explained when we inquire the reason of self-trust. Who is the Trustee? What is the aboriginal Self, on which a universal reliance may be grounded?.. The inquiry leads us to that source, at once, the essence of genius, of virtue, and of life, which we call Spontaneity or Instinct. We denote this primary wisdom as Intuition, whilst all later teachings are tuitions. In that deep force, the last fact behind which analysis cannot go, all things find their common origin… We first share the life by which things exist, and afterwards see them as appearances in nature, and forget that we have shared their cause. Here is the fountain of action and of thought… We lie in the lap of immense intelligence, which makes us receivers of its truth and organs of its activity. When we discern justice, when we discern truth, we do nothing of ourselves, but allow a passage to its beams… Every person discriminates between the voluntary acts of his mind and his involuntary perceptions, and knows that to his involuntary perceptions a perfect faith is due… perception is not whimsical, but fatal…

All things are dissolved to their center by their cause… Is the acorn better than the oak which is its fullness and completion?… Whence, then, this worship of the past? The centuries are conspirators against the sanity and authority of the soul… Man is timid and apologetic; he is no longer upright; he dares not say “I think,” “I am,” but quotes some saint or sage…

Man postpones or remembers: he does not live in the present, but with reverted eye laments the past, or, heedless of the riches that surround him, stands on his tiptoe to see the future. He cannot be happy and strong until he too lives with nature in the present, above time… If we live truly, we shall see truly. It is as easy for the strong man to be strong as it is for the weak to be weak…

And now at last the highest truth on this subject…

When good is near you, when you have life in yourself, it is not by any known or accustomed way; you shall not discern the footprints of any other; you shall not see the face of man; you shall not hear any name;–the way, the thought, the good, shall be wholly strange and new. It shall exclude example and experience… In the hour of vision, there is nothing that can be called gratitude, nor properly joy. The soul raised over passion beholds identity and eternal causation, perceives the self-existence of Truth and Right, and calms itself with knowing that all things go well…

Life only avails, not the having lived. Power ceases in the instant of repose; it resides in the moment of transition from a past to a new state, in the shooting of the gulf, in the darting to an aim. This one fact the world hates, that the soul becomes; for that forever degrades the past, turns all riches to poverty, all reputation to a shame, confounds the saint with the rogue, shoves Jesus and Judas equally aside… To talk of reliance is a poor external way of speaking. Speak rather of that which relies, because it works and is. Who has more obedience than I masters me, though he should not raise his finger…

Self-existence is the attribute of the Supreme Cause, and it constitutes the measure of good by the degree in which it enters into all lower forms. All things are so by so much virtue as they contain… I see the same law working in nature for conservation and growth. Power is in nature the essential measure of right. Nature suffers nothing to remain in her kingdoms which cannot help itself… Thus all concentrates: let us not rove; let us sit at home with the cause. Let us stun and astonish the intruding rabble of men and books and institutions by a simple declaration of the divine fact. Bid the invaders take the shoes from off their feet, for God is here within…

But now we are a mob. Man does not stand in awe of man, nor is his genius admonished to stay at home to put itself in communication with the internal ocean… We must go alone… Why should we assume the faults of our friend, or wife, or father, or child, because they sit around our hearth, or are said to have the same blood? All men have my blood, and I have all men’s… But your isolation must not be mechanical, but spiritual; that is, must be elevation. At times the whole world seems to be in conspiracy to importune you with emphatic trifles. Friend, client, child, sickness, fear, want, charity, all knock at once at thy closet door, and say, “Come out unto us.” But keep thy state; come not into their confusion. The power men possess to annoy me, I give them by a weak curiosity. No man can come near me but through my act…

If we cannot at once rise to the sanctities of obedience and faith, let us at least resist our temptations… This is to be done in our smooth times by speaking the truth. Check this lying hospitality and lying affection. Live no longer to the expectation of these deceived and deceiving people with whom we converse. Say to them,…

O father, O mother, O wife, O brother, O friend, I have lived with you after appearances hitherto. Henceforward I am the truth’s. Be it known unto you that henceforward I obey no law less than the eternal law. I will have no covenants but proximitys. I shall endeavor to nourish my parents, to support my family, to be the chaste husband of one wife,–but these relations I must fill after a new and unprecedented way. I appeal from your customs. I must be myself. I cannot break myself any longer for you, or you. If you can love me for what I am, we shall be the happier. if you cannot, I will still seek to deserve that you should. I will not hide my tastes or aversions. I will so trust that what is deep is holy, that I will do strongly before the sun and moon whatever inly rejoices me, and the heart appoints. If you are noble, I will love you; if you are not, I will not hurt you and myself by hypocritical attentions. if you are true, but not in the same truth with me, cleave to your companions; I will seek my own. I do this not selfishly, but humbly and truly. It is alike your interest, and mine, and all men’s, however long we have dwelt in lies, to live in truth. Does this sound harsh today? You will soon love what is dictated by your nature as well as mine, and, if we follow the truth, it will bring us out safe at last.–But so you may give these friends pain. Yes, but I cannot sell my liberty and my power, to save their sensibility. Besides, all persons have their moments of reason, when they look out into the region of absolute truth; then will they justify me, and do the same thing…

And truly it demands something god-like in him who has cast off the common motives of humanity, and has ventured to trust himself for a task-master. High be his heart, faithful his will, clear his sight, that he may in good earnest be doctrine, society, law, to himself…

We are afraid of truth, afraid of fortune, afraid of death, and afraid of each other. Our age yields no great and perfect persons. We want men and women who shall renovate life and our social state; but we see that most natures are insolvent, cannot satisfy their own wants, have an ambition out of all proportion to their practical force, and do lean and beg day and night continually. Our housekeeping is mendicant, our arts, our occupations, our marriages, our religion, we have not chosen, but society chooses for us. We are parlor soldiers. We shun the rugged battle of fate, where strength is born…

A sturdy lad from New Hampshire or Vermont, who in turn tries all the professions, who teams it, farms it, peddles, keeps a school, preaches, edits a newspaper, goes to Congress, buys a township, and so forth in successive years, and always, like a cat, falls on his feet, is worth a hundred of these city dolls… he does not postpone his life, but lives already…

Let a Stoic open the resources of man, and tell men they are not leaning willows, but can and must detach themselves; that with the exercise of self-trust, new powers shall appear… that the moment he acts for himself, tossing the laws, the books, idolatries, and customs out of the window, we pity him no more, but thank and revere him…

Prayer that craves a particular commodity–any thing less than all good–is vicious. Prayer is the contemplation of the facts of life from the highest point of view… As soon as the man is at one with God, he will not beg. He will then see prayer in all action… Welcome evermore to gods and men is the self-helping man. For him all doors are flung wide: him all tongues greet, all honors crown, all eyes follow with desire. Our love goes out to him, and embraces him, because he did not need it…

As men’s prayers are a disease of the will, so are their creeds a disease of the intellect… Every new mind is a new classification. If it prove a mind of uncommon activity and power, a Locke, a Lavoisier, a Hutton, a Bentham, a Fourier, it imposes its classification on other men, and lo! a new system… Let them chirp awhile and call it their own…

It is for want of self-culture that the superstition of Traveling, whose idols are Italy, England, Egypt, retains its fascination for all educated Americans. They who made England, Italy, or Greece venerable in the imagination did so by sticking fast where they were… The soul is no traveler; the wise man stays at home…

Insist on yourself; never imitate. Your own gift you can present every moment with the cumulative force of a whole life’s cultivation; but of the adopted talent of another, you have only an extemporaneous, half possession. That which each can do best, none but the Maker can teach him. No man yet knows what it is, nor can, till that person has exhibited it… Where is the master who could have taught Shakespeare?… Every great man is a unique… Do that which is assigned you, and you cannot hope too much or dare too much… Abide in the simple and noble regions of thy life, obey they heart, and thou shalt reproduce the Foreworld again…

Society never advances. It recedes as fast on one side as it gains on the other. It undergoes continual changes; it is barbarous, it is civilized, it is Christianized, it is rich, it is scientific; but this change is not amelioration. For every thing that is given, something is taken. Society acquires new arts, and loses old instincts. What a contrast between the well-clad, reading, writing, thinking American… and the naked New Zealander… But compare the health of the two men, and you shall see that the white man has lost his aboriginal strength… strike the savage with broad axe, and in a day or so the flesh shall unite and heal… and the same blow shall send the white to his grave…

There is no more deviation in the moral standard than in the standard of height or bulk. No greater men are now than ever were… Not in time is the race progressive… Socrates, Anaxagoras, Diogenes, are great men, but they leave no class. He who is rally of their class will not be called by their name, but will be his own man, and, in his turn, the founder of a sect. The arts and inventions of each period are only its costume and do not invigorate men… The great genius returns to essential man…

Society is a wave. The wave moves onward but the water of which it is composed does not. The same particle does not rise from the valley to the ridge. Its unity is only phenomenal. The persons who make up a nation today, next year die, and their experience with them. And so the reliance on Property, including the reliance on governments which protect it, is the want of self-reliance… A cultivated man becomes ashamed of his property out of new respect for his nature…

But that which a man is does always by necessity acquire; and what the man acquires is living property, which does not wait the back of rulers, or mobs, or revolutions, or fire, or storm, or bankruptcies, but perpetually renews itself wherever the man breathes. “Thy lot or portion of life,” said the Caliph Ali, “is seeking after thee; therefore be at rest from seeking after it.”… It is only as a man puts off all foreign support, and stands alone, that I see him to be strong and to prevail. He is weaker by every recruit to his banner… He who knows that power is inborn, that he is weak because he has looked for good out of him and elsewhere, and so perceiving, throws himself unhesitatingly on his thought, instantly rights himself, stands in the erect position, commands his limbs, works miracles…

Nothing can bring your peace but yourself. Nothing can bring you peace but the triumph of principles.

February 23, 1993

BALLAD

I thought that I might give a gift,
A sacred truth befitting us;
But all I’ve managed to the day,
Has been to lead myself astray.

Has been to lead myself astray,
Is all I’ve managed to the day;
A sacred truth to give a lift,
Is all I sought to give your gift.
Is all I sought to give your gift.

I thought that I would search my soul,
And find the means to make me whole;
But all I’ve managed to the day,
Is bended knee upon which to pray.

Yes, bended knee upon which to pray,
Is all I’ve managed to the day;
And still no means to make me whole,
No precious gift for me from soul.
No precious gift for me from soul.

Perhaps I am foolish for what I seek?–
On bended knee from a soul too weak;
From a soul who has itself a goal,
Who prays to me to make it whole.

Who prays to me to make it whole,
By joining it–our mutual goal;
Upon bended knee to an ego weak,
I too am sought for what we seek.
I too am sought for what we seek.

Might nature too be on bended knee,
Praying for this unity;
Wanting all of us to be,
As wholesome as our lives decree,

As wholesome as our lives decree,
Our natures want us one to be;
And if we dared, we might just see,
God herself on bended knee.
God herself on bended knee.

February 25, 1993

About a week and a half ago, I had this dream in where I was in this room together with two lions and a docile animal (camel or mule?) which the lions were trying to get to. I was able to control them as they still feared me, but they were getting bolder and bolder. I remember surrounding this frightened animal by tables set up on end, but the lions were making it difficult. I shooed them off again and open the door to leave the room. One of the lions went out through the door and I yelled to it to come back into the room, which it did. I then left the room, closed the door and was relieved not to be in the room. It was like taking a breather and I didn’t really want to return although I knew what would happen. Just then, I heard my daughter Catherine’s voice in the room shooing away the lions, and I knew that I would have to return to the room.

Last night I had a dream of my own in which I was striving to complete high school but needed five courses to graduate. Unfortunately, the fifth course was one which I had neglected to attend and it was Mr. Taggart’s class. I have had similar recurrent “high school” dreams of this sort over the years. In the former dreams (as in this one) I am a college graduate who has gone back to complete high school, but never can seem to. The years drag on and on and I always wonder why I’m even bothering since I already do have a college education. In this dream, I knew that I would have a very difficult time trying to catch up on all of the course I missed (American History) and that, even if I were able to do so, it was unlikely that Mr. Taggart would pass me. [In real life, I was in his 9th grade history class and also in his World History class at Genesee Community College. And he’s as exacting as a Prussian. I was lucky to get a C grade] Getting back to my dream, I considered that my options were to try to catch up to the class and maybe he would admit me, forget the class and take one or two summer courses which would equally count toward the diploma (even if late), or simply give up the idea of a high school diploma altogether.

March 2, 1993

Perception without judgment means indecision and procrastination–ineptitude
Judgement without perception means decisiveness without depth–shallowness
So what!
I want peace and harmony, love and satisfaction, stimulation and fun
I want to create, to build, to improve, to enjoy
I want to be in awe of the good and the beautiful, the intriguing and spectacular

I want to avoid, diminish, eradicate, transform the bad, the ugly, evil
Only everything I want and desire has an opposing counterpart

Love-hate, satisfaction-dissatisfaction, ecstasy-anguish, good-evil, beautiful-ugly,

Polarization is everywhere and we wonder how it would be possible to have one without the other.

Can good come from evil and evil from good?
What is the nature of this transformation and relationship?
Are the pairs really a unity? It seems so.
Continuum based upon conceptual formations.
Good and evil are abstractions or generalizations standing in for a group of things and actions considered as such
We must look to particulars
“Abortions are evil” because… “Abortions are good” because…
“You have no right to take a life!”
“I am not taking a life!”
“I have the right to cut out a living part of myself!”
“I have the right to remove a part of me that is not a life!”
In what way do these represent a unity or continuum?
Definition of life is on a continuum from fertilized egg to full human.
Like all things, Life is becoming. At what point do we say it’s begun or has arrived?
What about lives worth and not worth living? At what point?…
The sick, maimed, lonely and anguished
What about lives interfering with other lives?
Infanticide for betterment of family or community
What does anthropology teach us?
What is the criteria for judging?
Is there ever criteria for judging? or is it only to support judgment?
What of those who are undecided? If they look for criteria, are they missing the point?

What does each of us want, need, and are determined to get or repress? What are the sources of perceptions and judgments?

How much is repressed? And how much projected upon others?

Admission, acceptance and satisfaction of needs is of the utmost importance to all of us at present.

Much of what ails us is due to relinquishing responsibility for ourselves, to false values, misinformation, subjugation by other person concerns and values–a slave mentality–or misplaced faith in a benevolent leadership.

But most of it is due to our inability or general reluctance to listen to ourselves. We are born with self-esteem or, at very least, it’s absence is never in question. But then we become subjected to the erosion of opinions and judgments by those closest to us. We soon learn that we will have to compete for self-esteem and self-satisfaction; that is, will have to “complete” another’s expectations of us. If we succeed, we are loved, though not, perhaps, for ourselves. We will spend our lives choosing masks befitting each occasion. We may even settle upon one befitting all occasions. If we fail, we are punished, and will most probably become fragmented, uncertain or lost. We will spend our lives trying to put back the pieces. It is difficult to judge winners and losers in this scenarios.

Now one might argue that the notion of a “true self” apart from the development of our “environmental self” is little more than an idealistic abstraction. We are what we become and what we become is contingent upon experience–individual experience. If harmony, satisfaction of needs, etc. can best be gotten by wearing masks, then so be it. It must be nature’s way.

But what of individuals who are not able to adapt to such circumstances and, therefore, offer resistance, even if unintentional? It is not as though they were safeguarding their “self-esteem”, it is only that their individual standpoint or characteristics do not befit the situation. Surely there are limits to what each of us can adapt to and what we cannot. While one individual is able to stand up to a strong personality in a parent, for example, this same parent might cause another to crumble.

What is important to note is that we are in fact born with different physical and psychological characteristics. We can note such differences at birth and what we note oftentimes determines a child’s name or how we will react to it. There is strong evidence for believing that we are born to behave in “characteristic”, preferential ways; that not only does our “personality type” appear at birth, but that it comes to us through our genetic makeups and family lineage.

According to the psychologist Carl Jung, perceiving and judging are the two basic elements distinguishing personality. There may be others, to be sure, but Jung’s many years of experience and investigation led him to these two as primary “preferences” of personality. Which of these is preferred over the other in a given personality will go a long way toward describing that personality, while how one perceives and makes judgments will be still another important consideration. Jung distinguishes two types of perception and two types of judgment. For example, a “perceiving type” may show a preference for information received through the senses or through intuition, while a “judging type” may show a preference for basing decisions on objective logic and analysis, or else on subjective, person-centered values and concerns. While we may in fact utilize all such functions at different times, we will normally develop a preference for only one side of each of these functions.

There is one other very important factor tying all of this together–the concepts of extroversion and introversion. Jung sees these as two basic, in-born attitudes or preferences in life which will determine the general direction of energy and interest. He believes these to be biologically-based, although, at bottom, he is at a loss to know why one individual should have one disposition and not the other. What is important is that they are in fact distinguishable and can be seen to be at work in the personality, although this does not mean that they are always clear in every circumstance. There are many places in Jung’s model where it is difficult to understand just who or what it is that is doing the introverting or extroverting.

Nonetheless, the functions cannot be understood without also understanding the characteristic workings of extroversion and introversion in a given personality. Indeed, their understanding is crucial to an understanding of types and, in particular, to understanding normal and deviant behavior. Deviant behavior is nothing more than a loss of psychic equilibrium which the proper functioning of these six elements is supposed to maintain. But dispositions and functions must be assumed to be disposed or working for “something” outside of themselves. Someone must be introverted or extroverted, perceiving or judging, and there must in fact be some thing there to be perceived or judged. Thus, the world and ourselves within it, must also be distinguished if we are to present a model of personality or of a psychic equilibrium at work. This, of course, involves still further hypothesis, distinctions and descriptions as a matter of course.

What Jung has to say about the structure and dynamics of mind in relation to world is very illuminating and, thus, carries a strong potential for alleviating a good deal of what bothers us. And yet, I cannot help but feel that there is an extremely important element missing from his theoretical framework which continually gets overlooked by all of us. It’s not that it’s overlooked–it’s not as yet perceived. But I sense that it is there and that it has something to do with language, or the way in which we use, or are used (carried along) by it. I sense that there is something wrong with our obvious need to first distinguish concepts, and then subconcepts, etc. until at last our original meaning or enlightened view has dissipated altogether. I sense that dogmatism and shallowness derives from this fact more than any other; that is, from the sheer frustration of not being able to pursue knowledge. I further suspect that Jung’s genius allowed him a larger buffer in which to hide from this truth, but, in the end, even he could not escape it. His concepts began to blend with those from which they were distinguished in the first place, and he was finally reduced to having to admit of “composite types” and the like. We are all familiar with this course of thinking. Most of us know what it is like to run full circle only to find that we are back where we started.

I sense a certain futility in reading all such works even though I can see how such thinking can be of benefit to us. Whether Jung’s descriptions are true or not, his definitions and models do in fact explain
a good deal of behavior, normal or neurotic. One can fairly easily see the strong correlation (or lack of correlation) between what he is describing for a given type and their own peculiar makeup and behavior. Because his descriptions are meaningful is reason enough to believe that he has hit upon some of the important defining elements of behavior. The proof is in its explanatory value which is profound. And yet, I still cannot help but feel that something even more important is being overlooked.

Review of Attitude Types

Attitude types of introversion and extroversion are distinguished by their orientation to the object.

The extrovert is prolific and seeks to expend himself by affirming the object; to simulate subject to object. Decisions and actions are determined by objective data and not by subjective views; inner life is subordinated to external necessity. Consciousness looks outward because that is where he expects to find the essential and decisive determinants. People and things seize and rivet his attention. Adjustments are made in order to conform with outside circumstances.

Extrovert’s Danger: Gets sucked into outside considerations and loses himself in them.

Adjustment is not adaptation. Conforming to the present style or conditions of the environment can lead one to ignoring subjective needs and requirements. Physical and psychical stresses may be felt although the extrovert is the last one to realize the changes which are taking place. When they are felt, they are meant to have a compensatory value, trying to force an involuntary self-restraint. They are meant to draw one’s attention away from outside considerations toward the satisfaction of subjective needs and demands.

Neurotic Symptoms:

If the unconscious is not successful at drawing attention toward the subjective, it will take another tact. The unconscious demands will be seen to have an essentially primitive, infantile, and egocentric character to them; and, the less they are acknowledged, the more infantile and archaic they become, taking on an increasingly regressive character to befitting the degree of repression used against itself by the conscious attitude. It’s egocentric character can go far beyond childish selfishness; it can verge on the ruthless and brutal when the conscious attitude is extreme. In that case, it ceases to be compensatory and appears in open opposition to the conscious attitude. The conscious attitude then counters with an absurd exaggeration of its own standpoint, aiming at a further repression of the unconscious, but it loses in the end.

Normal Characteristics:Typical out-going nature

Problem Signs:”Hysterical symptoms”; exaggerated rapport with persons; adjustment to conditions that amounts to imitation; constant tendency to make oneself interesting and to produce an impression; proneness to another’s influence; and general effusiveness.

“Psychical Signs: Infantile, crude behavior appearing sporadically. Diffusive; too many interests or none; drug abuse; heading for a nervous breakdown.

“Physical Symptoms: Proneness to bodily pains; quirks in behavior or strange or unfortunate happenings at “odd times”.

The introvert’s attitude is abstracting and monopolizing, seeking to conserve energy while withdrawing energy away from the object. He holds in reserve a subjective view with separates him from the objective data in such a way that it prevents his own action from assuming a character befitting the objective situation. Consciousness is inner directed, selecting the subjective determinants as the decisive ones for actions. All perceptions and cognition are subjectively conditioned since they must have a subject. By overvaluing our capacity for objective cognition, we repress the importance of the subjective factor.

The subjective factor constitutes a combination or merging of the effects of perception together with the impression it makes. The extraverted standpoint pays little or no attention to the new result and attributes whatever is felt or experienced to the object perceived. The introvert pays attention to both the effect and the resulting impression, but like the extrovert, he too attributes the impression to the object.

Introvert’s Danger: Confuses his ego with the self, exalting it as the subject of the psychic process and, thereby, bringing about an artificial subjectivization of consciousness.

The predominance of the subjective factor in consciousness naturally involves a devaluation of the object; it comes to have too little meaning for the introvert. Thus, the introvert stands between the outside world and his own subjective self, generally ignoring both. The unconscious compensates by unconsciously reinforcing the influence of the object, making it seem like one is absolutely and irrepressibly tied to it. The more the ego struggles to preserve its independence, freedom and superiority, the more enslaved it becomes to the objective data. It’s actions are calculated to bring the illusion of power and the fantasy of superiority to utter ruin.

Normal Characteristics: Quiet, reserved.

Problem Sign: Highly generalizing manner which appears to rule out everybody else’s opinion; inflexibility of judgment setting itself above all objective data;

Neuroses: Boundless power complex and fatuous egocentricity; lapses in taste, exaggerated attempts to dominate, usurp. Fear of outside world, objects and people; inferior relationships; pitiful craving to be loved; defense systems to safeguard the illusion of being right or superior; overwhelming impressions; extreme sensitivity and chronic fatigue; an inner struggle just to keep going; cowardliness, shrinking from public; attributes magical and fearsome qualities to objects; ideal is a lonely island where nothing moves except what he permits.

March 10, 1993

DREAM (The night before last): In a classroom studying some subject or another. Was concerned about passing tests and was relieved that I was, even though I knew that I had not been reading the text. Another episode had me leaning 20 or 30 degrees to the right and noticing that when I did so, I would be self-propelled around the room without having to take a step. My leaning to the right simply had this result and those that observed me were just as amazed as I was, although no one had an explanation for the phenomena. Our teacher (female, mid-thirties) put a box on a table which had lights shooting off in various directions. The light beams were focused on the doors and windows of the classroom and was supposed to act as a security alarm in case any of us tried to leave the classroom. We were to sleep here over night and were not to be given an opportunity to cheat. I registered my objection to this device since I had to get up to use the bathroom during the night, and purposely waved my hand in front of it to set it off. It sounded an alarm and the teacher could not shut it off. She didn’t appear to be upset by any of this however.

Another scene found us all sitting in a row in lawn chairs outdoors. I recall my getting bit by mosquitoes and thought that I would go inside to get some socks on my feet and considered that I might also bring back my text to read. While inside, my chest and stomach area became transparent and I could see a long string of fat tissue (looking like a long lasagna noodle),–ugly, layered fat tissue stretching from my abdomen to my chest. I also remember seeing water flowing down through this territory and my commenting to a few observers that I had just drank a glass of water.

DREAM (Last Night): Was in my old position at Wickes Lumber. Was looking at a three piece bow window with John Schram (a fellow employee) who was commenting that we would have to get special help in order to fix the center sash. It didn’t sit flat against the window stiles. I disagreed and brought out a window schematic showing evidence that only the side sashes were curved and, therefore, the center sash was straight and could be made to fit without special assistance.

I remember another scene in which I was riding on a fork truck and not doing all that well. It was acting up and didn’t want to stop. I remember driving it on rough terrain out of doors and almost tipping it over. However, I (cleverly) managed to steer it directly over holes and humps and succeeded in even driving it to the top of a very steep grade. At this point, the fork lift was gone and I was riding on the back of a very large brown bear. We were going to attempt to go down this steep grade. The bear and I plunged ahead but he began to lose his legs since it was now like a steep pile of loose stone. The bear’s legs sunk deep into the stones and he turned his head toward me as if to warn me that we were not going to make it. The look on his face was part anger and part disgust. I was wary of what he might do to me, but remained on his back while petting him lightly in order to sooth him. I don’t remember whether we made it down the slope or not, but I vaguely remember that this bear had been in an earlier part of the dream as well. This reminds me of a similar dream I had perhaps a year ago (but never recorded). A small dog was running after me. I ignored it and continued on my way. The dog began pulling on my pants and jumping up on me. Still I ignored it, pushing it down off my legs without breaking stride. All of a sudden the dog jumped up on me and clung to my legs. I continued to reach back and pushed on him in order to get him to let go. He never bit me. Then the dog began to grow into my leg, becoming attached to my flesh. I don’t remember any more, although the reference seems obvious enough. I cannot continue to ignore something which needs to be tended to.

Still another part of my current dream had to do with my needing to inform some young man (it may have been my daughter Catherine’s boyfriend) that he had to pick up his mother at some location (work place). I remember going to that location myself and informing the mother that I never had the opportunity to tell her son, and I hoped that he would have gotten the message anyhow. I recall conversing with her for awhile but little else.

March 16, 1993

A couple of nights ago, while in Toronto (to see the Phantom of the Opera), I had several dream episodes, the first of which, was perhaps the most serious, though least remembered. The end result of the dream was remembered, however, and this amounted to my first killing “father” and then “father” killing me. Father (my unconscious) drowned me and then came down to the water’s edge and made sure that I was drowned!

Another part of the dream had Harold Greenstein in it, a former college professor who keeps reappearing in dreams. I was explaining something to him and lightly chastising him for being too “right winged”. I also told him that I was able to read him, and that some of my resume customers brought me references written by him which enabled me to fit pieces of his personality together. [How ironic since in an earlier dream in October 1990, he had refused to recommend me for a management position based upon a personality assessment I had taken]. I also recall a woman in the dream who had some task to do and was commenting at how easy it was because her students were giving her the essence of the information she needed. It was as though she were being “bought-off” by certain of her students. I also recall there being a pair of dress pants and blue jeans lying on a bed nearby and that Harold was watching to see which I would choose to wear. I was reluctant to put on the jeans since to do so would reveal to him how poorly I was doing in life, something which he seemed interested in knowing. He had that wry look on his face which is so characteristic of him. I think that all three left the room and I was still undecided.

I also remember dreading having to go home to meet a couple which were relatives of Jane’s. I recall seeing a house next to our own with gaudy neon signs in the windows flashing something or other. I believe that this was their house and that they were either going to move next door or else were going to move in with us. I remember trying to avoid having to meet them for several days. I came home drunk one night and finally dared to walk into the living room to greet them. My wife was sitting in one chair and this couple was sitting on a sofa. I remember going over to him and leaning forward somewhat to greet him. He thought that I was leaning over to kiss him and was going to respond in kind. I told him that shaking hands would be good enough and, following this, went over to his wife. I kissed her lightly on the cheek and then saw her face turn ugly.

So much has happened to me by way of dreams, intuitions, and auto-writing episodes over the last three years, that it is important for me to try to pull it all together before it’s too late. The warnings I’ve been getting of late seem serious, and I know from my own state of health and well-being, that they are.

March 16, 1993

Summay of Previous Dreams

It’s been three years to the day since I wrote “Journey’s End”, and while I feel that a lot has happened to me during this time, I can’t help but feel that it’s been to little or no avail. The confusion I felt then is still with me today, although I must admit that I’ve experienced a good deal more since then.

What seems most obvious is that I have been guided, pleaded with, instructed, and warned of dire consequences which may befall me if I continue to allow these messages to go unheeded. Unfortunately the sources of these messages are not clear to me and, as a result, I have been reluctant to do anything about them except, perhaps, to seek further clarity. Only the situation now portends real danger and I seem to being running out of time. My dreams now allude to me crashing, breaking down, and evening dying. I guess that what I am doing is tantamount to doing myself in order to maintain my detachment from the unconscious. Only the message is that it has been to no avail. “Father” succeeds in winning over me and makes doubly sure that I am dead. If these are prophetic dreams, then something terrible is about to happen to me. For this reason, I need to analyze these happenings in order to forestall the disaster if at all possible.

I am still lonely, fatigued and despaired from not finding a solution to my problems. The obvious conclusion that is drawing near is that I may need professional help to get me through this, and that my hope of doing it on my own may be coming to end. But, how I loathe the thought of putting myself in incompetent hands, should this turn out to be the case. Who really understands the workings of the psyche?

After writing “Journey’s End” three years ago, I was left standing naked at the doorstep of my unconscious, trying to muster up the courage to re-clothe myself in truth. I have read its passages dozens upon dozens of times and feel as though they were written for me rather than by me. The fact is, that all of my thinking is now considered by me to be a common effort, even if I am unable to discern who or what else is working with or through me. The notion I had of consciousness has become all too flimsy by now; almost laughable when I consider how anyone could maintain it at all. My God, when one subtracts all that comes to it from the picture, there is little or nothing left–not even a sensation which it can lay claim to. We boast the most incredible aspects for consciousness and ego, and they are all lies. And yet, my thinking this has not safeguarded me from the wrath of my unconscious. I acknowledge its superiority over me; understand that I am nothing without it; but, nevertheless, do hold on to my conscious standpoint nonetheless. It is for this that I am being punished. I am being told in no uncertain terms that it is not alright to hang on to this illusion.

“Journey’s End”, together with my previous thinking, informed me that fate is in control and that it (and not society) is what I need to confront; that opposition and strife is our means to knowledge, truth or God; that there is no use in behaving like, or aspiring to be Gods ourselves; that if I want responsibility, I should convey and/or act upon my intuitions; that I should especially concentrate on my notions of “unlimited limitations” or the idea that we must be limited in order to progress and know.

My “Boat Dream” of August 1990 (not recorded) suggested that I’m carrying around a lot of junk on an archaic boat which is about to break up in a torrential storm (even though it’s moored in a mere puddle of water next to a ball park). The material possessions (or cargo of supposed “knowledge”) which the two thieves are stealing from me, are of no consequence. My unconscious will not act to rescue my belongings, nor act to save me from harm’s way. (I assume that “Bulldog” represents my unconscious). I assume that my dream is telling me that there are things in the unconscious (the old boat) which really do matter, however, and these are three mahogany doors which I notice standing on the rear deck as I run off the boat. Only I don’t know whether these stand for my wife and two daughters, or to three parts of my psyche, or to something else entirely.

My first “Wickes Dream” was with Harold Greenstein denying me a recommendation to become manager (based upon a personality profile not shown me in its entirety) suggests a crippling personal fear or uncertainty regarding my incompetence or personal viewpoints. Harold Greenstein represents a modern, empirical, skeptical (perhaps conservative) viewpoint which prides itself in being intelligent and superior to the wisdom of the ages. An “ordinary language” philosophy professor who influenced me a great deal while I was in college, although I always tugged in different directions. He accused me of straying into anthropology on at least two occasions. I felt as though he was of the opinion that his group of like thinkers was on to something powerfully big–bigger than all of the great philosophers that came before. Ludwig Wittgenstein was the new God, and my own thinking has been very much influenced by him. The dream may be suggesting that I am not entirely in agreement with this thinking (that is, I am open to other points of view) and I’m going to be punished as a result. Harold best represents my ego trying to maintain a modern viewpoint and, especially, maintaining an attitude of detachment, if not, superiority. My unconscious (that is, myself) was being reprimanded for daring to pose alternate views.

My “Sicily Dream” remains a complete mystery whose symbolism I cannot yet understand. Flying over villages which looked English at first and then Russian; traveling with two companions who actually were born in Sicily and came to this country in their early teens. I had to entice them to make the journey. They wanted to see their grandfather whose grave was exhumed, only the coffin turned out to be empty. Two laughing Italians had put the corpse inside of an animal in order to fool it into thinking it had young. In this way the animal gave milk. They were laughing and prided themselves with this feat, while the animal appeared to be no worse for the wear. What is the significance of the two thieves in the former dream and the two in this dream? Do they represent the outside world? Why two? In the boat dream they may think that they are stealing something of value from the unconscious; in this dream, that they are making the unconscious (represented by the old corpse) work for themselves–that they are in essence in control. Perhaps they best represent the outside, objective world, I don’t know.

“Graduation Ceremony” with thieves stealing diamond rings from young graduates. I was not an open thief, but was not above pocketing those rings I found upon the floor. Suffered some guilt. A willingness to do a wrong because I can get away with it–because it is hidden.

“Mammon Autowriting” was a major happening I feel. Here we have an interruption in thought which informed me that there is nothing in the world obliging any of us to resolve the perennial problems of the world, and that we should rest content with knowing whatever is necessary to know for the time; that such knowledge would be forthcoming to fit the occasion. I was told that “acknowledgement” is all we have and all that we are responsible for; anything else is illusion. “Mammon” then reveals himself as world, light, or perhaps all of the good things which are possible in life, short of crossing the line of excess. Mammon claims to be the “sweet tongue of the lord”, presumably an act of creation that went sour due to desecration by the ignorant and swayed. For this reason, Jesus did not know him and this has represented a terrible loss and agony. Now Mammon wishes me to side with him in order that I may better understand and bear my own burden. He also says that I may help others (or he may through me? or as me?). I don’t know whether this offer amounts to a “takeover” of myself or a “merger”. Worse, I don’t know whether I would be turning my back on Jesus if I were to join with mammon.

“Church Dream” with young girl being protected from myself by being in the confines of the church. Another scene with myself pinning down a homosexual who I knew was stronger than myself, but did not take advantage of the situation. He tried to convince me that some little girl’s dresses which were mixed in with my clothing were really boys clothing. I refused to believe this. I have had several of these dreams with seeming “sexual” messages. If they are informing me that I’m a latent homosexual, I wish they would be more explicit and get it over with. I certainly don’t feel like a homosexual and I’ve never had the urge to be one; but, perhaps, this goes along with latency and repression. At any rate, I doubt that knowing this would change my behavior or sexual preference in any way. My personal view is that so-called sexual preferences are an illusion inasmuch as they represent polarized abstractions which do not exist in fact. The same can be said for male and female characteristics. Nature may have had to make a definite determination in terms of physical characteristics, but there it ends; and in its place rests a broad, indefinable spectrum of unending variations.

It may be the case that these references to “homosexuals” are symbolic of something besides sex. After all, nature did not make this distinction; why suppose that my unconscious would mean it as we do. Perhaps it has something to do with self-love or the inability to love or accept myself. Maybe, my inner child or inner self wants me to come to him by my own volition. Perhaps my dreams are symbolic of an act of self-resistance. Or, if they are meant to be sexual in tone, perhaps I am pinning down sexual urges which I recognize to be stronger than my ability to resist, even though they do not force themselves upon me. Again, perhaps my unconscious is patiently waiting for me to release myself from a self-imposed bondage that ought not to exist. Maybe this is the message that the teacher (my anima?) has been trying to get over to me in the dream which comes after this one.

“Intuition” informing me that we are all living with illusions and that this must be the case since knowledge derives from experience and, therefore, action precedes knowledge! The world begets knowledge–not we. Experience provides us with “relative” anchors which are needed for on-going experience. Our task is not really to know, but simply to acknowledge what is given us. This is an extremely important point with far-reaching implications for all of us.

“Autowriting” reminding me of the above remarks–that to go on “thinking” without also experiencing what one is compelled to experience, is to beg trouble. I am reminded that there is a “moment in time when all obnoxious thoughts run amuck;” that “God times are never strengthened until erroneous types disintegrate within;” and that “The body cannot withstand the tormenting disposition imposed from without.” Again, this followed a writing episode which led (like so many other writings) to a sort of diffusion of thought, or else my intuitions showed me more possibilities than my thinking could handle. Thinking that is “obnoxious” may be thinking that considers itself to be a source or subject for the very things which were given it. Like Prometheus, it steals the fire from the sun and runs off half-cocked thinking that this alone can suffice–that knowledge detached from its source could ever be anything more than a frozen remnant of something which at one time, in one place, for one purpose, had been grand.

The allusion to “erroneous types within” is disturbing inasmuch as I am plagued with trying to understand what are “proper” types within. Knowing that there is this possibility of further confusion emanating from within, how am I to know which to integrate with? Worse, I suspect that what I said about polarized concepts above would also be true in this regard; that is, that such “types” may not be distinguishable as such but may blend with, or be part and parcel with consciousness on a routine basis. Psychological concepts, like all concepts, represent this arbitrary freezing of life which we believe actually identifies, delineates, or defines real characteristics. On the other hand, who is it but nature that produces such experiences? Even if the concepts are intended to be used as stepping stones to further ones (a ladder to climb–not to hold on to), still, they are real. The sin, then, is in the holding. This is the illusion!

But when we are presented with a notion or concept following an intuition or observation of something in our surroundings, how are we to know if it stemmed from an erroneous type or not? My experience does not answer this question but, instead, reminds me that I cannot physically withstand much more of this torment and that I may “run amuck” myself. Following this dire warning, I am told to go into the land and deliver these messages as they are given me; to pick up humanity in despair; to first “cringe” myself in order to cleanse body and soul; and walk straight and tall. Those that will fight me will fall by the wayside.

These so-called “auto-writing” sessions are not episodes in which I am taken over or seized by some power. They are merely relaxed moments, generally following a period of frustration, when I feel desperate enough to ask for help. I merely permit myself to write whatever comes to mind, no matter how ridiculous it may sound. I believe that this relaxes consciousness enough to permit a flow of unconscious elements. Even if the entire production turns out to have been staged by my consciousness acting alone, still it is a noteworthy undertaking judging from the results. After all, we talk to ourselves and provide answers to questions posed by ourselves on a routine basis. On the other hand, since my dreams seem to be in sync with these auto-messages, delivering the same complementary or compensatory messages in a similar fashion, oftentimes, the one serving as a response to some question posed by the other, I rather suspect that there is something more at work here. In any regard, aside from the dire warnings of further harm to myself, there are two messages which seem clear: I am to let go of consciousness (or my inflated ego) and I am to act–that is, rejoin the world.

My “auto-writing” message of 10/27/92 was also a big one. This time, I am given two messages separated by some interceding thoughts following the first. Again, the messages have worldly characteristics and I assume that I am dealing with mammon. There is an even stronger urgency attached to these messages than before. I am told now that it is not possible to “recompense” earth; that there is no time for “forbiddance”; nowhere is there “forgiveness to bear or time to be undone”. I presume that I am supposed to drop these (self-imposed?) shackles; told to forget about the lost art of words which are really not becoming of me; be true to my quest for heaven, and hear only what bade me to it. Again, I am warned of false prophets resting within me and also within the bearer of this message; that we are both struggling to see God; and that I should let go of my conscience and deliver it over to himself who will carry me over the threshold that rests beyond me. However, I never felt that my struggle had anything to do with seeing God. Rather, I simply want to demonstrate my worthiness, and thereby demonstrate that others may be worthy as well; that we (as a society) might find the means to integrate with nature rather than oppose her, ourselves and others; that we are, at least, worthy and deserving of this hope and end. Mammon tells me that I should release myself from this burden which I call living and he calls nothing. Again, I presume that he is referring to my half-starved existence and not that I should give up my life altogether. The first message ends with another reminder that I, and others like me, are “heaven-bound” and that “together is our strength.”

Following this, I recorded my suspicions that I may only be talking to myself and not to some unconscious source within me; that I am not in a position to know whether or not he represents one of the “false prophets” I’ve been warned about; that he has not identified himself except for the first time when he alluded to the birth of Jesus and his reluctance to have anything to do with him. I wanted him to reveal himself for what he is so that I might join with him in serving our destiny.

The second message begins with “I shudder to make this so.” and I can’t be certain as to what part of my message he is referring to–that “I should join with him”? He tells me about God’s struggle with Lucifer and that they need to be reunited since they are of equal strength; that I should pay attention to what Jung’s words express rather than to his concepts. [These are personal conclusions which I have already formed within my own thought]; that I should pay attention to Emerson since he is closest to “knowing how to let go” [again, conclusions in keeping with my own thinking]. The part that I especially like about this message, however, is something which I have never put into words before or thought necessarily. After reminding me that we are one and that he will be with me in all that I say and write; and also that we are brothers and sisters and mothers and fathers and the whole of humanity and soul of earth, he says simply: “You have a sense of this, do you not? You want to do some good, recompense your loved ones, show the world your humanity and the love you feel and desire. Yours is the cry of heaven and the pain of hell; both beseeching unity.” Now I do have a sense of this support coming from all of humanity, but I have never really thought it. And to sum-up my wants or mission in life so simply and yet so penetratingly accurate, is for me astounding. Yes, this is the essence of what I desire at present–to compensate my loved ones, show the world my humanity and the love I both feel and desire–only I never could have put it so succinctly, let alone flying at the keyboard. The message then tells me to gain a sense of wholeness from reading Emerson, and also reminds me that my faith is weak and that I do not trust because I fear that there is too much to lose, or else am in the grip of “him” who keeps me apart? I am further reminded that Nietzsche came undone because he sought God through opposition rather than “step his way”, and that the way to closure (that is, the path to God and unity) is like an open zipper–together until the end is reached.

I don’t know who “him” refers to. To my way of thinking, this could refer to either Jesus or Lucifer since Jesus may not be in agreement with my forming a pact with mammon, and Lucifer would not be too happy with my heading toward God. According to biblical text, Jesus said that we cannot serve both God and mammon, and yet, mammon refers to himself as the “sweet tongue of the lord”, a worthwhile creation before things got bad due to the ignorant and swayed, or the excesses characteristic of Babylon of old. In spite of Jesus’ claim, he seems very confident that both he and I can join forces and reach God. Only the dilemma remains for myself–who to trust and why?

A whole series of dream activity followed these “messages” until the present; and, again, there are ominous warnings growing increasingly clearer as what they portend grows nearer. I am not going to continue writing for some imagined readership, however, since the dreams are too long, too many, and too important to expend the time that it takes to relate and discuss them. I am looking for insights, commonality and direction from this point on.

I must act. My moral dilemma and sense of confusion stems from inaction and a too passive nature. I am heading for the hospital or worse. I am isolating myself in a “puffed-up illusory world”. My crime is that I have refused to live; that I have denied life. Even if I am in the grips of fate, I can still learn. Not to move–to resist fate–is to crash eventually. There is no other choice in this matter. The world will not wait for me. I must accept life for what it is. I must not resist it however it comes to me. My life (and the blinders I wear) are no different than my father’s. My life has historical significance and its parts may have value. But I must resist this temptation toward disunity and keep myself whole. I can and ought to trust that its integrity will be safeguarded by mammon or self. I am going to discover a rigid world when I enter it. I am going to upset a large number of people, especially those in authority who will be extremely aggravated by my presence, but who, hopefully, will not be able to dispute the messages I am bringing. I must refrain from trying to make the best out of inferior situations and circumstances and dare to do what I am capable of doing. My anima or unconscious is impatient with my arrogant pretense of knowing when I do not; and of thinking myself above or apart from it all when I am not. She shows signs of giving up the struggle and is not about to put up with my defenses.

Two dreams with her characterized as a teacher. As I said, I refused to listen to her message in the first dream (12/28/92) and in the second (3/10/93) she was going to make sure that I would have to pass the test by setting up a security device in the classroom to ensure that I couldn’t escape. As it turned out, I set-off the security device in my dream and put a stop to this attempt. After this, my dreams grew more ominous.

I am going far afield in proving myself instead of hitting things head on. I am trying to control something which is much more powerful than I. My actions, in fact, amount to an attempt to kill off my unconscious whether I mean it or not (perhaps through starvation or by what amounts to a breakdown of body and mind). My unconscious has demonstrated in no uncertain terms that it is I who will die by its hand (a drowning in my dream of 3/16/93), and to ensure it, “father” drowned me twice!

Harold Greenstein appears once again in another dream on this same night and I am somewhat more in tune with him. I now know him for what he is or stands for (modern-day delusions of grandeur), although I am still under some of this influence. I suspect that this same standpoint has been my own despite my willingness to credit the world and my unconscious with all that I have come to know. I sense that this is not enough–that I must desist from my aloofness, as something separate, and join with it in our natural state. In joining it, I join the world and this means all of the ugliness that comes with it. Again, “to be or not to be” is the question I need to raise to myself. If I choose to live, then I must choose it! I will have to learn to brave or resist what I can’t stand rather than avoid such persons and issues altogether. I will have to accept the challenges that befall me for what they are, rather than for what I might imagine it to be.

March 17, 1993

I

THE SIN

We are given wholes through experience, anchors to serve as stepping stones, taking us into the present and beyond. Only instead of acceptance through acknowledgement, and use inherent in its own given structures, we take these treasures for our very own and try to shellac and preserve their images. Nature cries to us to stop this thievery–but to no avail. Unwary of what we are doing, we continue down the road to destruction.

What is the nature of this sin? you ask. It is the self-same Promethean sin of mythology–only it is not myth. Attempting to steal fire from the sun, or knowledge from the gods, has been a perennial problem and constant source of aggravation for humankind; and it persists. We seem as ignorant of its consequences today as were our ancestors, even though nature has never denied us understanding. On the contrary, she has never ceased to give her gifts; never ceased to show us the error of our ways, or how we might correct our situations. Only hers is a language which is no longer familiar to us. We do not comprehend; do not realize that words are unbecoming her, nor realize that ours is a language that shields us from truth!

Why do we deny ourselves this understanding?–choosing delusion over truth; denial over acceptance of all that is given? Because we have become dissociated from all that we are. Because we believe ourselves to stand apart from nature; pinnacled registrars of all that surrounds us. We believe ourselves judges, discerners, controllers, and even benefactors to nature. We have the fire–and it is ours! And so we perpetuate this myth while nature waits patiently.

What we fail to see is that this incessant turmoil we feel within is of our own making; that opposition and polarization, limitation and extension, is nature’s way–her gift to us. Rather than accept and guarantee the sanctity of opposites, we, instead, choose one side over the other, and then fight to maintain “our” individual standpoints. Because we do not see such preferences as arbitrary, we seize upon differences rather than commonality; we choose not to see beyond the narrow confines of our own perspectives. We believe our “part” to be “wholes”, and struggle to persevere and to perpetuate. We “teach”–we “preach”–we “civilize” from half perspectives. And nature withstands.

Only nature does not observe us as we do her. We love to claim that she is detached and unconcerned, a “universal accident”–but this is only to better hide our own sins of omission. Nature is everywhere within and surrounding us, and we know it. We take, and take, and take from her–and then deny that we have done so. We cling to the illusion that she is “material” and we “life”, and thus, have a right to claim her gifts as our own. We think we are building “self-images” through this process of acceptance, usurpation and denial–only they are false. Deep down inside, we rightly sense that something is missing from our pictures, but we are by now strangers to such feelings, and don’t quite know what to do with them. The road traveled has been long, and the environment is no longer recognizable. And while we struggle to maintain our separate identities, nature struggles to correct the transgression–struggles to show us the way out of the dilemma. She informs us of our errors and circumstances through feelings, intuitions, dreams and thoughts, and, perhaps, in other ways which are not yet understood. But for us, it is all intangible garble–how deep this shallow pond! In characteristic fashion, we hold steadfast to the illusion of an “objective reality”, by simply refusing to look at its subjective counterpart. And nature suffers us.

Who am I to speak of such things?–for all of you? I don’t know. Neither do I know that what is true of me is true of you–only I sense that it is. I sense that your difficulties are similar to my own; not everyone’s, to be sure–not everywhere; but it is sufficient to note that broad similarities do exist, and that they translate into clearly identifiable problems. To me, personal problems are no different than societal or global problems, and these in turn have their so-called “physical” counterparts which follow the same laws. This should not surprise us, however, since all of it arises from the same fertile soil, no matter how different surface characteristics. I repeat: polarization is everywhere, and it is not our enemy! Like limitation, it is nature’s gift and the way of fate. I would also claim that despite our outer characteristics, all opposing counterparts are also contained within us, though we will do almost anything not to face this thought. But this is only to say that the world is complete–a whole–and, therefore, so are we. Every deviation has a counterbalance; every latitude a breaking point. Let’s admit it, we know when we have gone too far.

Again, our very survival is tied to our accepting nature for what she is; and this means having to recognize and admit that we are not in control. To be sure, we have our parameters in which to exercise “free will”, but this practice, where it exists, is more like an abstention rather than an act of will. Our sense of “will” is always felt as a struggle against a power greater than we. This is not control or dominance by any stretch of the imagination–it is sheer ignorance and futility if not seen in its correct light. Yes, we are capable of stealing the fire and creating the illusion of a separate existence. But this does not change the fact that we are dealing with illusions! Having no life support of their own other than what nature permits, they remain paltry, utterly embarrassing emblems of humankind. We have only to look around us to recognize how pathetic our situation really is. Our salvation, it would seem, does not lie in perpetuating this myth–but in making it obsolete!

II

LANGUAGE & ILLUSION

Now at this point, we might ask why “conscious illusions” of polarization, separation, and freedom exist at all in nature? Why have this awareness of separation if there is none in reality? And if nature is truly a unity, how is it that a part can distinguish itself from the whole? And if I want to remain true to what I’ve already stated above, I might answer: “But this is the fallacy! We never do make such distinctions–only nature does.” I might then go on to demonstrate how our usage or misusage of language leads us astray, especially when we unknowingly transport meaning from one context to another. It is this kind of activity that leads to philosophical puzzlement. It is this that beguiles us. Yes, language can lead us astray–but only if we allow it–only if we are willing to deny the obvious.

If you found this last paragraph perplexing, or somewhat disheartening, while you did not feel the same way up to this point, allow me to offer an explanation as to why it may have had this affect. Up to this point, I was utilizing language to describe perceptions, visions, and the like; that is, “picture representations” of real or imagined experiences which you, the reader, could also try on for size. But when I switched from experiential descriptions to posing “why” questions, without knowing it, I was committing the Promethean sin–“stealing the fire” from experience. Not that we can never ask “why” questions, we can. But when we do, there must be an experience in mind to envision or recall. Without this, our words are dead. It is not the fact of an “awareness of separation” that I’m objecting to, it is the illusory implications which result from denying the experience. Language helps us to do this, especially when it is absent from life–its illusory state. So-called “ordinary language philosophers” are right to examine the consequences of these misuses of language, only they need to make certain that they, themselves, do not fall into the very snares they are attempting to expose. They need, in other words, to hang on to experience!

So where does all of this leave us? I believe it leaves us at a sort of threshold. If we are to save ourselves from our own confusion, we must first expose the promethean myth for what it is–illusion. Next, we must come to recognize ourselves for what we are–an integral part of nature–not above her, not beside her, and surely not separate from her in the way that we would like to believe. Polarization and consciousness are each gifts of nature existing within nature. We need to understand this phenomena–not alter it in a way that suits us. This does not mean blind acceptance of everything that comes our way, for this would contradict the possibility of denial which we know to exist. But it does suggests that we should, perhaps, hold on to an unconditional faith or belief in the ultimate correctness (if not goodness) of nature. After all, we can clearly see (if we want to, that is) that nature is everything and everything is within nature. Experience will simply not permit us to envision any other conclusion. We can, of course, hang on to an illusion of here a void and there a universe, here a god and there a creation–but we already know the nature of this deceit. We only have to acknowledge it–that is, confess it!

Finally, we must stand ready to recognize and acknowledge what nature has in store for us, since we cannot, nor should we, deny our separate identities within nature, or our sense of “freedom”, for that matter. Both notions have their rightful place in experience, and also in language. It is only when “language goes on holiday”, says Ludwig Wittgenstein (patriarch of the ordinary language school of philosophy), “that we run amuck.” And, of course, “language on holiday” translates to “language devoid of experience”–its only meaningful context. And while such misapplication can be shown to leave the door open to meaningless or illusory contexts of usages, it is not language that is to blame–it is ourselves. On the other hand, language does provide us with a convenient excuse for our transgressions. It allows us to “save face”.

I WANT NOW TO LAUNCH INTO A VICIOUS ATTACK ON WHAT WE’VE BECOME, POINTING TO THE FILTH OF OUR OWN MAKING–BUT I MUST RESIST FOR MY OWN STATE OF MIND. I’LL GET SICK IF I TRY TO PUT SO MUCH FEELING INTO WORDS.

III

NATURE’S CHALLENGE TO US

============================================================

March 24, 1993

Where is my place? I cannot go on living with mere shimmering of things yet to come–to know–to be hoped for, only never quite reached–never quite interpreted. What is my purpose?

I cannot live with this compulsion to continue in this vein without knowing where it is I’m going. I recognize that I am a part of something greater than I–only what part?–where?–why? Why, in fact, am I?

What can I do with glimmerings and shimmering that cannot be put into words? Is this my task nonetheless? Am I to attempt to express the same without benefit of a poet’s or prophet’s tongue? Or will meaning come through intuited visions? Okay, then, let me make such an attempt right now!

I sense a certain futility in knowing; that what we regard as knowledge is illusion; that…

I sense that I want to remove confusion and pain from life and to establish appropriate values…

I sense that I need to settle my affairs with my wife and acknowledge to myself and to her that I cannot change from the course I am on–even though I do not understand it.

I see myself in a simple, rural environment, leading a life which seems to be filled with happiness in spite of its dangers. I am alone and I am vulnerable. I am also afraid.

I now sense that what I claim I can offer to others is not true–not valid; that in fact, I am fostering the very illusions I wish to discredit for the sake of earning a living, meeting obligations, and all the rest of the constraints which modern life imposes. It seems to be Fate that compels me to flow with the same for lack of better alternatives; whether “to choose or not to choose”, within the time allotted. Or is “choice” merely an illusion stemming from the compulsion to act? That so long as life compels us–forces us toward one action or another–once we’ve arrived, there is nothing preventing us from claiming that we got there by choice. But why not claim this? We are aware of a sense of urgency compelling us; aware of the potential consequences of either acting or not acting; and, finally, we are aware of the action or subsequent events themselves, whether or not we chose them.

It is because we are at first only conscious of the compulsion, without yet knowing the means to satisfying it, that we come by our sense of free will. When a given option presents itself to us, or several options one after the other, we may feel compelled to settle upon the one, or may forestall such a “decision” because we are still in a state of confusion. We may do some mental arithmetic, considering probable consequences of acting in one way or another, and then arrive at a decision. Why would nature bother with such diversionary tactics if they were not real? And yet, there is a certain sense of futility when trying to express the existence of freedom within the confines of a controlling universe.

I sense now that I have used a lot of words to express thoughts… and feelings; or that my words were, perhaps, turned into thoughts in an attempt to satisfy feeling alone; that it may, in fact, have been feeling–not thought–that compelled me from the start. And yet, it seems to have been to no avail, as though the words had little or nothing to do with the satisfaction of the feeling; that my feelings had little or nothing to do with a longing for “freedom”. It seems, rather, that all I wanted was a rest from whatever it is that compels me toward the intangible. For the fact is, I am not looking for the meaning of life, for God, or for eternal truths; I am beseeching relative peace and harmony. I want to know only what I must do to satisfy this incessant sense of wanting something which I seem unable to grasp. If I am compelled or pre-destined, so be it–just let me know that this is so and I will accept suffering. But, if I am “relatively” free to shape my world, then why am I not doing it? Why stuck? Why can’t I act?

I am still left with feelings that I don’t understand, and they do not speak to me,–neither do they compel me to act in one way or another. Or is this true? Couldn’t it also be possible that I am in some way separated from my feelings, or else am “choosing” to ignore them for the sake of something else. Can’t one choose to resist? But why? for what reason? Fear of risk? Fear of hurting others? Fear of disappointing family members? Fear of social chastisement? Fear of potentially dissatisfying future consequences? Fear of revealing some truth about myself, to myself? Fear of self-humiliation? Fear of truth?

Now I do find it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to act in a way that is beneficial to myself, if doing so will cause another pain. It appears that I would rather we both suffer the consequences stemming from inaction, rather than commit what seems to me to be the greater crime. By refusing to take control of myself in order to gain satisfaction, I seem to believe that these self-imposed restrictions represent some form of sacred martyrdom. I reluctantly give up my relative freedom for the sake of this greater sacrificial commitment; only I now know it to be a commitment that runs counter to life. It is an ideal that refuses to accept the world for what it is; and, whether my motivation stems from a fear of failure, or for some other “greater good”, it is, nonetheless, an ideal that rejects life!

From what source this feeling that opposes me to life? I don’t know, except that it is tormenting. But, if all that I comprise stems from nature–that I am nature’s own–then how is it that nature can oppose herself within me, or through me? How is it possible to be compelled to act in a certain way, and, at the same time, be compelled to resist? How can a single thing be opposed to itself? Obviously, we are not here dealing with a single thing; but with individual parts belonging to the same. But does this mean that we must suppose a duality of mind? or that this opposition can be explained by the relationship we experience with the world? But, of course, distinctions aside (or returned to their source)–we are all world!

Outside world can restrain us while the inside world compels us. And, yet, we feel that it is the inside that is doing the restraining while the outside compels.

I do not always refuse to act from nature–from myself; then when is it permissible and when not? While confusion reigns, the dilemma persists. But what is the source of this confusion? Thought or feeling?–Do I “think” that I should act or not act, or do I “feel” this compulsion?

March 25, 1993

Jung presented us with a hierarchical preference model which places the basic attitudes of extroversion and introversion at the base, then the two functions of perception and judgement, then sub-distinctions within each of these group, then usages of auxiliary functions, and finally the effects of the combinations of the same at the top. It is no accident that the model converges at the top in pyramidal form. In essence, it ends at the point whereby everything which was distinguished from below, comes full circle and blends anew. Jung’s model is his “stretch”; the beginning and the end of his thought which finally arrives at its starting point. When one succeeds in this, I think it fair to say that one has completed the task. What can be gleaned from this forced excursion is all that should matter to us, for if we are able to grasp its significance, we will have made another step.

E (E, EN)

I (IS, EN)

EJ (ET, EF)

IJ (IT, IF)

Lo and behold! When we deal with E-I and P-J characteristics as being the most important, we in fact arrive at Jung’s eight classifications!

Kathryn Briggs did not fully appreciate Jung’s meaning of extroversion and introversion. She wrongly assumed that because we might have introverted or extroverted preferences, that this implies that we will “have” introverted or extroverted perceptions, and will “make” introverted or extroverted judgments. But what does it mean to have an introverted or extroverted perception or judgment? That we are able to “apply” these to either the outside or inside worlds? Yes, we can do this, but only after the fact–only after they have already occurred.

If I am looking at a tree in my back yard, does this constitute an extroverted perception or an introverted one? You say, “it all depends upon the direction my interest takes?… that if my attention is drawn toward the tree, it is extroverted, and, if it remains with the impression, it is introverted?” Well how will I know this until I have first received the impression? You say that the impression will accompany the observation? Well, how will I know whether it’s `the tree’ or `my impression of it’ that is directing my interest? And if my interest compels me to then act on my observation (climb it, care for it, or chop it down), must I suppose there to be an interceding judgment between my perception and the action?

THIS IS THINKING WITH WORDS AND IT IS TO NO AVAIL!

How can I go on thinking in this way when I understand already the futility of such thinking? Only what am I to do? Everyone else is “thinking” in these veins and I can’t help but conclude that their results are as bogus as my own. But am I going to claim that thinking is illusion and that all the great and famous thinkers were fools? That the thoughts of each and every one of them can be driven to the wall and revealed for what they are–hollow! But is this true? Because they cannot hold up to intense scrutiny, does this mean that they are worthless?

When is a thought or a description or an explanation worthwhile? When it is useful? But does it have to be accurate or true or known to be useful? No! To ask questions like: “What is it that motivates me?” or “What are my personal characteristics?” is always confusing. What am I asking for? It seems as though such questions are unintelligible unless we first know what answers are possible; that sense or meaning is really contained within a closed system; that this system must be taken as a whole or not at all.
But what is this closed system of thought? What does it consist of? How does it work? And isn’t this notion merely an intuition requiring further explanation?–further thought? So why did I raise it? Because I wanted to explain why confusion reigns with certain types of thinking; that abstract thinking, in particular, runs far afield. But this is not to say that abstractions are worthless in themselves–only abstractions subjected to thought.

Why do I keep returning to thought? Because I see others putting their thoughts to good use, flimsy though it is. They are making money with books and programs that barely scratch the surface of thought and, especially, the thought of those they attempt to relate to the rest of us. I feel comfortable enough with Jungian thinking to feel quite certain that I can synthesize his main principles into a coherent, concise body of thought, though I already know that it will fall far short of what it portends. But this would be a long, difficult and tedious task, and for what? If I can already follow lines of his thinking to their logical conclusions, and in doing so, am able to point to inconsistencies here and there, or reveal the looseness of the ground underlying many of his conclusions, why expend this effort? Only, what is left for me?

Surely, there are a lot of others who can and do make the same claims, but, rather than decry the situation, they seem to take full advantage of it. They write books and offer programs based upon criticisms (more often inaccurate than not) of the great genius’ of the past, and offer bogus thinking of the worse kind. The great thinkers suffered for the most part. They strove to know, to disentangle, to reveal truth at almost any cost to themselves. The modern “sages” I am referring to are nothing but bloodsuckers! And I won’t be one of them, no matter how tempting this might be!

What is it about Emerson that makes him so immune from my sense of criticism? How is it that he is able to soar above it all and never get his wings muddied. It is difficult for me to run amuck with Emerson, although I can’t be sure if it’s because I’m in so much agreement, or because he never touches earth. His conceptions seem undeniable to me; intuitions supporting intuitions seeming without end–and always remaining unsoiled by thought. Is this what is so special about Emerson? That he is able to relate and flow with his intuitions from a unified standpoint? That he was so in touch with the flow of nature within and through him, that anything else would have been a fruitless and unnecessary abstraction?

If I had his gifts, I would want to ring out my own intuitions in the same way, and pray that they would be of the same material. Short of this, perhaps I should ring out his truths for others, for, even though there are many places where I am lost in misunderstanding, still, he never fails to pick me back up to continue the journey. And I am always left with the feeling that nothing was missed. Emerson was very forgiving in this way. Although his words may on occasion rise above one’s level of comprehension, he never did himself. On the contrary, he comes back again and again to lift us up with ever new wings.

March 28, 1993

Where am I going? What will I be doing? How will I decide? At what point will I know?

I will not know where I am going until I’ve arrived. What I do know is that I must first sort the present in order to step my way into the future. I now know also that I cannot look back with regret, nor can I carry such baggage with me. Rather, I must lighten my load without regret or shame, and throw off the shackles of reason. I must stand alone before I can walk. No one can do this for me, nor can I be expected to stand while carrying another’s burden. I must understand that this burden is already a part of me, and, thus, should not be added to itself through useless thought and burdensome feeling. My father must make his own peace–and I, mine. His illusions, hopes and fears, have been my own through all my years, and though I’ve carried them in different guise, they are yet mine. The same is true for my mother. I must not look to them to make my peace, but, perhaps, must complete their ends through my beginning. Only then will we know that all goes well–that neither has lived in vain.

I must walk alone and not look back, trusting that what flows from me is proper and right; that I am the fulfillment of all that I am–that my ancestry lives through me. Above all, I must feel my direction from this source alone. My life has aptly demonstrated the fact that all else is illusion, and at best, can only provide me with false representations and distortions to live by. And it is precisely these that have blinded and confused me, driving me ever further from myself and others. I have opposed “reason” to compulsion and action, pretending to myself that this alone could suffice to show me the way. This illusion–that reason could be severed from its source;–can be opposed to nature;–has been mine all along–represents a dissociation of the worse kind. No wonder it threatens to crush me.

I must walk alone and neither should I look to society for guidance. In some way, I sense that I am related to society in the same way as I am to my direct lineage; that those “separations” which we imagine to exist, will one day be found to be illusory; that society’s own peace or end will be decided upon by what each one of us does, or doesn’t do, in accordance to the dictates of his or her own mind. But speaking in this way of others is to get off my personal track and to invite illusion. For it is likely that we can never speak for others except through our actions, and these, if they are to be legitimate, will always stem from within.

I must walk alone with the faith that my relationship to nature, whether from without or within, is the very same relationship. Thus, I must be wary that I do not take my abstractions to heart, believing them to have lives of their own–for they do not. They are always given us by nature, and never do they represent creations which we can rightly call our own, though we will insist that this is so. The price we pay for distortion–is distortion. We feel certain that what we take from nature is what is given us, and do not see that we are only getting what we take; that is, illusions of life severed from life. We do not see that what we hold so dear is in fact dead.

I must walk alone and trust that my own awareness will reestablish me to myself and that my future actions will in some way have a positive impact upon others. But, again, I cannot count on this since this is nature’s business alone. I can only try to be true to what I am, which is no easy task. I must be who I am, only how do I learn to do this? Does it mean that I should pay closer attention to feelings and intuitions as they arise within me? or that I must learn how to interpret their significance? or else whatever action it is that I am being compelled to take? Will “acknowledgement” and “action” be my sole obligation in life? And what if my felt want or compulsion to act in one way or another runs counter to what I believe to be appropriate for myself and others? Or ought I to trust that this will never happen?–that this fear is born out of a mistrust of nature. Only how did this mistrust of nature arise? and was there good reason? I seem to want to maintain my individuality at the same time as I want to trust (and rejoin myself to) nature. But is this possible?

April 2, 1993

Two days ago, I was feeling a little angry with my father regarding his attitude of not wanting any of his children to perform beyond his own capabilities. If he is unsure of himself, then everyone will be held to his level of competence or confidence, which isn’t very high I might add. In any regard, it gnawed at me throughout the day following a telephone conversation with him in which this attitude was only too apparent. Our coming trip to Sicily (beginning this Sunday) is bound to be taxing on my soul at least.

DREAM:That night I dreamt that I was visiting some kind of indoor construction operation where some very good carpenters were at work creating special top jambs for double doors. What they were making does not exist in fact, but it intrigued me to see the expert way in which they handled themselves. Two men were making quick curved marks along a thick jamb (comprising several boards nailed together. First the one drew a curved line and then the other approximately six inches further down the board. They did this several times more without measurements of any kind. I marveled at their ability to do this. Then another “pro” took a back saw and began sawing where these lines were located. I remember thinking to myself that he couldn’t possibility be following the “curved” lines with that type of saw.

I recall that I had come by car and that I was carrying a corpse with me which I felt I had to get rid of. At some time in the dream (I don’t remember), I brought the corpse inside and laid it (on a door at first?) or else on the floor. I then began talking to one or more of the men about what fine carpenters they were and that I always loved carpentry myself. The boss or owner muttered something religious and I thought what a nice person he must be. Actually, I identified him with one of two brothers who actually do each have construction companies in Rochester. The one brother recently got into some trouble with the law, accused of selling drugs, while the other brother was known for his honesty, even though his company was much smaller. At any rate, I went on complementing their abilities and said that I might want to join a company like theirs some day.

I remember that one of the men was a large black man who was shirtless and very strong. He seemed to represent someone who was strong and silent, and who was not to be reckoned with. He seemed to be apart from the others. I remember that I was going to leave this place for some reason and that as I was walking toward the door (I believe dragging the corpse behind me on a door, although I’m not certain of this), I noticed a deep hole in the floor (it was a dirt floor) and I remember being tempted to drop the body in it in order to rid myself of it. It was a warm day and it was beginning to smell. I sense that I was in possession of it for several days. I believe I left it there alongside the hole and walked out.

The next thing I remember is that I am returning and now I have a huge mountain of sand in front of me. I find that I’m on a motorcars (dirt bike) and am able to charge up hill upon hill, in full control, and able to climb to the very top. I see large doors closing ahead of me and I’m thinking about making a mad dash in order to squeeze in before they close. Somehow I found myself inside again.

Only this time the two carpenters that I was so impressed with were treating me strange. In fact, they were trying to get me to step out of this door over on one side of the factory. I recognized that they were trying to kill me and pulled back away. I began talking to the one guy, asking why he was trying to kill me, and how could he do it when he is such a nice guy, etc. I sensed that I was in real danger as we began walking along at a fast pace with him at my side admonishing me and I, him. I sensed that I had to talk fast and kept hammering home the fact that I thought he the others were so great. How could he act like this. I don’t remember what he was saying, but I think he had some legitimacy.

I recall seeing the original door they were working on now complete. It appeared to be a double door hung in a frame with a very thick top jamb. I then noticed that “my door” (I don’t know where this came from) had the same thing and this didn’t seem to be anything special at all, except that theirs was constructed piecemeal while mine was ready-made. I then remember standing in front of my door which was hanging loosely in a frame. Only it was shaped like a hour-glass and looked old, curly and gnarly as though it were a two-inch thick cut of a tree with its bark still on it.

I suddenly felt (or awoke from the dream feeling) puzzled over this sudden turn of events. I wanted to know how these persons could be so good at one time and so bad at another. I sensed that the message was just this; that there is no good or bad, but that I, myself, could effect the same; that I could cause such changes.

It seems that I’m having a lot of “dead body” dreams, and I’m beginning to suspect that it’s a part of me that I’m carry around like a loadstone around my neck. Again, “doors” have been in several of my dreams and I still do not understand their significance. The three beautifully carved mahogany doors of my dream of two years ago is a far cry from the shabby one that now stands before me. The window in my “Wickes” dream last month had similarities, and especially my successful ride up the hill on a fork truck, and my unknown, seemingly perilous ride down the hill on the back of a very large bear. Am I being warned that if I climb too high, no matter how successful I might be, it’s going to be perilous coming down? If the old, gnarly door in front of me represents my entry into the unconscious, am I being warned (by the workman’s change of attitude) that I will have to be on guard? Or is it telling me that the attitude I am carrying around (my corpse) will have such a dangerous outcome? Must I deal with this before entering the unconscious, or before allowing it to enter me? I don’t know the answers except to say that I’ve been kind of slow and dragging since my dream. It may be due to the upcoming trip to Sicily which I can’t get excited about since I feel that my father has all but made a nuisance out of himself and dread that he will do something even more regrettable yet in his quest for unconditional respect.

April 20, 1993

Emptiness and wanting
Incessant longing
Never permitting
Never absconding

Where is my peace
Permit me to know
Where lies my destiny
Where must I go

Why am I unable to adapt to this world? Because I am filled with resentment. Because I am dissatisfied with myself and others and the whole turn of events. Because these feelings run counter to life.

But, is my failure to adapt to the world due to having such feelings or to a failure to act upon the same? Am I growing more and more stifled merely because I am more and more withdrawing from life? Is my alienation, in other words, a product of my own making? If so, could it also be the case that the “half-baked” perspectives I so often attribute to others are my own? the direct result of not having tempered my thoughts and feelings in the fire of life? Can alienation of this sort ever be appropriate?

I have observed and received from external and internal sources throughout my life, but have never truly given of myself. I have not had the courage to reveal my true thoughts and feelings; have not had the courage to pit them against their proper counterparts; have not dared to see their true significance; have not dared to live–or dared to be me!

From whence arises such cowardice? From an overwhelming sense that it is all to no avail? That neither I nor anyone else can answer the tormenting questions of life? That it is easiest to withdraw from and then criticize the actions of others while posing untried theories and generalities of one’s own?–I’m not certain. Only, I did not ask to be on the sidelines of life. I would have loved to have made a difference if I could have. It seems that I couldn’t.

But who are we to judge the validity of such actions or inaction? I will not know if all has been to no avail until I’ve put my materials into the world and have seen whether or not they prove to have merit. Only I’m not sure that my ideas are expressible as such. For I have not been given more than piece-meal, intuitive glimpses of patterns and possibilities which, more often than not, remain inexplicable for any given application I may try to put them to. It seems that the real test of them will be to see how they work within the flow of life, rather than arbitrarily frozen scenarios taken from life. Whether or not I have a store of useful possibilities for a renewal of life is the real question that remains to be answered. It may be that my storehouse merely contains a lifetime’s worth of insignificant, empty illusions and delusions, of little or no consequence for that. Only, I remain hopeful that I will, instead, find thousands of complementary counterparts which will complete and give life to my thoughts.

And yet, I still find the compulsion for wanting to sum-up my situation and circumstances prior to acting, to be extremely difficult to quell. It seems proper and fitting that I should outline what I intend to do–that I should, at least, consider my purpose or end sought. On the other hand, I am beginning to recognize that such concerns only have validity for those who are already participating in life, and not for myself on this account. For it is precisely because of my non-participation and extreme one-sidedness, that I am presently encumbered by a good deal of inner illusion and delusion. Besides, I know instinctively that the ends and purposes I require are already contained in the compulsions which are pushing me outside. Their compensatory value is very clear to me. So the real conflict, then, boils down to my inability to deal with conflict; my general reluctance to choose or simply accept an action which I intuitively understand to be appropriate. But what of the consequences of such actions to others? Have their best interests been considered? Or do my compulsions work merely on my own behalf?

Life would be easy if we only had to consider ourselves, or if our actions only affected ourselves. But with relationship comes feeling, obligation, and responsibility for others beside ourselves. In a larger sense, then, the whole of society is carried about by each of us, and, directly or indirectly, knowingly or unknowingly, is shown at least some consideration for each and every act we commit. Regardless, it will always be up to myself to right my own situation and if this includes the lives of others, then so be it. What this means is that I must dare to act on the other’s behalf as well as our own. But this too appears to be somewhat out of reach for me. For my problem is not so much the result of not being able to figure out an appropriate action, but a general reluctance to take any action whatever. Because I have not found sure guidance in life, I am still awaiting it from up above. I want to be told in no uncertain terms what is appropriate and what is not. I seem unprepared to decide the question for myself, although I must admit to a titillating feeling deep down inside of me should I ever be convinced of the appropriateness of such an action. I suspect that I would like nothing better than to decide such issues for myself. It’s just that I need permission. Who will give it to me?

But do I have the courage? Why not suppose that the permission to decide the appropriateness of all such issues has already been granted me. I now can take charge of my own life and rest contented in knowing that whatever I decide will be alright in heaven if not on earth. What would I do? I guess that I would sum-up my current situation for what it is and go from there.

nMy income is less than my expenses and is causing a great deal of difficulty and embarrassment in my life as well as for my wife and children. I am growing increasingly in debt and am without the means to sustain my wife and myself beyond our working years.
nI do not seem to be suited for any type career or job that would correct this situation. I seem to be consumed with trying to understand myself and my failure to adapt to the world at large.
nI feel that I do not have anything substantial to offer individuals by way of services. Intentionally or unintentionally, I have succeeded in avoiding any sort of specialization or credential which might “qualify” me or enable me to practice in an area of interest. Teacher, psychologist, human resource specialist, writer, etc.
nMy marriage has never been strong or satisfactory for either my wife or myself although neither of us seems to have the courage to do anything about it. My wife is attractive in many ways: bright, realistic and practical; she has many fine qualities which I more than appreciate. Nevertheless, there is much that is dissimilar between her and myself–making us strangers in matters of the heart and spirit.
nI feel as though my life will never amount to anything more than it has at present and, indeed, I sense that it will become much worse. I fear that I will not be able to escape the shackles that bind me and that my fate will conclude in sorrow and despair. And yet, I cannot let go of hope. I still am awaiting that change that will guide me out of my difficulties and make a difference.

Only I need to remind myself that such answers may never come. That while I wait, life continues to exact its toll. And the longer I try to stave off life without acting on my own behalf, the more indebted I am becoming to it. I cannot wait much longer without becoming completely submerged. I must at least meet life half way–if not wholeheartedly–then, at least, sufficiently. What, then, are my options?

nI can try to leave my past life and present situation totally behind me by divorcing my wife, selling our home, asking for half of the proceeds to pay off my debts, and leaving her with all the rest. Having nothing and no one but myself to care for, I should be able to go where I choose, do what I wish, and eke out a living. The downside to this is leaving my wife on the one hand, and causing such a disruption to her life on the other hand. Besides, she deserves all of the profits from the sale of the house. Only, if I am saddled with this debt while striking off alone, I will be more enslaved than I am at present.

nI can find work, any kind of work to supplement our income, and not worry about whether or not what I am doing is worthwhile, and take life as it comes–hope for the best.

nI can try to find something appropriate to do which will also earn for me a satisfactory income–but what? The most logical thing would be for me to extend my business in some real sense–aggressively pursue career counseling and resume services, even though I am sick and tired of doing this work. It would be great if I could bring myself to believe in a suitable personal growth program that I could offer as a seminar. But I am not satisfied with the results of any such programs. They are filled with flaws, misinformation, and misleading notions. It would be wonderful if I were able to develop a program which I believed in; something with a definite purpose and beneficial outcome which could be counted upon. Although I have many ideas from a number of areas beginning to converge into something which might serve this purpose, I am not there yet. Worse, I suspect that I never will be.

I am looking for answers to life–singular solutions to complex, unknowable subjects and objects. Only such answers do not exist, for the most part, or can only be bridged by beginning with the present. One cannot assist another by beginning with his or her past–only with the present situation. What is or is not important, concerns or does not concern oneself, can only be known gradually in degrees. Again, one must begin with the present. This said, it must also be noted that one may be mistaken about what it is that is really bothering oneself. There is the person, the person’s view of himself, and everyone’s else’s view as well. There is a psychological (or subjective) truth, and there are objective viewpoints. All are real from one perspective or another. What an individual believes to be the case is the case, so long as the individual continues to believe it. If we are to understand ourselves and others, we must begin with the subjective.

Even though we seem to operate in life with polarized concepts; that the process of polarization is our means to delineation, classification and, therefore, definition, still, these in themselves, do not serve as ultimate guides to understanding. There are good and bad (positive and negative) ways of looking at everything–there are no absolutes. Let’s not kid ourselves, we can all cite examples of good murder and bad murder, good passivity and bad passivity, good conservatism and bad conservatism, good liberalism and bad liberalism, good abortions and bad abortions, etc. Further, there are general attitudes which also fall on a continuum from negative to positive, and any attempt at determining a person’s personality traits without taking this factor into consideration, is bound to fail at the outset. Thus, there is good dominant behavior and bad dominant behavior, good compliant behavior and bad compliant behavior. Dominant or compliant behavior in themselves are not the main issue when it comes to human beings and human problems. Simply notating ones behavioral preferences is never enough. Perhaps the most important factor to measure in terms of human behavior is ones general attitude toward life; that is, whether it is on the positive or negative side, and to what extent. Whether one chooses or is chosen, greets change or drags his feet, is confident or pessimistic about his place in life, makes all the difference.

But even this is too simplified. Yes, some people are generally confident or pessimistic, but more often than not, they show signs of both traits, depending upon what it is they are doing. What this thinking demonstrates more than anything is that we interpose our concepts all too easily, and we are especially prone to doing this when we are trying to find a singular solution to a broad-based problem or task. Invariably, we find that our template to be minuscule when compared to the innumerable characteristics and peculiarities it cannot, or has failed to, account for in the human subject. And so, we are forced to make exceptions, allow others in, or to blend those concepts already in use into “sub-concepts” or patterns, trying to plug the leaks wherever and whenever they appear. What is wrong here is what is wrong with our current state of knowledge?

Trying to notate and describe observable behavior is one thing; trying to describe unobservable behavior quite another.

interest
want
need
know
ability

April 23, 1993

We have here on earth at this time examples of primitive and advanced cultures existing side by side with primitive and advanced forms of life. The Amazonian live at the same time as do space explorers. The cell which gives rise to the amoebae lives alongside the cell that gives rise to the human. Which is most primitive: the simplest one-celled animal or the most complex member of the plant kingdom? And each lives alongside of all that which we call “inanimate life”

April 30, 1993

TWO VAGUE DREAMS

Night before last, dreamt of being in some kind of German barracks where a friend of mine, George Mancuso, and I were moving around incognito. We didn’t want to be discovered, but it didn’t seem all that dangerous or scary. I would mutter a couple of German words on occasion as we passed by a couple of soldiers to throw them off, but, again, it didn’t seem like a dangerous situation. At any rate, the barracks contained hideous faces which presumably were the result of their efforts or in some way or another in their custody. I can’t remember anything other than my walking through this building which seemed more like a large barn with hay strewn all over the floor and lofts on the sides as well as directly in front of me as I walked down its length. As I walked, I saw bodies along the sides of the building and huge (20 feet in diameter) heads in the lofts which I had to walk under. They looked more like primitive idols than real human beings. I remember worrying about where George had gone in order to escape this place. A vaguely recall carrying something with me which I had to leave with but I can’t remember what it was. Upon exiting from the other end of the building, I finally saw George who was two or three hundred yards away from this place washing his auto in the driveway of what appeared to be a typical suburban home. He waved to me and I felt that everything would be alright.

Last night I awoke from a dream in which I was struggling with words and concepts, some of which seemed to answer puzzlement while others did not. I recall the frustration of having strings of words following from a concept run into some conflict or another, or else showed themselves to be arbitrary or not good for some other purpose which also needed to be explained. It is difficult to put into words except to say that I was embroiled in conceptual entanglement.

May 3, 1993

I know that I must deal with external circumstances immediately, or I shall fail miserably in life; and yet, I feel trapped and almost unable to move. I can’t seem to focus my attention and am constantly flitting from one thing to another, from one thought or feeling to another without any semblance of connectiveness at all.

My most immediate pressure is money; not a great deal of money, but enough to pay the bills. It would be simplest if I were to do whatever I needed to do to be successful in my business, but I no longer value doing it. I don’t want to look for customers, negotiate services and costs, ask to be paid. I don’t want to have to convince clients of the worthwhileness of personal assessment services when I haven’t been able to convince myself. And this is the problem.

There is so much delusion in the world that it pains me. Even the greatest thinkers have failed to admit to the poverty of their thought. It would be so helpful if they would drive their thought backwards and openly admit to its starting point; the depth to which they are capable of. In this way, we would not have to follow their lead, necessarily, picking up the threads and trying to make sense of something which may or may not have any sense to it. But, no, we won’t know this until after we have struggled valiantly with trying to understand the author’s mind. And even then, in the face of obvious evidence affirming our suspicion, we would rather accuse ourselves of being ignorant rather than accuse the author. How easy we make the publication of garbage.

The truth of the matter is that we continue to think and write with the self-assuredness that, so long as the language we are using is coherent, inasmuch as we are able to string together sentences defining, describing, explaining, professing, etc. any number of occurrences, things, concepts; that is, without straying outside of their “meaningful parameters”–we are not only safe, but we can also lay claim to making sense. Some of these parameters are to be found in the logic and flow of words which seem to carry their sense from one context to another; some in what is considered acceptable theory or thought for the time; some based upon the reputation of the author; some on the ability of the reader to envision it. But most of the time, the parameters are set by the reader’s inability or plain refusal to admit to obvious falsehoods, the author’s as well as their own. For this reason, it is unfortunate, though absolutely necessary, to be critical of all such claims. We need to be wary of such expressions as “It is not my purpose (or time does not permit me) to go (or explain) this point in greater detail…”. When someone tells us that “we can easily imagine something to be the case”, we need to test this out for ourselves. Can it be easily imagined? The more we gloss over such claims, the deeper the illusion becomes, until, finally, we are forced to “accept” the gist of all such claims, or admit to “our misunderstanding” of the whole of it. If we would just be honest, we could eliminate a good deal of nonsense and raise the standards of honesty in thought and writing to new heights.

It’s interesting to note my own peculiar patterns of writing. I generally begin with some feeling or another that is perplexing me, be it my own personal struggles, or some sad point about current events or the human condition in general. Following an attempt to express the same, I then begin to focus in on a description or potential resolution to the immediate problem. During this phase, however, I can generally count on running into an obstacle, or I should say, the obstacle, which invariably leads me to elaborate some tangential point, or else provide an example of the same. What is equally interesting is that the matter which is blocking me (preventing me from acting on my own behalf) is an extremely lofty one which is all out of proportion to my personal dilemma or original problem. But, of course, the “lofty” problem is my personal dilemma in the end, and it is literally ruining me.

My immediate problem is insufficient earnings. Now I can go out and get a job doing carpentry work, work in a lumber yard, or for a supplier of building materials, etc.–or I can try to earn more money in my business. Only, again, I’m sick and tired of everything that goes with this line of thinking, and all the while I can’t help but think about my life’s purpose or discovering some important fundamental truth which always seems just around the corner, promising to serve human kind and myself along with it. Try as I might to dispel this seeming arrogance on my part, I can’t help but feel that I have every right to think as I do. I can’t help but feel that the so-called “great minds” are not all that great when it comes to depth of thought, and the thousands of scholars who live off of them, not great at all. The fact is, the difference between the great mind and the ordinary person on the street is a relatively small conceptual superiority or familiarity. What makes great individuals great seems more a matter of sheer breadth of knowledge and breadth of application, rather than depth or innovation in thought. They write and do a great deal to gain attention, only, again, they move too fast for my liking and say far too much than they deserve to within the limits of their knowledge and ability to think. The facts never seem to warrant what is said of them and from them. And yet, volumes and volumes are spun-off as if…

What is happening in the world to warrant this? At this moment, Yugoslavia is in turmoil and the world has been witness to sheer barbarism on all sides. Who or what are we to act as we do? At this moment, violent crimes are being committed in every major city of the US, and we are not alone. Descriptions of atrocities abound everywhere on this planet. It would be accurate to say that we have all but disgraced the ideal of civilization. But, anyone can go on with descriptions like this, and most of us do. It seems that we fear solutions to our problems because we know instinctively that solutions will involve us, and we are afraid.

nApathy provides safety from a narrow perspective and only for the short-term. We fear involvement because it may include confrontation and potentially harmful consequences to ourselves. By daring to challenge evil, we must be prepared to sacrifice ourselves for the higher good, and this we are not prepared to do.

nDifferences of opinion abound within a given society and the world at large because we are without encompassing values. Life itself is not valued nearly enough unless it is our own, or someone we love. We continue to demonstrate our fear and our confusion by failing to act appropriately when the circumstances warrant it, choosing, instead, to bury our faces in the safety net of confusion.

nPast actions on our parts have shown themselves to be confusing and costly; sometimes, we feel, the direct result of special interest groups acting on their own behalf rather than for the common good. Who to trust becomes the issue. As our leadership continues to demonstrate their willingness to take advantage of the situation, to abuse power for personal gain, so the evidence for believing in our own unworthiness continues to mount. Without paradigms of behavior, examples for us to emulate, we despair in the face of our own urging to take advantage where we can.

nAs the world continues to act from parochial viewpoints, human dignity suffers. We need to reach far above ourselves and grasp onto a few principles which all societies on this planet would agree to hold in common. First among these ought to be the sanctity of life. It doesn’t matter that many individuals and groups in the world do not place such value on life–the new value will elevate them, or at least serve to control them for the benefit of the vast majority. What this value means and how it will be protected needs to be spelled out in no uncertain terms. If the UN is given the power to protect this value world-wide, then it must be given the means. When the right to life is abrogated by some warring party, there needn’t be any special interpretation necessary. We will know it from the act–and we will act because we know it. However, if a nation has no other recourse to change its society except warfare, then even the right to taking life cannot be taken away. If warfare is to be outlawed, then substitutes for it must already be in place.

nSince there are numerous countries (especially in the third world) with very tenuous governments and means to life, such that one strong arm dictator is typically supplanted by some other through sheer terror and might, then there needs to be international (UN) groups who are ready and capable of assisting a given nation in setting up a particular form of government should the situation warrant it. This may point to a difficulty in priorities. It may well be the case that the sanctity of life needs to take a back seat to the sanctity of a given society to have in its possession the means for deciding its destiny. Without this in place, the UN’s protection could amount to a tyranny for the citizenry.

nThus, the ideal of democracy may have to be instituted universally, and this may be impossible given the diversity of governments now. Nonetheless, it may be that the time to move strongly in this direction while, at the same time, demonstrating the obvious benefits to the rest of the world. But this we seem unable to do. In many ways, our democracy, together with its protection of freedom, has bred corruption and brutality. We are not as yet a very good example for the rest of the world except economically, and this outcome is far from certain. Again, the greed of government officials and various special interest groups (industrial and otherwise), under the guise of the principles of freedom and dignity, are busily selling off, or giving away our nation’s assets. As floods of immigrants continue to come into our country and floods of industries and jobs continue to go out, the end result of such behavior is not that difficult to see. As our borders begin to come down and our affairs become more international in scope and enterprise, the citizenry will be more and more left to the whims of the global world. So which nations, then, are going to trust us when we try to coach them toward democracy?

nThe point is that we haven’t as yet proven our own worth as a democratic nation, let alone as a leader of “the new world order”. Our worth is in economic might and military power; it is for these reasons alone that the world stands ready to listen to us. But what have we to say? We are grossly unprepared because we haven’t as yet grasped the full significance of our own plight. All the signs point to murder and mayhem accelerating rather than diminishing, and this within a nation that is growing poorer and poorer. Population is fast becoming the enemy, and for this reason alone, whatever sanctity remains attached to life is in grave peril. We are in fact trying to raise an ideal higher than it has ever been while it is currently on a downward slide. Perhaps it will take the bloodshed of another world war to achieve this monumental goal. One thing seems certain, so long as the general populace remains ignorant of what is going on in our country and the world at large, due to lies and illusions proffered by those who favor greed at any cost, or by our own individual cowardice and fear of having to face the facts for what they are, or to sacrifice ourselves for some greater good, we will continue our downward slide.

nProbably the largest truth that has to be faced is the fact that we are too many. This is a thousand times more significant than what it may appear to be because of a very important second fact: automation will eventually make labor as we know it exponentially obsolete. This means that billions of people will be unable to secure work on the planet and, therefore, will have to be provided for, or… The “unspeakable” possibilities which we may cite are not all that unspeakable when we consider what was allowed to transpire during WWII and presently in Yugoslavia. Needless to say, with a diminishment of the value for life already in full swing, the outcome seems clear enough. We will most probably allow the pieces to fall where they may, and this translates to billions of deaths.

nSuch a scenario might be avoided if only honesty could prevail. And, of course, this is only likely to happen when those who know the story find it in their interest to tell it. Only by that time, it may be far too late to do anything about it. On the positive side, we might hope that automation will also make the “materials of life” easily attainable (possibly without work as we’ve known it) and that we might see our way to curbing our growth in a systematic, uniform manner. Society certainly needs to begin down-sizing immediately. Although I have always been against abortions and fervently believe that it is no one’s right, this issue is only a transitory one and will be all but forgotten as abortive drugs are at this moment entering the market. The same, however, cannot be said of the immeasurable damage it has caused to the sanctity we once felt for life, even if it undoubtedly aided and better balanced the plight of women. No longer will a woman be forced to suffer the consequences of having to carry an unwanted child to term and then raising it amidst a thousand and one other difficulties. By taking the possession or refusal of life into their own hands, woman’s rights and “might” took a giant leap forward–but at a terrible cost to all of us. Once again, it seems that the price for our transgressions must always be paid–if not now, then later.

May 22, 1993

There is a moral question regarding cruelty in nature which has perplexed many of us from time immemorial. Why must nature feed upon nature in order to ensure survival? Why would God allow it?

Darwin explained the manner in which “natural selection” works in nature, only it has not, as yet, freed us from thinking in “unnatural” terms. We find it all but impossible not to attribute a “purposeful” or “intentional” character to nature. If we then substitute God for nature, we are inclined to ask: “Why would God have chosen such a cruel way to create and sustain life?”, or if we are really bold, “Why is God so obviously cruel?”

Such questions may themselves be illusory and misleading products of “unnatural thinking.” We say, “Look at the roots of that tree `seeking out’ and growing in the direction of that pond over there.” To the observer, the tree appears to be animated and there is a tendency for us to want to focus upon the “seeking out”, rather than the “growing in the direction of”, portion of the sentence.

There are a lot of rabbits currently living around my house and they have “attracted” a fox. Every so often, I hear a screeching during the night and know that the fox has made a kill. While it seems to be a necessary cruelty, given the way nature works, I still cannot help but ask why it has to be this way. Couldn’t there have been a more humane system?

Only I must draw attention to the words “cruelty” and “humane” since, like in the previous example, they too point to intentionality at work in nature. Only the intuition that prompted me to write these remarks was trying to get me to see a correlation between this view and “natural selection”, presumably to point out the error of my thinking and feeling in the way that I do. Only it has not as yet `clicked’ for me. I am still unable (perhaps, reluctant) to correlate the “fox and rabbit” with the “root and water”. While I can see the error in the latter, I still cannot yet grasp its significance regarding the former. How is the fox not seeking out the rabbit when it seems plain that it is? Am I being told to view its action as a movement toward a given source of nutrition? Yes, I believe that I am!

Obviously, if this is as true for the fox as it is for the tree, then why wouldn’t it be equally true for ourselves? Such a view would stand most of our thinking on its head, I am sure, only I am not so sure that any of us are ready for it. Scientists would explain the tree episode by saying that because the source of nutrients are in a particular location, the roots in that area grow faster than those facing a less nutritional source. Thus, they will simply feed and grow in that location, giving the appearance of “seeking out” this same supply. When we think in such terms, we are “anthropomorphizing”, they remind us, meaning that we are attributing “human characteristics” to natural happenings. The fox, of course, is driven by instinct, and we, well, we are something else entirely! We will simply not hold to the possibility that we must also be anthropomorphizing ourselves since it is difficult to maintain that we can have characteristics which, presumably, nature does not herself have! Of course the matter gets sticky at this point since any questioning in this regard always appears as being paradoxical. For how is it that we are able to reflect upon such matters as these if we are not able? Only, again, our usage of the word “reflect” is a dead giveaway of where we are coming from, even if we seem unable to separate ourselves from this pattern of thinking. In fact, most of us are quite aware of a body of language that makes us both representative parts of nature, and also superior to her. We either do not see the untenability of this position, or simply refuse to see it. We either do not see the illusions besetting us, or simply refuse to see them. How deep this apparently shallow pond–and how extensive is the language safeguarding it.

And so we will want to say that such illusions must also have their place in nature, and thus, must in some way or another be considered appropriate. Only, like the root, I am at this moment directed toward sentences I have just written for further insights, not, however, because I am “seeking” answers, but because I am feeding on them. Now I can claim that I chose to do so, but in reality, no such choice was ever made–I was compelled to move in this direction. I want to say to you (because of prior thinking on this subject) that such claims are instances of our attempting to steal credit from nature, only the word “attempting” also implies choice, ad infinitum. It is extremely difficult to use what might be called a “conscious-centered language” to describe a pattern of thought which is pointing to a broader field. I can’t help but say that we have “denied”, or have “chosen” not to reveal, a part of ourselves (or nature) which exists and works through us every day of our lives. In doing so, I too am perpetuating the illusion. Again, the illusion consists of crediting, and maintaining the idea of, a “conscious self” which we presume to have “originated” these same ideas and insights. If the whole truth were told, we would all be forced to admit that such ideas and insights are always given to consciousness. Only, unlike the magician who creates illusions by diverting our attention away from what is actually taking place, we do see what is taking place–we simply fail to admit it. But why? Why are we or nature doing this?

June 7, 1993

Had an “argumentative discussion” with my daughter Catherine’s boyfriend a couple of nights ago. I was trying to convey the thought that we are really not creators of anything whatever, but, rather, are recipients and actors; that what we call “our creations” are in actuality the result of nature working through us. I also argued on the side of nature’s superiority, and suggested that acknowledgement of the same could stand in for a belief in deity. He, on the other hand, claimed not to believe in God, considered nature or existence as “just being”, and held that man was, perhaps, even superior to nature since our minds serve as “integrators” to whatever surrounds us, and, thus, may justify a superior attitude.

For a young man of twenty-two, he was very adamant and steadfast in his beliefs, a very formidable opponent I thought, although I couldn’t help but feel that his dogmatic stance was more the result of indoctrination than personal reflection on his part. He was positivistic in a very simple, shallow way, wanting to sweep aside anything and everything that stood in the way of maintaining his own standpoint. He seemed to make bold, highly dogmatic assertions and then stood his ground in defense of them. I could not do anything to break through this adamancy, except try to find new ways of expressing my own viewpoint. While doing this, I also tried to attack his own perspectives wherever I felt I could. Only it was to no avail.

A little later that evening, I went to bed and within an hour or so, awoke from a dream which I found to be rather enlightening, as well as troublesome. I dreamt that I was in a house with at least two rooms. I had just left one room where a number of people were sitting around discussing something, I don’t remember what, except that I felt that these people might be a danger to others. I then walked into another room of the house and there I found President Lincoln sitting tall at a small table with a union officer at his side. I don’t quite remember if I began to explain the potential danger to them or not, but the officer looked at me, and seeing that my uniform was somewhat disheveled, began to straighten it somewhat while saying: “Pull yourself together. Is this any way for a union soldier to look?”, or something very close to this. As I lay there in bed reflecting on the dream, I wondered why I was a union soldier rather than a confederate one, and, just as suddenly, the words “union” and “unity” became apparent. My dream was clearly depicting my current state. A few hours before, I had been in a scuffle trying to preserve the unity and superiority of nature which was under attack by a disbeliever who, at the same time, was trying to preserve the opposite point of view. Having failed in this attempt, I felt the presence of danger (in my dream) to these two representatives of unity. Jungian psychology speaks of primary and secondary functions within the personality. In my own case, as far as I can determine, my primary function appears to be “introverted thinking” (represented by Mr. Lincoln), and my secondary, according to theory, “extroverted intuition” (probably represented by the union officer). While Mr. Lincoln sat grandly in his chair, simply observing and saying nothing, it was his aide, my “intuition”, that did the talking. This would be an appropriate response since (again, according to theory) intuition is my primary means for dealing with the outside world, and intuitions were in fact, what I was trying to express, even if cloaked in terms which resulted from prior thinking on the subject.

David, the young man I argued with, appears to be an ISTJ (in Myers-Briggs terms) which translates to being an “extroverted thinker” (his secondary function) and “introverted sensor” (his primary and strongest function, generally reserved for introversion in the same way as my thinking is). However, his assessment scale showed his “T” and “J” preferences to be very strong, suggesting that not only might we expect him to be logical and analytical, but that he might be so “with a vengeance”! Strong “J’s” have a need for closure, and thus seek out simple means, if necessary, to ensure the same. In my own case, as an INTP with a fairly weak “P”, I am either “perceptually” underdeveloped (that is, have not sufficiently relied upon my intuition throughout my life), or else am closer to a balance between use of both my perceiving and judging functions, presumably because of my middle-aged status. Be that as it may, trying to express intuitions to a non-intuitive and, therefore, “practical-thinking” type, can be exceedingly difficult. While my goal is to find the means for expressing something which may amount to a new or, uncustomary, perspective, his tendency was to do away with anything that does not fit within an apparently already established framework of thought. No matter how young such individuals are, it seems that this type has an immediate need to structure whatever reality comes through the senses. Only, since David appears to be very much an introvert (in common sense terms), even though this preference was weak on the MBTI scale, we might expect that he would have a stronger “subjective sense” rather than the “objective” sense he seemed to project.

David claimed to see my perspectives clearly; he said that he understood my views perfectly but that they were simply wrong. I, on the other hand, could not understand his thinking since what I was saying was so obvious to myself, and provable, I felt, to anyone who cared to reflect for a moment. Put it to the test, I told him. Give me an example of a thought or “creation” that wasn’t given you wholesale out of the unconscious! For this reason, I simply was unable to grasp his recalcitrant attitude. How could an introvert not recognize this point of view when to be an introvert means that one is acutely aware of one’s own subjective disposition. How could any of us admit to being a part of nature while, at the same time, being forced to admit that we are ignorant of ourselves (compared to the utter sophistication which we ourselves comprise), and still lay claim to being superior? What is it about nature that allows us to both “take” and “maintain” such preposterous and outlandish views? And, yet, David could claim to understand my viewpoints, and still deny their authenticity. He called it “mystical thinking”.

Our differences appear to follow the same lines as the age-old “freedom vs. determinism” dialogue, only, in my own case, I do not equate determinism with a sense of “fatalism” meaning that we might just as well throw our hands in the air and allow nature to take her course. Even though I believe that nature is very much in control, and that “freedom” in the sense that we like to regard it, is very much an illusion, still, it is a very powerful illusion, and one which most of us do not recognize.

My intuition seems to suggest that fragmentation (which are essentially distinctions) are illusory constructs which have real value for us inasmuch as they appear to be our primary (if not only) means to knowledge; that it may be language (which is itself an illusory abstraction) that allows us to maintain all such illusions indefinitely, and that legal sanctions and prohibitions represent still further, though futile, attempts at perpetuating the same myth by trying to “pinch our bleeding arteries closed.” Again, these are intuitive “hunches” or “vague correlations” given me from within. Whenever I am struggling to understand something, “messages” appear in consciousness, sometimes pieces of memory from prior thinking fitted together to yield new perspectives, and sometimes new pictures entirely. But by now, we appear to have ventured too far afield from our original discussion. That discussion intimated that differences in personality may lead to differences in perspective and knowledge, and that, underlying such differences is the philosophical problem of “freedom vs. determinism” in nature, and that underlying this polarization may be an even more fundamental view regarding the workings of nature via mind and activity. Rather than maintain the numerous presuppositions we hold regarding our achievements and place in nature, a more fundamental view would be to abandon such views (even if temporarily) in order to examine such claims without prejudice. “Prejudice” (pre-judgement) truly stands in the way of truth, no differently than not to judge at all. Although it is a “door-closer” that makes progression possible, too much of it will retard the very knowledge it is trying to promote. We must hold with Jung that too much development of one side of an equation–one side of a personality (like the introverted standpoint)–does not lead to a better understanding of it, but to stagnation and, finally, to its own demise.

June 22, 1993

A major pitfall in our quest for knowledge has been our incessant search for “foundations” to serve as “bases” for the same. While this may appear to be an obvious and quite appropriate action to take, I submit, it is not. Rather than aid in the pursuit and establishment of knowledge, this illusory view (and by now, generally held attitude) has served to block this very thing and, worse,–has led most of humanity into a state of self-deceit and self-denial.

Why did this happen? Because we turned our backs on our own source of intelligence and, in its place, accepted the idea (and superiority) of “great minds”. This greatest of all delusions has been perpetuated by the “intelligentsia”, and supported by the so-called “educated classes”, who have merely managed to imitate and mimic the jargon and methods of the former while understanding little or nothing of what they are actually about. Great minds do exist–but the source of their greatness is a much more common phenomena than we have been led to believe. While there is certainly no shame in ignorance–there is shame in disguising it.

Underlying this search for foundations is the view that only “ultimate foundations” will suffice for “certain knowledge”. Because we have accepted the views of others over the intelligence of nature as it comes (free of charge) to each and every one of us, such a view has come to be accepted as a sort of guidepost for the rest of us. “Yes”, we say, “it is obvious that knowledge has to have foundations, even if we don’t always know what they are.” And, indeed, this does appear to be an extremely logical point of view, so accustomed are we to thinking within this frame of reference. But what if I point to the failure of a hundred generations of intellectuals to locate even a single absolute foundation?–What would you say to this? That their problem is that they are looking for “ultimate” foundations while the rest of us can rest content with “ordinary” ones? Well, if we stop to give examples of ordinary foundations supporting ordinary belief, we do find such foundations to be grounded in experience–if not our own, then someone else’s. Is experience, then, our true foundation? It might be said at this juncture that, although the searchers for ultimate foundations also allude to experience as a fundamental source, it is never sufficient to serve as a foundation. Rather, the intellectual process moves away from experience and tries to establish itself as an independent, “objective” form which can exist on its own. A little background.

Philosophers understand already what “complete” and “certain” criteria for knowledge is all about. It has been defined over and over again by various skeptics down through the ages. In my opinion, their numerous arguments amount to no more than this: “Because we cannot know everything about a particular thing or subject, we cannot know anything about it with absolute certainty, since we will always be in a position to imagine a context for doubt.” So long as we can “formulate” or “imagine” a “context” for doubt–we can never be certain. Upon further scrutiny and reflection, it becomes apparent that the only thing that can possibly satisfy the skeptic–is omniscience! At first, we feel compelled to grant him his arguments for these extreme cases only, while holding steadfast to the belief that ordinary usage of such terms is really quite proper–that our “relative” sense of certainty is serving us quite well. Only, by now, even this notion will have begun to wear thin under the stress of prevalent confusion. “What good is relative certainty if it can’t provide us with real answers!”, we might cry. In this way, “real answers” come to be considered as “ultimate answers”, and we find that we are moving further and further away from personal experience and into the skeptic’s camp. So empty has this “source” proven to be, that we can’t help but feel that the search for “ultimate” answers must be the right one. And so we find ourselves at some location between “nature” and “humanity”, sensing that our last hope is with the latter. Despite our ever-growing sense of hopelessness and despair, we continue to look to science and humanity for salvation–for we sense that we’ve been abandoned.

Perhaps a deeper understanding of the meaning of personal loneliness would help to make my points clearer. It is not that “we” are alone–it is that “each” of us is alone–and alone only in respect to one another! It is not “we” against “nature”–it is we because of nature! Apart from nature–there would be no sense of “we”! If we could come to understand at least this much, we would begin to understand that “the way” to one another is through nature–through ourselves–and not through one another! It is sheer illusion to suppose that we have a direct path to one another without nature’s mediation. And yet, this is precisely what we do believe. It is foolish notion and one which must be dispelled. But, first, let us get a better feel for the dilemma by looking at illusory and delusionary practices in the “intellectual sphere”.

Though few are prepared to admit it, most intellectual types understand already that cognitive foundations (systems and classifications formulated by themselves) are never free of arbitrarily nested particulars “force-fitted” in order to make up for obvious gaps in the constructs themselves. Most are keenly aware of the fact that all definitions, analogies, classifications, intellectual models of every kind, etc.–ultimately break down. They know through personal experience that no model or classification is ever sufficient or consistent enough to contain all of its particulars without springing leaks; that is, without having some of its members appear to better fit some other model or classification. I repeat: no model or classification is ever devoid of “fringe elements” which, ultimately, must be overlooked for the sake of maintaining the model–and with it, the illusion that the model is complete. The skeptic smiles as he see us commit the dastardly, though necessary, deed, and then delights in our obvious unwillingness to “publicly” reveal the discrediting facts. We are hurt; we are embarrassed; we are angry; and we are frustrated–but we will not expose the delusion. What has gone wrong? I submit–we have gone wrong!

Instead of facing and admitting the dilemma squarely, we have chosen to maintain what, by now, has become a grievous “sin of omission”. Over the millennia, whether out of sheer arrogance or felt destitution, we have perpetuated a delusion which has fostered countless untold illusory practices and misconceptions, all stemming from this single act, or failure to act. Only, rather than serve to protect and ameliorate the human condition, our denial has taken us to the proverbial “brick wall”. What is this denial? It is simply our failure to admit that we are a part of something greater than ourselves; and that this “something”, which we know to be working through us, is also greater than everyone else. What is our sin? It is our refusal to reveal to others what it is we actually experience, and our wrongfully-placed tendency to put the beliefs and opinions of others before our own. What has resulted from this denial and undermining of personal experience?–Ever-thickening confusion.

We see a world evolving in linear progression from simple to complex–and think that so must we. We point to habits developed over long centuries of philosophical inquiry into “ultimate natures”–and are willing to accept or tolerate them without understanding. We elevate the thoughts of great minds above our own and then profess or decry our own state of ignorance. We continue to suffer increasing fragmentation within ourselves, and then look without for answers. We fail to see the source of our dilemma at its source; and this because we do not look in our own direction. Because we don’t, we do not see that our pitiable state is not owing to “personal limitations”, but to the fact that we seem bent on avoiding the cross-roads of experience. But what is this if not ourselves! Because of this, we find ourselves unwilling, or unable, to grasp the fact that, regardless of where or how information originates, we must experience it if it is to have a “real” and “certain” impact upon us. We fail to see that we, and only we, can serve as our own ultimate criterion for truth and certainty and meaning. We fail to see that only nature can provide this for each of us, and then only in solitude. Real communication begins and ends in solitude; it is always a private affair. Our “sin of omission”, then, has been to deny that this is so. The psychologist Jung, approached the matter from a slightly different angle.

“… perception and cognition are not purely objective, but are also subjectively conditioned. The world exists not merely in itself, but also as it appears to me… Only a sick mind could forget that cognition must have a subject, and that there is no knowledge whatever and therefore no world at all unless `I know’ has been said, though with this statement one has already expressed the subjective limitation of all knowledge.” (p230)

I think it fair to say that Jung, himself, was never able to steer clear of the skeptic’s web. Although his intuitive perceptions were nothing less than brilliant, the thoughts he exercised in light of them was in no way equal to the intuitions themselves. As a result, his psychological constructs also sprung leaks. Nonetheless, he was able to point to a way out of the dilemma in his very strong defense of introversion and the subjective as proper and absolutely necessary co-determinate of the world we live in. Unfortunately, in the end, the concepts which he tried to express in hard and certain terms, folded in upon themselves, and began to rejoin the background from which they were originally taken. Not even Jung was able to stop the landslide. Despite his inability to provide us with a truly coherent theory relating to the structure of mind, Jung was able to provide us with something more important–the intuitive gifts which streamed from his unconscious. These, he very aptly expressed, and the world will never be the same as a result.

More than anyone, Jung must be credited with having prepared the groundwork for the coming together of the Eastern and Western minds; that is, the subjective and the objective standpoints. It would be a mistake, however, to believe that he accomplished this through the formulation and extension of such polar concepts as “introversion and extroversion”, “subjectivity and objectivity”, “unconsciousness and consciousness”, “inner world and outer world”, etc.–he did not. His applications of thought may have given rise to further intuitions, but it is crucially important for us to both recognize and accept the fact that his gifts to us resulted from acknowledgment and not from development. To be sure, the greatness of his mind was, itself, a gift from nature, to which the real credit is due. Nonetheless, Jung made us see how any sense of development, far from originating in consciousness alone, is, like everything else, owing to the interplay of the world and the unconscious through consciousness–that is, through experience. Only he was either unable or unwilling to follow his own line of intuitions into the rational sphere as well. As a result, he remained well within the traditional framework of a “rationality”, and suffered its flaws. Perhaps this was denied him because it required an entirely different perspective, or line of perspectives. Had he developed from this line, we might have received quite different gifts.

Returning now to my original thesis: I believe that this over-preoccupation with external, so-called “objective forms” of knowledge, has not only shielded us from our true foundation, but has led us to actually believe that it is “we” who control the process. Again, on the surface of things, we appear to accomplish this amazing feat by relegating nature to an inferior (non-lifelike–non-rational) status, and then, in the apparent absence of any countering threat, simply proceed to credit ourselves for whatever results from experience. In reality, however, I doubt that this attitude developed “intentionally”. Nonetheless, far from having gotten away with this “Promethean illusion” or “sleight of hand”, it has cost us dearly in terms of our own mental health and, indeed, the general welfare. Although it is extremely difficult to express in words what I feel in this regard, I sense that it is this attitude, primarily, that has led us to the point of near stagnation which we find ourselves. Let’s not be fooled by the promises of “positive thinking” or by the many positive things that are going on in the world–humanity is in despair. Not only are values in turmoil, but institutions are everywhere cracking and falling, while we, ourselves, are growing increasingly fragmented. I cannot locate the major source of our problem in the growing complexity of life (like the author of “Future Shock”), but feel strongly that the complexities of life are of our own making–the direct result of personal and social dishonesty. Because we have failed to admit to the truths gained from personal experience, we have left the door open for others to “usurp” the indispensable relationship each of us shares with the world. By denying nature this relationship, this reality, we deny ourselves and, along with it, our futures. By denying ourselves, we cut off the indispensable pipeline to knowledge through “integration”–nature’s means for simplification and progression in an evolving world. Permit me to express this in more succinct intuitive terms.

Integration implies synthesis and real or relative harmony between parts; it gives definition to wholes and enables us to project outward from the center of experience,–that is, from ourselves. In fact, I would argue that integration creates limitations and, thereby, opens the door to both knowledge and “freedom”. Our wishing to safeguard our notion of the latter has, itself, been a primary inducement to perpetuating the illusions stemming from it. A more proper formulation should free us from these “holy chains”. Suffice it to say at this point, that, without definition and limitation, all would be chaos. And if we insist on holding tight to our accustomed rational standpoint, then we must accept the inevitable conclusion that a concept like “omniscience” is equally chaotic and, therefore, a meaningless construct. Again, in the face of such outcomes, you would have thought that we would have had the courage to face our dilemma and make an about-face; but, in point of fact, we have not as yet shown such courage. Instead, in this regard at least, we have shown ourselves to be less intelligent than the one-celled animal who, upon hitting an obstacle, “automatically” turns 30 degrees and tries again. If we would only permit it, nature would be equally as kind to us.

The purely “objective viewpoint”, then, attempts to ignore the true source of experience (integration, concepts, ideas, etc.) and, indeed, the part we ourselves play in determining the shape and content of what we experience. For the proponents of this view, the world exists as we perceive it, and, indeed,–their reality is stood in the place of the world’s own! Fortunately, however, their reality does not “become” the world, and nature strikes back with a vengeance! In spite of this, the material “outside” distinction continues to be grossly favored over the somewhat nebulous, “inside” distinction. We are told, and most of us have come to believe, that it does us little or no good to imagine other perspectives outside our own since “we are the measure of all things”. Kant’s dictum that we cannot “know” the things of the world as they exist “in themselves” (that is, apart from personal experience), is considered a useless exercise of the imagination. In conceptual terms, the proponents of this view have split the equation of experience in two and discarded the part it does not wish to deal with. In this case, the intelligible opposite of a polar relationship (the “outside” view) is embraced, while the relative importance of its necessary counterpart (the “inside” view), is simply denied or, at least, ignored.

But why speak in such terms at all. Why try to solve such riddles by utilizing concepts based upon distinctions which we now know have been “literally stolen” from experience. I fully realize that what I have had to say thus far is sorely lacking in details and examples which might be better elaborated upon. But, in reality, my words are no more than feeble attempts to express and elaborate intuitive perceptions which really can’t be elaborated. It is when we attempt to go beyond expression to “explanation” that we get ourselves into muddles, and this unfortunate circumstance is very much in keeping with my overall thesis. Intuition, apparently our only true “means” for knowledge, provides us with what we need to know for the time that we need to know it; and cares nothing about explanation. Thus, it makes no sense to ask if intuitions are true or false, consistent or not consistent, with this notion or that–for they are “self-consistent”–always personal first and foremost. If they have a benefit for the common good, then so much the better, only I doubt that its benefit will be “seen” through any form of explanation. On the contrary, I suspect that the great intuitions have become obscured by such means.

Again, the problems suffered because of our rational perspective are manifold. For example, this manner of “thinking” leads us to the believe that nothing in the world can have an independent existence apart from other things. Accepting this notion, we are then forced to the view that holds that, at very least, the things of the world must be integrated. “Does such integration exist outside of experience or because of it?”, we are prone to ask. And I answer: It doesn’t really matter since there are “sufficient reasons” to support both viewpoints. In other words, because there are sufficient reasons supporting either view, I know, intuitively, that there is something bogus in the air, which brings us back to the crux of the problem. For it is a fact that “extended thinking” (thinking which goes beyond the expression of sensations, intuition or actions emanating from the same) makes it literally impossible to imagine or conceive of anything which might be considered “unrelated” or totally “independent” of everything else. Try as we might, we cannot escape the fact that we are a part of an integrated whole or unity. But isn’t this sense of unity intuitively apparent to all of us? Perhaps not.

Primitive individuals were, and still are, said to be more in harmony with nature than more advanced types; only, ironically, they appear not to have any sense of belonging to a “unity”. The closer one is to nature, or to the flow of natural events, the further removed one appears to be from any recognition of it. Instead, what appears to be more natural for the primitive is the perception that they are but a part of a pluralistic world. Only, again, this is all intuitive feeling and projection on my part and probably nothing approaching anthropologic facts. Nonetheless, if my intuitive perception is correct, it would seem that we are forced to admit that the “objective” standpoint is, at least, quite natural, if not primary. But what of its counterpart? This, of course, takes us into the realm of the subjective. But before we engage in this conversation, I want to point out that we are not doing so in order to clear up confusion, or to elaborate any other point except to demonstrate the futility of fragmented thinking. This thinking has gone on for millennia and has never been understood for what it is. If we have understood anything at all from our journey thus far, perhaps it’s that we have returned to rejoin nature at our source.

As I already intimated, no one has penetrated into the subjective sphere more than Carl Gustav Jung. Jung’s psychology has become extremely popular today, fostered in part by the introduction of the “Myers-Briggs Type Indicator”, a psychological survey instrument designed to reap the benefits of Jung’s “psychological types”, but mostly because of the sheer breadth of his views. This amazing breadth of knowledge served to crack open disciplinary walls in every field, stirring even the most reluctant “specialist”, and making large-scale synthesis possible. In terms of the MBTI, I would say that it has certainly benefited self-understanding and personal growth issues for quite a number of individuals today, but, in my opinion, the credit is owing more to the benefits of “typecasting” in general (that is, to the usefulness of classification), than it is owing to the proper employment of Jungian concepts, models and descriptions. To be sure, not all concepts pointing to human characteristics are going to be as powerful as Jung’s are proving to be, but all are useful nonetheless. Because all concepts serve to define, or at least to demarcate something, we can be assured that what they define or demarcate shares some commonality. Or, as the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein intimated, the meanings of linguistic terms are best thought of as grounded in use; that is, in the everyday activities of life. Thus, they share a commonality or “collective meaning” which enables us to reapply them in new situations. Jung may have approached this same issue from a slightly different perspective. Once again, arguing in defense of the subjective, but in essence, describing his notion of a “collective unconscious”, he says:

In so far as the subjective factor has, from the earliest times and among all peoples, remained in large measure constant, elementary perceptions and cognition being almost universally the same, it is a reality that is just as firmly established as the external object. If this were not so, any sort of permanent and essentially unchanging reality would be simply inconceivable, and any understanding of the past would be impossible.” (P231)

All of which is to say that we, and everything emanating from us or through us, has a common, integrated ground. If this were not so, communication would be impossible–and cognition itself would not have a foothold. Only this said, I do not wish to remain with this form of thinking for all the obvious reasons. Suffice it to say that I feel that we have attempted to strip nature of what is properly hers, and that our actions and general attitude epitomizes sheer boldness and arrogance on our parts. As a result of our failure to accept the obvious for the sake of comforting illusions, we have been forced to suffer the consequences of living the lie. Living the lie has meant personal fragmentation, and this, at a moment when we are in dire need of integration. I further believe that if we are to save ourselves from ourselves (that is, from one another), we must first admit to our self-inflicted delusions and denials of what we know to be the case. It should not be demeaning to admit to the superiority of nature over ourselves, and yet for many, it is exactly this. Apparently, it is not enough for some people to be major players in the unfolding of life; rather than search for God, they dread that the discovery should ever be made.

Regardless of which forces might be said to drive us: inquisitiveness, longing, autonomous responses intended to meet or overcome one situation or another, or the passive acknowledgment (through observation) of something that merely “happens” to us, whether originating from within or without,–all of it derives through experience. Experience appears to be our only source of integration and, therefore, creation,–but it is never a product of our own making. Rather, we should regard it as our ultimate “impetus”, or “foundation” for action and knowledge; an immediate source of knowledge and direction very different in kind from the “extensions” of experience wrought from reflection, imitation, experimentation and the like. In other words, what is meaningful and absolutely necessary to our being, is not the imagined extensions we make of “old knowledge”, but what is given us in the immediate present. We do not have to go in search of knowledge and meaning–it is with us always, no matter what we may construe ourselves to believe after the fact. The source and end of experience is with ourselves–our respective centers–the crossroads by which we integrate the world. What this integration is all about, how it works and where it is heading, apparently is not for us to know. And just how much knowledge of the future would it take to satisfy us in this regard? A little reflection would reveal that no amount would ever be satisfactory. In the end we must admit to being insatiable questors, feeders, and usurpers, if this indeed is what we discover ourselves to be. While we can never be expected to settle the matter until we have first rejoined our fragmented selves, disregarding facts for the sake of comforting illusions will never be a solution to anything. Rather, it will continue to kill us, and will continue to cause untold harm to the rest of the planet as well.

Psychology has provided humankind with thousands of insights regarding the mind-world relationship from the human perspective. Only it, like all other disciplines, continues to get lost in the shuffles and scuffles of “illusory excursions” away from experience. As I have tried to express over and over again, in their proper context, such excursions are appropriate inasmuch as they lead to new experience and newly received intuitions. It is only when we pretend that such concepts have a life of their own (able to exist apart from the experience that gave rise to them) that we go astray. Wittgenstein exposed the sad results of “language gone on holiday” (that is, removed from, and inappropriately applied to imagined contexts) and, in so doing, paved the way for psychology. If language is connected to life in this way, then so might thought in any other mode. Jung exposed the detrimental effects which mental fragmentation and disequilibrium has had on cognition as well as the overall health of the psyche and, in so doing, paved the way for a veritable renaissance in thought. Our job now is to recognize that neither language nor thought can be severed from experience and have a meaningful existence. We must recognize that when either is severed from experience, the result is chaos or confusion. In other words, our job is to do away with linguistic confusion and conscious illusions standing in the way of deeper understanding. New thinking will regard concepts as little more than momentary constructs (provided us through intuition) for the sole purpose of answering the present and moving toward the future. For philosophy and psychology both, the crossroads between “objectivity” and “subjectivity” (that is, experience) becomes the only certainty and appropriate ground for action.

Our tendency for wanting to hang on to conceptions for extended use is much like the way we view the domestication of animals–food for another day. Only by now we are beginning to realize that the ideas which follow from such extended use, are not the result of the “hanging on”, but of the apperception which follow in their wake, no doubt serving to lead us from one experience to another. Strictly speaking, we did not domesticate animals, invent language, or ever create anything whatever. Our “creations” if we insist on calling them ours, have always been the result of something affecting, or given, us, whether stemming from without or within. Try as hard as we might, we simply cannot escape this conclusion. Whether thoughts, hunches, ideas, visions and voices, come to us from without or from within, we are always passive recipients of the same, and the same thing can be said for other parts of nature as well. Only this said, we have entered another muddle in thinking. For now we must consider that from another’s perspective, it makes equally good sense to speak of `our going to them’ as though “we” were the providers precipitating creation, and they the passive recipients. Thus, while we may feel that we have learned something “substantial” from this conversation thus far, the inevitable polarization we come up against turns us on our heads. Everything I tried so hard to elaborate to you appears to have its intelligible opposite. This might serve to show us that there is nothing substantial about thought unless it is grounded in real personal experience. But, then, it seems superfluous in trying to elaborate it. If there is a real context, then intuitions will rise to meet it on its own terms.

Try as I may, I will never be able to maintain a consistency in thought that will be equally acceptable to everyone. This is not to say that it is impossible to have an “objective perspective” which several persons may appreciate, it is only to say that the matter is entirely out of our hands. One of the most difficult things in the world for us to do is to let go of the sense that “everything has a sense”, which, in principle, translates to “anything is capable of being known”. Thus, if we can ask it or envision it,–we believe that we can explain it through some rational process or another. Personally speaking, it is as difficult for me to refrain from reasoning as it is having to accept the results of the same. You would think that by now I would have recognized the futility of it all and finally stopped. But no, with every intuition received comes a whole string of thoughts to “better express” or “expand upon” what was probably already perfect for the occasion. I can’t help but sense that each intuition is bringing me another tantalizing step closer to what it is I am seeking, but, because they tantalize, I can’t help but try to clarify and project beyond them. It is a somewhat ironic situation to be in, especially when my “experience with thought” has time and time again demonstrated that there is something very much amiss. Since the results or ends of my thinking so often lead me to conflict and stagnation, despite new intuitions coming on scene, you would have thought that I would have tried another approach. Worse yet, my own intuitions have informed me time and time again (through insights, dreams, and what I refer to as “semi-automatic writing” episodes) that I must act. And, still, my answer is to procrastinate and continue to “think” while doing so. My intuition then proceeds to warn of dire consequences (namely physical debilitations) that I am risking if I do not act, and my answer, again, is to think harder, faster, and longer than ever before. So you can readily see that what I refer to as “our problem” is very much “my problem”, and I speak from a good deal of experience.

Again, isolate language from life and you get a stale and hollow, illusory form of thinking, which, according to Jung, was characteristic of “positivistic” thinking so prevalent at the turn of this century. Isolate consciousness from the unconscious, and pretend that what we know and understand about the world comes only from the outside through sensation, and you get a physically and psychically “fragmented”, neuroses-prone individual. The early Wittgenstein knew that thought could not merely consist of words alone, and looked for “psychical constituents” which might have the same relationship to reality as words. In his later philosophy, still trying desperately to locate the source of meaning somewhere, he attempted to diminish the importance of these same “mental constituents” by tying language to activity and then claiming that language is always a public affair. In so doing, he felt that he had diminished the importance of having to look for mental components acting behind the scenes, but, he did nothing of the kind. He merely substituted activity for experience as though the two were different. Rule behavior in activity is rule behavior in nature. Whether we are talking about a personal sensation, conception, behavior, or object, they are all a product of experience–a part of nature. Because language is inextricably tied to activity, it must be rule-bound, thought Wittgenstein; because it is rule-bound, it cannot be a private affair. Thus, he concluded that since so-called “mental phenomena” is not necessary to the formation of language, and meaning in language is inextricably bound up with activity, then meaning in activity is in some way detached from the same.

Let me put this matter to rest by pointing to an earlier fact I tried to bring out: that we are not, and cannot be connected to one another without a mediating ground. Just because rule-governed activities can develop from observations of outer behavior alone, this does not entail that outer behavior is not connected in anyway to inner. Once again, this “sleight of hand” distinguishes and attempts to “objectify” certain human characteristics over others by severing them. Wittgenstein tried to do away with inner phenomena and with it, an inner subject, by showing them to be superfluous. Only who is the subject if not ourselves? It’s as though we were hollow shells and nothing more; purely “external” and “unconnected” beings.

I had occasion to read one of Robert Ornstein’s books called Evolution of Consciousness . It was an extremely interesting book which, I felt, served to put current “scientific” meat on some old bones that have been around for a long time. However, there were a number of things that struck discordant notes in me. In particular was the discovery that unconscious stimuli preceded conscious awareness. This “discovery” was made by attaching electrodes to the skin of the scalp and noting that a “readiness potential” happens before voluntary self-willed movements. In other words, says Ornstein, “the brain begins the process of moving before the person even knows about it.” But I contend that this amazing discovery could be made over and over by any one of us during the course of a day. We only have to admit to what is going on inside us. No, we are not able to see a brain wave precede an action, but it takes no magic whatever for us to admit that our compulsions do not originate in consciousness. We could offer thousands of examples of activities that neither originated from something in the outside world, nor from our conscious awareness at the time. But, it goes without saying, that we will invariably fight to maintain the idea that its “ultimate” source would have to have been located in the outside world. If not now, then it is no doubt a product of memory, which is a product of experience, which is a product of sensation, which occurred some time before, etc. Although evidence to the contrary surrounds us, we remain adamant in denying it. We simply will not view ourselves as passive receivers and actors whose impetus to act derives from some source other than we. Why?

July 1, 1993

Had a dream last night which I can hardly remember. I do remember that I was in a room with an artist who was somewhat frustrated by the fact that people would not buy his work. He had been forced to lower his prices down to $25 per painting (which was less than the cost of his materials alone) simply because customers would continue to ask: “How do I know it’s worth even this much?” I took pity on his plight. Then I took out a piece of paper, made a few strokes here and there and, within a minute or two, produced a pretty good looking abstract drawing which I said (perhaps, bragged) could successfully sell for $45 each. He said nothing and I guess that he left the room.

I can identify with his plight from my personal and occupational counseling business. I hate having to “sell” or justify the value of my services to clients who appear unable to appreciate their true value. A part of me wants to get even, or wants to “beat” such individuals by simplifying the process and giving them something which looks good, but takes little or no effort; or else has little value. “It would serve them right!” Instead, I give my total interest and effort for too little compensation in my opinion.

Moments later I returned to a fairly dim-lit room only to find that this gentleman had hung three (or four) very beautiful oil paintings on two walls of the room. These were “magnificent” works of art and I was totally amazed by his ability to produce them. They were each large canvasses, perhaps three by seven feet, and the only piece I can remember was the one on the right side of the wall which was of a large “knight” chess piece (represented by a horse). It was large and in the dark against a drapery backdrop. Rich wood colors and grains could be seen shimmering through the shadows and it was just a beautiful work of art. I couldn’t remember what the other works were except that I recognize them as equally beautiful. I have vague recollect that the one to the left of the knight was of a woman in a long (Victorian-styled?) dress. Again, I was simply amazed that this gentleman could have produced such fine works of art.

There was no mistaking the quality of these pieces. Since all of the actors in my dreams are (according to Jung) representative of some part of myself, I suspect that the dream might be informing me that I, too, may be capable of producing such fine work and, perhaps, the message to myself is that: if I were to do so, there would be no questioning its worth. Thus, I might end my own personal dilemma. I don’t know the significance of the “knight piece”; maybe, it is informing me that I must be heroic and have the courage to venture forth? Why, then, not a real knight in shinning armor…

Another piece of this dream work involved my “pin-setting” in a bowling alley where I had to carefully jump back and forth between two pits while also protecting myself from flying pins (which I did by holding my legs in the air). [I originally typed the word “myself” as “my self” (by accident?) and upon re-reading the passage, the notion that I might be protecting my “Self” occurred to me.] At any rate, I commented to my brother Leonard that it would be unlikely for anyone to get hurt so long as they paid attention to what was going on and were careful to hold their legs up at the appropriate times.

I’ll settle on the possibility that my unconscious may be telling me not to fear dangerous consequences (to my self-esteem?) so long as I pay attention to what is going on around me and take the necessary precautions. But these two pits may be representative of something more important, such as two sides of my personality. It may have to do with my trying to balance Perception and Judgment or, perhaps, is referring to one or the other sides of a pair of functions. I tend to use “intuition” over “sensing” and “thinking” over “feeling”, although in the latter case, I sense that I may be falsifying my true nature. But why is my brother Leonard in this dream? Well, one reason might be that Leonard’s personality is opposite my own in at least two important aspects. He is “sensing” rather than “intuitive” and very much prefers the “judging function” over “perception”. We both appear to prefer “thinking” over “feeling” but I would hold that he is having just as much difficulty with this as I am. So in this dream, I may be trying to convince the “neglected” side(s) of my personality not to worry–that “I can pull off” dealing with both!

Another scene found me driving a car with Leonard sitting appropriately on the “right” side of me. I was commenting about how well I had learned to use my left hand as well as my right. I was making a right turn at the time and, at that moment, was thinking how inappropriate it was to be making this remark as I was just then performing a “right-handed” action. I also remember feeling that I was now heading the wrong way on a one-way street. I was looking for signs which might indicate if this were so, but, a little further on, could see a “three-way” arrow sign informing me that everything was alright. However, my dream did not make it clear as to what I should do when I reached this intersection.

Again, I cannot help but think that my unconscious is informing me that I am using the wrong function; that I have, perhaps, been overly preoccupied with intuition at the expense of sensation or one of the judging functions–I simply do not know which. At any rate, this dream appears to indicate that I am definitely not on firm ground, nor am I certain of my direction. I would like to believe that my unconscious is informing me that I need to begin dealing with the “right” side of my personality (the judging function), and that, were I to do so, everything would come out alright. But will I then have to make a choice between three other directions?

[I just had a remembrance of the “three beautiful mahogany doors” which appeared to be central to a previous dream I had. What are these three doors? What are these three directions? And were there three or four paintings on the walls of the room?]

What if these three directions represent the remaining three functions of my personality? Then my dream would be informing me that I must use my first function to get to the other three; that, unless I use it, I may not be able to proceed to a fuller development of personality. But how can I be clear as to whether “right” is referring to “thinking” or “feeling”? Both could be said to be “conservative” functions; both would entail that I take a stand, perhaps at the expense of other things (intuitions) standing in my way. Which function would best describe a “knight”? Which function would “appear to me” to be making a wrong turn? “Feeling” of course! Chivalry originates and is borne by the heart–not the mind. A right turn (thinking now of a MBTI diagram) would be a move to the side of feeling.

Another scene found me looking at a work of art which, upon a previous observation, I knew to be a very complicated abstract piece which I couldn’t make out at the time. Only now I was amazed by my ability to see this piece as a very simple scene of a swimmer laying on a beach blanket sunning himself. There was water in the background and I think a large fish half out of the water. It was such a simple scene that it appeared to be a “cartoon”. I said to the person standing next to me: “Just wait until you are able to see this painting for what it really is”, or something to that effect, believing that I would in some way be able to reveal this to him. But for some reason, this same painting was now outside in another location, and I was going to once again try to interpret it for this same individual. We walked outdoors to view the painting and discovered that it had changed. The scene was no longer the same one! I don’t recall what it was, but I do remember being taken back by this turn of events since it obviously meant that I would not be able to relate its meaning to others.

It would seem that the clearness of my personal visions are not to be related to others, or, at least, not to this individual. Or my unconscious may be informing me that they are not “clear visions”, nor permanent, nor true representations of what I think they are. As such, I do not–nor will I have–a power which I obviously had relished having for the moment. Perhaps I am being told that what will become clear to me may have little or no relevance to someone else, nor should I expect this. They may be intended for me alone; perhaps, to be represented in a work of art of my own. I am frustrated by not being able to interpret and share such visions with others, and would be even more frustrated if I am being told that they are not worth relating.

I also recall that this same young man was at my house to help me “do my work”. We were outside my family room door, and he was just standing there silently watching and waiting for some direction from me. I didn’t know what I would do with him since I felt that he wasn’t really capable of doing my work. I thought that maybe I could give him some yard work to do which might be of help, but don’t recall ever asking him. It was a somewhat embarrassing situation to be in.

It suddenly occurs to me that this “young man” that I want to interpret for, most likely represents my “feeling” side which I do not trust to do my work. “My work” must be something extremely significant to me, and I fully expect that it is “intuitive work” which, perhaps, needs to be handled by “thinking”. In Jung’s treatment of the introverted thinking type, he describes the true or successful philosopher, if I may paraphrase: “as one who is able to assimilate the universal and symbolic truths of the archetypes to the recognized and recognizable knowledge of the time before it can become a practical truth of any value for life.” [p. 238-39 Portable Jung] It may be that I consider the translation of “my work” (intuitive visions) as a job for the mind rather than heart. On the other hand, in Jung’s description of the “introverted intuitive”, he describes a special variety of intuitive who, because of a slight differentiation of the judging function, “shifts intuitive perception from the purely aesthetic into the moral sphere.” [Ibid. p262] This kind of “intuitive” is no longer strictly an aesthetic type, but is someone who tries to relate himself to his visions since he is no longer satisfied with mere perception. He asks: “What does this mean for me or the world? What is my duty or task?”, reflecting a strong desire to understand the meaning of his visions. Although Jung’s description of the “introverted thinker” sounds very much like me (especially its pathology), so too does this special type of introverted intuitive. Unfortunately, Jung’s description of this particular variety was scant in comparison to the purer type of aesthetic intuitive, and so I have been much more prone to identify myself with the thinking side. But, I must confess, this scant description has had a very strong impact upon me, and I fully expect to discover that I am indeed of this type. If I am, it may explain my close identification to the “pathology” of the former since it may point to the results of “falsifying” a natural behavior. On the other hand, I may be a true “thinker” who has had a strong, competing “feeling” side which has tried to be recognized, but failing this, has done its utmost to interfere with thought. [It’s amazing to me how my personal psychology seems to mirror both my father and mother’s psychologies and also their relationship to one another!]

Getting back to my dream, it seems as though I am being told to move from intuition to judgment (representing a move to the right) or from the “thinking” side of judgment to the “feeling” side of judgement, which also represents a move to the right. But, if this young man standing beside me is capable of assisting me, why does he not show it? If I knew his potential, I would not simply want to shove him off to doing yard work. Another thought occurred to me when I wrote this dream down for the first time. I considered that this scenario may be showing me that I am guilty of the very thing I have accused others of doing–that is, usurping the credit for intuitive visions by taking what is “given me” and then wanting to go it alone. The dream may be pointing to an undeserved, highly inflated attitude regarding my own importance, or the importance of the visions given me. The young man may represent an innocent, perhaps, fragmented part of myself who may, himself, be in the dark as to what is going on. [I now sense that he is myself as a young, incomplete, man] He may represent an untold truth which I have not had nerve enough to face. By staving him off, I may feel that I am protecting myself. When I look at him, I am seeing myself in somewhat helpless terms, perhaps even, in a pitiable state. My deceit is against myself, and its accompanying guilt may be all mine to suffer. But how do I tell myself that I am unequal to a task which I obviously feel that I am quite capable of? It seems too painful from either standpoint–informer or receiver. If this young man is my denied feeling side, or a part of myself which has been “denied feeling” (myself in essence), how do I correct the situation? How do I go about loving and accepting myself for whatever I may turn out to be? And what about the frustrated artist who proved that he could produce fine art and who also may have been directing me? Is this an older self? Is this me facing myself in the present? Is there an “inner boy Raymond” and an “inner man Raymond” both beseeching unity? [These latter terms were used in one of my so-called “autowriting” episodes relating to God and Satan wanting to join. It felt natural to use these terms here] Might my “inner man” be educating me to my potential, so long as I follow the direction of the second dream (or part). And, if I am successful in doing this, will I then come face-to-face with my inner boy? It appears as though we have a triangular relationship at work here comprising two unconscious and one conscious element. The conscious part (me) is trying to protect the younger boy (also me) from finding out what he believes to be an unwanted or embarrassing truth. The older man (again, me) is trying to demonstrate that I am mistaken in my belief about my “inner boy” and, in essence, am needlessly hurting the boy (and thus myself) with this false information. Perhaps I am being told that I really am capable of producing works of art (and that I am worthy as such), and that it is important that I stop this “self-deception”. But then, this may be just an elaborate defense mechanism standing in the way of knowing a truth about myself which I am still unable to face. From what point is my heroic journey to begin? How do I go about rescuing this young man from myself?–myself from myself!

There was one final episode in this night of dreaming which seemed to have sexual undertones. I recall feeling jealous of some attractive, blonde, middle-aged woman, who was at the moment getting into her car knowing full well that I was watching her. She knew that I was bothered by her presence and she was obviously enjoying the moment. I knew that she was sexually active with a young, strong fellow who I recognized as someone who I had worked with in the past. She knew I was affected by this situation and was grinning as though enjoying the moment. I also remember a young attractive girl approaching me and, in a swooning (trying desperately to please) manner, offered herself to me. She had wanted to make love to me on a previous occasions, but for some reason or another, it never happened. I remember George saying to me that “it’s a good thing it never happened because her father would have killed me.”

I can almost sense this smirking woman saying to herself: “You want to live with your false sense of morality and impossible ideal of love–so be it. But this is the way it really is you poor, suffering fool!” I sense that she represents a part of me that would like nothing else than to be open in this way and be able to enjoy its obvious benefits. Only I want to say that I find nothing but disgust for such women, and that my ideal of “intimacy” goes far beyond lust to a “relationship between souls”. Only who am I kidding?–I’m jealous as hell! As for the young girl and her “father”, there are numerous things that might be said regarding gullibility, innocence, etc., but I don’t really have a an inkling of her meaning in this dream. Why she should be so available and appealing, and yet be rejected, I simply can’t imagine. Perhaps she’s a counterpart to the young boy in the previous episode, and represents a young “anima” who does not care to go along with the older one. I also suspect that “father” may be a stand-in for the unconscious or, perhaps, is standing in for my own “conscience”. As this young girl would be but another representative of myself, her father would be my father. I am far from satisfied with these remarks and feel as though I’m really far afield of what this dream really means. I am very reluctant to think that this older woman represents my anima because “she” generally appears quite different. Above all, she is not gaudy–but honest, respectful, attractive, and caring. She would never lower herself to play “such games”. She is forever kind and sweet and, as a matter of fact, is always trying to teach me something which, unfortunately, perhaps, she always fails to get across to me. On the other hand, although I like her very much, I am not all that thrilled by her intellect, which I cannot help but feel is a feminine “weakness” of sorts. Perhaps, as a representative of my “feeling” side (unconscious judgment), I am not prepared to grant that her “criterion” for judgment (values) can be equal or superior to that of “thinking” (or logic and analysis). I seem adamant about carrying around what now appears to me to be a common male prejudice. It seems as though feeling judgment tries to keep one close to the experience at hand, while thinking thinks it advantageous to venture as far away from this center as is possible. If the female personality generally tends to ignore such “extensions” of thought in favor of values, the mostly male “thinking” standpoint is inclined to regard such judgments as “logically inconsistent”, which, more likely than not, merely translates into a refusal to follow. Is this what the conflict between my anima and myself is all about? In my dreams, I am usually frustrating her by shutting her out, or by refusing to get the message she so desperately wants me to get. But, again, the woman in this dream is very different from my anima. This woman is “letting her hair down” and appears to be enjoying the fact that I find her behavior disconcerting. If she represents my anima in different guise, perhaps taking a different tact to get my goat, she has definitely succeeded! On the other hand, she may have also brought me another step closer to knowing the truth about myself.

So much for dreams and their intrigues. I feel as though I have the makings of a good soap opera going on in me. At any rate, following my writing the above remarks, I went to the bathroom to get cleaned up and dressed for the day. I have a small desk encyclopedia which I sometimes keep on the hamper next to the toilet (reading material). Each morning, I just flip the book open to any page and read one or more of its short articles for factual information. Breadth (rather than depth) is sometimes a quicker means for tying disparate things together. Sometimes, however, I fancy that I might be “guided” to relevant passages which could aid me in understanding myself–much as my dreams have guided me. And so, I began opening the book about an hour ago (at random) and was going to take seriously whatever my eyes immediately fixed upon. (Admittedly, it is not really done with a great amount of seriousness, but I do not discount the possibility that there may be more to it). Most often, I find that my eyes immediately fix upon a subject heading (perhaps only because they are bolded), but sometimes I find myself in the middle of a passage. I “assume” that when I am fixed on a subject heading, it is the subject that is the important thing, and will usually content myself with this. Or, I might scan the passage briefly in order to see what may strike me as relevant. If my eyes fix upon a sentence or paragraph somewhere in the middle of an article, then I assume that this is the message intended. For whatever it may be worth, what follows is the order and subjects which were randomly chosen during this process:

SILKWORM–The caterpillar of a moth which spins itself a cocoon of silk in which it pupates. [Am I pupating in a self-spun cocoon?]

RED JACKET (Seneca Indian Chief). Strongly opposed white customs and Christianity for his people in N.Y. [My personal philosophy does oppose “white” customs and much of what is proffered to be Christian]

MEXICO–Four climatic zones: hot, temperate, cold, and frozen. [Four temperaments, functions of personality?]

You’ve got to admit, this seems like pretty coincidental stuff; but maybe anyone can relate anything to ones life.

CHARLES ANDREW DANA–American journalist who developed the “human interest” story. Lived on utopian Brook Farm. [“human interest”, “utopian”… my personal philosophy holds that each of us is ultimately interesting inasmuch as our relationship with nature is a private affair. Thus, what nature says to the moron may be just as significant for himself, as well as for others, as what nature reveals to the genius]

BERTRAND RUSSELL–Philosopher who broke from idealism to become an empiricist. [Not sure about this. My philosophical tendencies would appear to dodge (or bridge) both rationalism and empiricism (mind-matter), or perhaps, might come to resemble a new form of idealism, which would be opposite to Russell! At any rate, I believe that knowledge cannot be gained solely from sensation nor solely from reason–both require the mediation and backdrop of a subjective unconscious.]

“MIDDLE KINGDOM”–One of the headings on an article on Egypt. [What is the direction of my philosophy (and life) if not the middle road? I have always sought the middle ground as a solution to conflict!–worldly or psychological]

FRANCIS HOPKINSON–American composer (and one of signers of Declaration of Independence) who wrote first American song: “My Days Have Been So Wondrous Free”. [??? “Independence”?]

TENSKWATAWA–Shawnee prophet famous for his “messages from God” and prediction of an eclipse. Urged rejection of the white man. [Relating “Intuitions”? I urge that the white man confess his sins]

EXPRESSIONISM–Art movement which claimed that art should be the expression of subjective feelings and emotions. [My own goal and need? I believe that “life” should be the expression of subjective feelings and emotions!]

US DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY–Centralized national energy planning at the cabinet level. [Wouldn’t it be nice if we were to do the same with intellectual or “psychic” energy?]

CAMPAIGN FINANCING–(Eyes fixed on particular paragraph). “1974 amendment to the Federal Elections Campaign Act authorizing public financing of national primary conventions and presidential elections”. [??]

NURSING–Care of the sick, injured and handicapped. [Yes]

NAPLES–The historic city has a 13th century cathedral and university. [??]

FAISAL–Two kings of Iraq… both murdered in a revolution in 1958. [Year I graduated from high school?? “Both murdered!”… Enough of this nonsense!]

July 4, 1993

DREAM

Dreamt that my wife and I had gone to New York City for some reason or another. It seems that we went to see Phantom of the Opera, but I’m not certain. Following this, we found ourselves with my daughter Catherine, and a friend of hers, who was going to go to dinner with us. We found ourselves over on the West side of Manhattan with nothing too great to do. The restaurants (within my price range) weren’t all that exciting and I thought that it might be thrilling for the girls (and less of an embarrassment to me) if we were all to go to Greenwich Village and just stroll around. Everyone seemed to favor this idea.

My wife Jane was driving and we were in unfamiliar territory. The streets all had names instead of numbers and I didn’t know where we were. Jane turned down this one street which seemed to lead (and end) at a factory. The neighborhood was looking rougher and rougher and I could see that there were only black workers who were working outside [yes, I’m aware of this prejudice]. I told Jane that I had better take the wheel now and, once done, began backing down this same street, rounding a corner, and, just as I was approaching the exit from this narrow street into a wider one, found that another car was just then parking in a place that would have blocked our exit had we not arrived just in time. As it was, we were able to get through and he was able to park in a legal space. [This is one of those dream meanings which have no verifiable sense in reality–I don’t know how the legal space came about].

I proceeded to drive south, still wondering where we were. Suddenly I saw that we were approaching this very long, four or five story building which seemed to stretch across the entire width of Manhattan. At least, I knew it to extend over to the West Side to the Village. Although it looked fairly old and nondescript (like a four or five story factory building with lots of windows but no smoke stacks), I recognized this building to be “Disneyland”! [It seems as though I was here in one or more previous dreams although I can’t remember any of them.]

[I just had a shimmering of a remembrance of a previous dream which had something to do with this same scene or something close to it. No sooner than this appeared, than I just as suddenly had a flood of other dream remembrances flow into consciousness: an ocean and beach scene from some other dream, then New York City, above ground subways (in Queens), highways going into and around the city, then scenes of me crossing the country on foot, finding my way around a city, planning a route to Florida, charting a trek northwards to the top of Canada and across the country to California, trying to discover different routes into and from Rochester, etc. This sudden outpouring leads me to believe that there are numerous unremembered dreams in my mental storehouse which have some form of association with these current reflections. Unfortunately, this amazing, veritable stream of associated memories, was interrupted by a telephone call.]

I told everyone in the car that we could enter here and that they would have transportation inside to get us over to the West side of town. [I don’t know if it’s anything significant, but in recording this dream, I typed “East” in place of “West” in every case which I have had to correct since the “Village” is on the West side of Manhattan] We entered the parking lot and I was both surprised and elated to find that parking was only one dollar. But, upon entering the building, I discovered that there would be another three dollar entry feel for each of us to get in. I mentioned this to the girls and asked if they minded. They indicated that they did mind, or, at least, Catherine’s friend did. I remember a definitely disapproving look on her face.

I told the ticket lady our story, and that we just wanted to pass through. [However, I recall thinking it simpler if I referred to Catherine’s friend as a second daughter. In truth, I have a vague feeling that this girl was in fact my daughter Monica] She told me I would have to go to another location for approval. When I got to this place and was able to tell my story to some gentleman, he took me (several stories on an elevator) to a balcony seat in large room where hearings were being conducted on the floor below. He sat in a seat with controls in front of him, a sort of cockpit. The judge was sitting on a bench far below where others were seated around the room in a semi-circular arrangement [sudden remembrance of my being in a “flight simulator” in a previous dream]–each in their own module. You had to insert a key and then record your problem. The judge would hear it and, in turn, rule on it. I was concerned that I would be here all day waiting for my turn, but this gentleman said it would only take a few minutes since they moved people through the process quickly. I then asked if I could use the module he was sitting in to explain my story, but he said that I would have to go to a lower level and utilize one the modules located there. He told me to take the elevator to “two different floors” in order to get to where I needed to be. He gave me a “two number sequence”! It was as though the elevator had to be “reset” on the first floor in order to let me out on the floor I needed to go to. Perhaps it was a mezzanine. However, when I got into the elevator, some other gentleman had already pushed the 10th floor button and, because he had already gotten the elevator in motion, I was wondering how I would be able to handle the two number sequence I was given. I finally settled on pushing just the second number (I believe it was the 2nd floor) and let it go at that. I recognized that I was taking a short-cut from the orders I was given, but considered that the “end” sought would be better than doing nothing. When I arrived in the room, I took a seat in one of the modules only to find that the control panel was devoid of anything–merely a metal panel with perforated holes and no controls. I considered that I should go up to the judge and report in, but then decided to do nothing. I felt that my turn would come to speak or else someone would come to explain the procedure to me. Unfortunately, the meeting came to an end and the judge (a female) began to get up to leave the bench. I ran up to her and explained that I had not been helped yet. I began explaining my situation to her and she listened attentively and sympathetically. But she said that the matter would have to be taken up by a different judge. She then sent me to another location with my original guide.

We went higher in the elevator and when the doors opened, found that we were in the judge’s bedroom with he and his wife just now pulling the covers off of themselves. They were both fairly old (mid to upper seventies) and I had the definite impression that they had just finished making love. It was mid-afternoon and I thought how strange this was for a judge who was presumably working. Neither of them seemed concerned by our presence, however. I then looked over to the left side of the room and saw a very attractive lady (about forty years of age) dressed in silk pajama’s, wearing glasses, and, for all appearances, standing by to perform secretarial functions. I immediately recognized her to be the judge’s real “playmate” and could sense that his wife was also aware of it. And then, just as suddenly, there appeared seated next to this lady a gentleman dressed in a silk smoking jacket and pajamas, about fifty years old. He was a fairly polished looking man.

I began telling the judge my story and how I, myself, had on prior occasions enjoyed visiting the Village on a Saturday or Sunday afternoon simply to watch what was going on in the streets. I loved sipping wine at an outdoor cafe, watching people dare to be themselves, or, at least, dare to be someone. I told this group how I felt that the girls would get a big kick out of it. But they nodded disapprovingly at this because it was a weekday and, because of this, what I expected to see would not be there. Rather, we would find an entirely different setting which I recognized to be dangerous crime-ridden streets. There were other people in the room now and I recall this homosexual male couple standing across the room affirming what the others were saying.

I don’t remember what transpired after that except that we left Disneyland and came across some members of my own family while crossing a street. There was my brother Leonard and his wife Anita, and also an old childhood friend of my brother’s, Chuck Burr. I remember Chuck as a youngster. He was very articulate, good looking and intelligent. He spoke a fluent Sicilian dialect which he learned from his grandmother. He had a young son who was with him holding onto his hand. I noticed that his son was a handsome youth and also had many of Chucks features.

It’s strange, but two weeks following this dream I met Chuck outside of the LeRoy K of C (in my home town) where he and my brother Leonard had just finished celebrating their 40th year high school class reunion. I was in town for my 35th and had just stopped in (following our own celebration) to see if my brother and wife were still there. It was over when we arrived and Chuck and Leonard had just come outside and were saying goodbye [How coincidental]. Chuck was the only one I saw from Leonard’s class. He asked what I was doing and I responded that I had my own business and was doing resumes and some vocational counseling. He responded with something like: “That’s too bad, I’m sorry to hear that things aren’t going so well”… all from what could only be regarded as gentle and caring personal demeanor. I simply took it and let it go at that even though I was somewhat taken back by what I regarded to be an arrogant stance on his part. Chuck has been teaching mathematics and technology subjects at Monroe Community College for the past twenty or thirty years.

July 6, 1993

Dreamt that Fred Taggart (a former High School and College history teacher who, as far as I can make out, represents “structure” as well as “industry and follow-through” in my dreams) came to my house and tried to wake me up by turning on my bedroom light at 4:30 a.m. He reminded me of how refreshing it was to get started early, and I told him that I chose to get up at 7:30 a.m. which was the latest possible time I could get up without being late for work. He reminded me of how refreshing his regimen was and I could in fact picture the usefulness of his structured patterns in my own mind. But I also thought about how natural my own performance could flow from “perception” (intuition) which could also be regarded as appropriate guides to life.

I next recall being surrounded by numerous books whose titles I was pouring over. They related to concept formation, industrial management, and other “structured” reading material. I remember telling someone else of my experience with Fred and that I had been up since 4:30 a.m. as a result. I may have been bragging about how good it felt, but admitted that I would have felt better had I slept the additional three hours. This individual was making a room (in my house) ready for (winter?) and I believe was hanging draperies on the wall to do so. There was a rather nondescript expression on his face as though he were thinking to himself: “Nothing is changing, so I better get on with the necessary preparations.”

I lay in bed thinking about how structured I really am–at least, “internally”–and how balancing this with perception has been a great source of difficulty for me. While trying to remember other elements of my dream, it suddenly occurred to me that two previous dreams of mine had dealt with “structured motifs” (the agitated German officer who was extremely upset by my presence and the German-guarded building housing corpses and huge mythological heads or masks). There were several other dreams dealing with corpses which I suspect has a good deal to do with structure as well: the corpse-spewing machine that was also trying to gas us to death, the dream where I visited a carpenter shop dragging a corpse with me; and the Sicily dream where a corpse was utilized by two Sicilians to fool an animal into thinking it was carrying a baby and thus, lactating. It’s beginning to dawn on me that these corpses may be the “carcasses” which I have so many times claimed to be the result of our willingness to hack-off relevant knowledge in order to manufacture pseudo-knowledge or certainty. It has all along been my contention that such actions have been concealed from public view and knowledge (for the most part) and that we have for too long a time now been trying to feed off of such illusions. My dreams may be alluding to my having suffered this burden, or to the fact that I too am guilty of the same crime. In the “carpenter shop” dream, I tried to leave “my carcass” behind and had my life threatened for doing so. In the “machine dream”, I recall wondering why I was being fed so well (being given large chunks of meat to eat) but later realized that I may have been feeding on the dead carcasses that the machine was spewing out; this all the while the machine was trying to gas us to death.

The dream seems to symbolize the plight of human beings as I see it. The machine is our own creation. It is a gift to ourselves at the expense of severing ourselves from nature; and it is killing us at the same time as it is deluding us into believing that we are being fed. What we fail to see, however, is that we are feeding on ourselves! I recall having to hold my breadth in this dream while trying to fix a leaking gas pipe which was threatening all our lives. Because I couldn’t hold my breadth for the time it took this another individual to fix the pipe, I had to walk away from him to get fresh air. I remember feeling guilty for having to do so but didn’t see any other choice. Now I sense that I may have left this other person to die and, perhaps, he would become my next food source. Needless to say, our “structures” may be killing us, and my dreams may have found a way to express this dilemma both pictorially and symbolically–no little feat!

July 14, 1993

I would like to explore myself by recording what is going on inside of me. While I am writing and presumably thinking in this way, I do not sense that I am thinking at all. Rather, the words I have just written flowed from a previous intuition. I am still writing out of that intuition or vague picture.

I can try awaiting the next intuition but this appears to be an empty process. I recognize that I want to feel myself for what I am without holding distinctions in mind. I want to record what is really happening in my mind? What really enters consciousness?

“I can’t help but feel”… There is an obvious tendency to want to go on writing even without a thought in mind. As I write, the thought appears to develop. But this seems like bogus thinking, an illegitimate way of creating a thought out of whatever material happens to be there. There is something improper or artificial about this as it seems to be making the best out of a situation that was simply put there. Words spew forth–then their meanings are grasped–then a direction comes to light. I have a sense that this is a common occurrence, however, and that this may in fact be the way we operate with language. But is it legitimate? Or does this conception point to a major problem for us? I am awaiting the next move.

With eyes closed I see a violet hue with what appears to be an eye, although this is not so distinct. It’s always there when I close my eyes. There was a brief image of a violet face and now the eye is much closer and seemingly changing form as though it were sometimes human and sometimes belonging to different animals. Cats are definitely in these images. The initial eye is always belonging to a female while the colors always seem to pulsate or fade from purple to violet with periodic flashes of blue and red from time to time. There is now a little red, now nothing. The eye is now close, very close, only I feel that there is nothing here in this.

I feel like acting out of a prior notion or compulsion I felt earlier while reading from “Man and His Symbols”. It seems to me that views about the unconscious are inundated with conceptual misgivings. I feel that I should report what I feel to be the case rather than what I am told. Jung and his contemporaries are too limited in their views of the unconscious. They say too much from too little knowledge.

I feel as though I am totally in the hands of nature and that it comes through me from both directions; that I am a part of nature and nature a part of me and [INTUITION: “all” of nature is contained in me]…in the same way as we imagine ourselves to be contained in her. I want to ponder this point because this perspective seems so impossible.

I want to entertain “deep thoughts” (very deep thoughts) like I sometimes receive. These are extremely abstract notions which are vague but always recognized as far-reaching, only I seldom am allowed the opportunity to hang on to them for any length of time. They seem to be “brilliant” flashes of insight which always give me a renewed sense of faith in their importance–something which I always seem to be lacking. At such moments, I regain my confidence that I am receiving immensely important conceptions to share with the world. I then feel that I must get back to this source and concentrate on writing only these “profundities” as proper evidence of their greatness. But these do not come to me on an on-going basis and are very difficult to hang on to. They are generally sporadic episodes which rarely happen at convenient times. In fact, most of the time they occur upon my getting out of the shower after having been engaged in one of my long soliloquies to an imagined audience which is generally my custom. How I wish that these lectures were recorded. Some of my best insights occur when I am speaking.

I feel that it is these deep, comprehensive thoughts that really matter most. They are always new, bold, and opposite interpretations or ways of seeing the world. They always run counter to some common view or way of looking at things. But, again, it is difficult to hang on to them long enough to describe them, much less develop them. How can I tap into this source at will? It seems evident that I must already be engaged in thinking before such insights come to me. To do nothing is to get nothing. One cannot await the unconscious to deliver to us as though we were controlling the situation–as though to say: “Okay, I’m ready at my keyboard–deliver!”

I feel inclined now to rejoin my view that there is still too much objectivity in our talk about the unconscious and that even Jung (and especially his followers) have gone too far or not far enough. They still are inclined to give consciousness far too much credit. Consciousness seems so little to me, so obviously devoid of anything except what is given it; a mere vessel or meeting place for outer world and inner world to come together in experience. I hate the divisions (distinctions) we have made. Consciousness, unconsciousness and world are all one. And yet we are compelled to distinguish separations and parts in this blend because we can sense that they are there, and “we” can sense this only because we have already distinguished a sense of “we”! We feel that we are a part of something bigger than ourselves because we can experience “more” at different times than what is contained in us at present. We experience new happenings from without and from within. Thus, we sense that we cannot be all. We sense that we are only privy to a portion, and yet we can say the most preposterous things about what we are not privy to. Based upon our very limited perspective, we continue to make wholesale, broad-based claims. [INTUITION: We create wholeness, fill in the missing pieces in order to retain a sense of equilibrium. We are, or must be always whole at any given time, even if our sense of “wholeness” is made possible by illusion. This is obviously one of Nature’s provisions.]

Then why these glimpses of insights? We don’t know. Why the vagueness of dreams? We don’t know. But we must realize that there is something at world here even if we don’t know how it worlds. [I inadvertently typed “world” and “worlds” when I meant “work” and “works” but maybe this was intended! I like entertaining this thought since such “slips” have a way of happening so often and almost always carry a significant alternate view.]

I now feel as though I want to quit this thinking and simply dump it. I feel that it is all so insignificant. What I am saying is not anything that surprises me. I am simply grappling with my own ignorance of myself. If it does little more than show me how vast is this world that controls us, and does nothing to alleviate my despair, then what good is it?–Why bother?

Why can’t nature rid me of this despair by opening up a dialogue that will put me on course,–enable me to go with the flow,–and be able to take life as it comes? Why must I always struggle with something that will forever be beyond me if it does me so little good? My life is entangled. And what are these revelations doing for me? For others?–Nothing! I can’t believe that nature should work in this way, and yet how do I explain the pain or the confusion? How do I explain the resistance or the compulsion?–the compulsion to receive and resist at the same time? How can I release the flow if I do not understand it? How can I trust in the flow when it is not clear? What is nature’s language anyway? Does she always act for my benefit? Where did I get the notion that I can decide? [INTUITION: Nature always wins and always is in control. Our ability to interfere is illusory and is paid for. Repression too has an eventual end. Nature always wins.]

So must we do what we are told even though we do not fully recognize what it is we are being told? How can we be in touch or in tune with nature’s voice? [INTUITION: By speaking the truth! Speaking what we feel when we feel it. Through honesty and trusting that to do so will have a good or proper outcome for all concerned. There is really no choice but to trust. No choice but to give in. No choice but to be subject.]

Then where and why did this defiance arise? Why do we feel that we can know and choose and be everything we want to be unto ourselves? [INTUITION: By shutting out the unconscious] But how were we able to do this? Who’s in control? Consciousness is a mere receptacle. Where did it get a life and history of its own? [Memory] But memories are given us as well by the unconscious. Why provide for its own demise? [It will not be harmed] Then why should you assist consciousness in taking a harmful course? in turning against your nurturing presence? (Nothing forthcoming). Perhaps the last question was improper. I will reread the passage.

I reread the previous two paragraphs and stopped at the intuitive answer of “memory”. It occurred to me at this point that the unconscious and the “provider” of intuitive insights may be two different things entirely. We tend to dump all of our unknowns into a single basket and call it by a simple general term. But a new intuition informed me that the workings of the unconscious, like the workings of external nature, is something which goes on independently of either our knowing or the knowing of whoever it is that speaks to us through intuitions, dreams, etc. This accords well with the many concepts we have depicting the existence of other “presences” (anima’s, shadows, or archetypes of every kind). There are, in other words, other personalities comprising ourselves or working through ourselves by some unknown means. Whoever or whatever these personalities are, they are not in control of everything. Rather, it seems that we are not only in touch with other human beings on the outside but with other human beings on the inside as well. [INTUITION: (very vague)… Our inside personalities may somehow “represent” the outside personalities, perhaps creates them!] I am now thinking of a tie-in to our notion of “projection”, but this notion is as stupendous as it is incomprehensible. I suppose that if the unconscious does in fact mediate our connection with the outside world, then it must also join it and become a part of it in some way. Then are we to suppose that other human beings are in some way mere “images” of what lies inside ourselves? Can “all” of humanity in some way be contained within each one of us? All of the good and all of the evil? [INTUITION: mirror]… [Could this intuition have resulted from the previous sentence were I spoke of “mere” images? Is this a simple association or something more profound as I would hope it to be?]

Is the external world a mirror image of the internal or the other way around? We want to say that the latter is the case rather than the former. Why? Because we identify with the external world–with the light and dark–because it has relative permanence. By itself, the unconscious offers nothing to hang on to. [Directed outward] It seems that elements of the unconscious have an outer directedness. Thus consciousness, as something moved, must also be outer-directed. It feels as though we are little more than machines or devices–mere sensors for other beings. We are not aware of such masters because we are machines! [Remembrance of “Sicily dream” and deluded cow]

Are there two forces within us (several of my dreams had “two” characters), perhaps representing “opposite” tendencies, that work together (must work together?) in order to reach the light? or create the illusion? Why would we be given the mirror allowing consciousness? I can’t help but believe that these other personages are also in the dark, or else are little more than forms of representations provided by nature. Whether we hear voices and receive images and scripts from outside or inside, they are only qualitatively different and not different in form. We recognize a similarity at the same time as we abstract a difference. In fact, if there were not a qualitative difference (any difference at all), we would not be able to distinguish anything at all! This seems to be a rather important point since we seem prone to search for “identities” as paradigms for knowledge, even when we can see that “absolute” identity negates knowledge! For if there were no difference between an outer and inner sensation, there would be no knowledge of the same. Not only would we be without “sensations” as such, but we would be without any conception of “inner” and “outer”. Difference, it would seem, makes all the difference!

It would also seem that “identity” and “similarity” are one and the same abstraction, only now, I am moving off track. While an absolute identity would negate knowledge, this does not mean that it would do so in any context. Time, location and memory can provide us with notions of identities as when we compare two things at the same time, recognize the same object at different times or places, etc.

I started rereading some of the above material to try to get back on track. I stopped at my “Sicily dream” and considered that the action of the two Italians (fooling the cow into thinking it was pregnant by inserting a dead body into it, thus causing it to lactate) as a means of “recycling”. Another dream (the machine spewing out dead bodies) may have been another example of the same since I was being fed large hunks of meat. There is something to this I am sure. Either I am being told of a “personal” dilemma or of a common “human” dilemma or working of life. The cow gave milk, presumably for the two Italians (who appeared to be working together), without knowing anything of what was going on. The machine spewed out dead bodies for myself and one other person (who was working with me to prevent the machine from gassing us to death), presumably for me to feed upon. The analogy can’t be maintained, however. I want to compare the cow with the machine, but the cow was an innocent bystander while the machine seemed to be in control. If someone was behind the machine, I did not know of it. The Italians initiated the delusion, controlled it, and reaped the benefits. I believed that the machine was providing meat for me at the same time as it was endangering my life. But I didn’t know it was doing so intentionally. I didn’t know that I might be eating human flesh. These notions came after further reflection. At the time there was only another man and myself trying to save ourselves. I may have left him to die when I walked away from the leaking gas pipe to breathe fresh air. I suspect that there’s a common message or depiction between these dreams but I don’t see it.

It suddenly occurred to me that the two dreams may have “opposite” meanings. If the two Italians and the two of us are taken together, the cow and the machine, and the corpse and corpse, what do we have? The cow provides the vehicle, the corpse the tool, and the Italians gain the benefit of the milk. (However, the corpse was placed in the cow through a side flap and not fed to it. And there was no danger to the cow). The machine, on the other hand, was the vehicle that both threatened and fed us (to ourselves?) for whose benefit? Neither does there seem to be an opposite analogy. And yet, there is a good deal of similarity. The Italians deluded the cow in order to get milk. The machine deluded me in order to get me to eat. But why? So that I could be food for someone else? How could this be of benefit to anyone?

By now I am very far afield from my original quest. Such is the way of thought. Invariably, it seems to choose its own direction, or else comes to be directed by forces which we do not know. Unfortunately, if this excursion was of benefit to anyone other than my conscious self, I do not know it. For to me, it represents just another dismal failure leading me to my starting point.

I guess that the message once again is that thinking takes us nowhere. Intuitions are for the moment and not intended for reflection. Ours is not to understand but to evolve. We have no choice but to do so, and submission appears to be the way.

July 23, 1993

We abstract conflicts whenever we abstract concepts. While abstractions enable us to note differences, we invariably try to put those differences back together, especially when we are dealing with ourselves. We say: “It would be nice if someone too tall could be a little shorter; someone too friendly, a little firmer; someone too ambitious, a little more relaxing. Life would be so much easier.” This middle of the road (average) tendency we apparently are seeking is just another way of expressing a desire to be “perfect”. Only what would we be if all of us had every average characteristic and behavioral tendency? We want to say that we would be “ideal” individuals–just right in every way–but where would our “individuality” lie? What seems certain is that without extensions or parameters encompassing continuums of behavior, there could be no average tendency, perhaps no meaning whatever. Knowing this, why do we still seek it? Or do we imagine that such extremes exist in order for us to form average tendencies?–That nature’s way to progression may be through such restraints, confinements, or limitations which are really “choices” on her part, if we allow ourselves to speak in such terms.

July 25, 1993

Consciousness does not, strictly speaking, look without or within; thus, Jung’s notion of an introverted and extroverted standpoint needs to be reexamined.

We carry enough of us in consciousness to warrant a feeling of identity; enough memories, familiar surroundings, anticipations, etc. which are connected in themselves, and therefore of no surprise. Emerson’s “wave analogy” seems appropriate here. Same particles of water at the beginning of a wave are not the same that crest with it, though there is one continuous interconnected movement throughout.

Consciousness (or life itself), then, may be viewed as one continuous interconnected movement; like a wave, arising from the infinite depths, cresting, and returning to its source only to become part of another wave or, perhaps, submerge into the depths where it may play a less conspicuous, less prominent role for a given span of time. Perhaps the ocean depths can be likened to our early history where our identities were more environment-like than creature-like.

Life as we know it continues through life and not through death. Death is a breakdown of life into the basic elements comprising it, and a return to the environment from whence it arose. If we take our wave analogy ashore with us, we must assume that the particles of water comprising a wave are able to lift new particles from below (birth) before returning to the depths (death). We might also assume that at one time or another these same particles had perhaps surfaced as a wave at some previous time eons ago. One thing is for certain, however, and that is that what we are at present or will most definitely be a part of something else, no matter how insignificant that something may appear to be. What makes it insignificant is the our reluctance to let go of our identities. We think that “we” will return to the earth, but, in reality, all of what we comprise will rejoin (reconnect) to its proper counterparts. It seems unlikely that nature (as we know it) would reconstitute “us” in the same way as before, but this is not to say that there is nothing outside nature that could evoke the same. Would a clone of myself be me (a rebirth) or simply be another me?

Consciousness may be likened to a receptacle or room: a waiting room, meeting room, awareness room, or better yet, a processing room where perceptions and concepts come to light. In this regard, consciousness is nature’s way of “freeze-framing” life in order to provide us with the illusion of permanence, sameness, or stillness which is really nowhere to be found in nature. What is permanent from one perspective or standpoint, is discovered to be relative from another angle. Only we must come to understand that this picture-relative permanence is what makes conceptions possible. From this reception, we are then able to imitate, re-represent and apply the same to new contexts. Thus, we come to regard consciousness as a “means” to some end.

Nature is not human and thus our standpoint is next to useless in trying to understand her. We attribute human qualities to her and then decry her impersonal nature!

Life is illusory. We are surrounded by illusions and, in unraveling the same, find still other levels on still other planes.

Conscious integration of the many details of life seems overwhelming. Should we even be trying? Is this the purpose of consciousness. I can only say that it is not my purpose, unless confusion and suffering is to be considered my proper domain.

Can we look “within” for answers? What comes from within is uncertain–non anticipatory, erratic, etc. It is an altogether unfamiliar world.

Imagination sometimes comes into consciousness without our intending it, and sometimes when we intend it. Focusing upon a construction project, for example, seems to have this “intentional” significance attached to it. We hang on to an encompassing, though limiting, idea of what we are about, and the idea serves to focus and coordinate our efforts from that time forward (control by restriction perhaps). A general notion allows definition and purpose.

We are able to contain and analyze concepts, large coherent purposes in consciousness–considering whether we shall do this or that. We employ “reason” and anticipate consequences. If one thing is favored over another, we go with it. Only “we” do not develop such concepts at all. Rather, they are given us from without and within. Abstracting, acknowledging, etc. are not developed! Neither are sensations. But while we hold on to them, we consider them ours–that is, without considering their source.

It seems that it is wrong for me to look without for direction “as though there were some precept to be acknowledged obliging me to solve the perennial problems of mankind.” If I am obligated in such a way, my understanding of this will come from within. Only it is doubtful that this is a legitimate goal. For it seems that my unconscious does not consider it “unseemly” that I should know only that which “is necessary in a given span of time.” So why do I want to solve such problems? For love and respect, perhaps.

When we are ready for a new concept–a transcendent idea–the means to formulating the same will be found. However, we would be mistaken to assume that the means utilized is the cause–that unless such a means were available, we would not have been able to reach the new view. This is an extremely important point to note with very far reaching parameters. It has served as a major delusion both supporting and serving as a roadblock to further understanding. When we are ready for new understanding, the means for realizing the same will be everywhere presented to us, for we will be seeing familiar facts with new glasses. “Means” and “causes” are not the same thing.

If one constructs a new telescope and then points it at the same stars as were seen before, it will not be the stars that cause the new vision, for any star could have served in this regard. No, the new makeup of the instrument can be considered the cause or source of the new vision, even though this too would be a relative notion… “Another rung-another door”.

What then is the cause or source of our conceptual makeups? Can the source be located solely without? No! Perceptions must have a receiving subject–but that subject must itself be limited! Perception entails limitation. In other words, we are incapable of conceptualizing an absolute subject outside of our limited selves.

But why do we look without for answers rather than within? Because we are all outward-directed! Outside has a sense of permanence, even if it is confusing. Inside seems illusory and makes us feel finite and fragmented. We see ourselves in other persons and they are outside. Thus, we conclude that we too are outside–that everything is outside–“causes” included; even those giving rise to inside perceptions. We simply will not acknowledge the possibility of any other perspective. There is no other subject but our finite selves. What we see in consciousness is what we are and nothing more. We hold to the belief that nature is impersonal, accidental and complex–but that we are at her pinnacle–her supreme product.

I began this day with a conception that there may be no such thing as an introverted and extroverted standpoint; that all perception is unidirectional rather than bi-directional and that, therefore, these Jungian notions must be looked at from a different perspective. My original intuition pictured us all as outer-directed but, for one reason or another, subject to relative “withdrawals” from life. Some of us appear to trust the outer world of people and things more than others and for this reason are more drawn to it. Rather than existing randomly throughout nature, I see families of introverts which might encompass an entire population of people. If one withdraws from people, one is still left with the world and also with one’s inner perceptions. If one withdraws from people and world, one is still left with one’s inner perceptions. The point being, that the preoccupation on one side or the other will be the direct result of withdrawal on the other. There is only so much conscious attention to go around.

The important question to ask now is whether or not (in the case of the extreme introvert) “people” or “world” can properly be said to have “caused” such behavior, or merely served as a “means” to the same. In other words, could it not be said that the individual was “suited” or “set-up” for this consequence; that this being so, any number of actions in the world could have served this same outcome? We feel compelled to hang on to the former view, but might not this be delusionary?

Returning to another question raised: Has all of my thinking on the subject of consciousness been unknowingly “directed” by my original conception regarding introversion and extroversion? I suspect so, but this shows us that our frame of references are not always in consciousness at the same time as the thoughts which are emanating from them. Thus, we may not be in a position to understand what is compelling us at any given time–that is, which concepts (or archetypes) we are working out of! [“Wave analogy”]

Consciousness seems like a stop-gap measure… an ongoing, continuous light where things come and go. Only, again, what the light makes apparent to us is not the source. It is like one of those pulsating lights used to “stop” a moving fan belt on an engine. In the same way, life flows through us while the only thing we are aware of at a given time is what the light of consciousness reveals to us. The rest is hidden, and along with it, “absolute” causes and ends.

Perhaps what this is all leading to is the notion that we ought to accept the manner in which things appear to us as being the best possible standpoint for the time. If we are too premature in wanting or anticipating more than this vision allows, we will only saddle ourselves with imaginative projections which will tend to confuse more than aid us. This is only to say that alternative visions cannot be forced before their time! When, and if, we are “ready” to receive them, they will be presented to us in any number of ways–but never sooner.

July 29, 1993

CONCEPTS PROVIDE MEANING BY VIRTUE OF THE BACKDROPS FROM WHICH THEY ARE DERIVED.

The knower is always a part of his perception regardless of what that perception may constitute. Knowledge derives from such “activity”. Knowing is contained in the activity, not as a “subject–object” relationship, but by virtue of the relationship alone. The activity challenges the environment. We “unknowingly” engage the activity and learn from the engagement. Learning becomes knowledge and then serves as a basis of comparison for further explorations.

When we focus upon one thing and not another, our act serves to separate the thing focused upon from the backdrop from which it was taken. This backdrop then (and only then) serves us in understanding the former. But the “former” was the total picture prior to the action taking place, and not the object which will finally be understood by the action taken. It may have been the original impetus, but what derives from it is invariably one step removed. Thus awareness itself seems to constitute progression. From this, we may come to believe that understanding neither precedes nor follows activity, but is contained in it. We might even say that understanding derives from the awareness of difference, any change, motion, quality, etc. We might consider awareness or understanding to be a simultaneous occurrence with their backdrops. Only because knowledge has, and continues to be, built up from previous distinctions derived from such circumstances, it is difficult to reveal the foundations from a perspective of no foundation! It’s like an eye trying to see an eye. The best we can hope for is a mirror-image which is itself but another construct or tool.

But what of this difference between the “former picture” and the “understanding which follows”. Is there really a difference here? or is this merely a mental construct pointing to something which is never the case in reality. The world does not present us with a stagnant picture to be perceived or acted upon–it is dynamic as it is presented to us. To be sure, relative stillness or sameness is there to be observed as a backdrop against which to view more obvious changes.

We understand introversion because we understand extroversion. We understand extroversion because we understand introversion. By “expanding” upon vague differences at first, we finally build up large differences which oftentimes go well beyond their original notions. Thus vague notions of I-E may have originally referred to social and relatively anti-social behavior, but then took on (or its characteristics were borrowed for) the support of another theory or view–Jungian psychology, for example.

POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE “ATTITUDES” ARE LARGE ISSUES IN LIFE. THE ULTIMATE ASSESSMENT WOULD DEAL WITH THESE CONSTRUCTS.

WHETHER OR NOT IT IS PROPER TO COUNTER NATURE–AID THE WEAK–WHEN NATURE’S WAY IS TO FAVOR THE STRONG, OR WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS IN FACT “COUNTERING” NATURE?

How did we detach ourselves from nature in order to even speak in such terms? Nature favors the dominant male in a primary organization, but the dominant male “needs”, benefits from, and, therefore, protects and cares for the weaker. Primate relations are no different in kind than our own. They run the range from sincere affection for others to protection for one’s own benefit entirely. In any case, modern society appears to be breaking down primary organizations by diffusing the controls which they (families, for example) used to exert upon their members.

But who said that nature favors the strong? Why could it not equally be said that nature favors the weak by means of the strong? That the strong’s primary purpose is not for self-advantage but for the advantage of others? But strength is relative, of course. All surviving things could be said to comprise “the family of survivors” here on earth. That some plants and animals are stronger than others is a relative point and one which is not altogether clear when it comes to animals. What we regard as weak traits may turn out to be better suited to survival than what we regard as strong. Just as our assessment of strength moved from physical terms, primarily, to encompassing intelligence and achievement (conducive to winning power and advantage), so too may these give way to some other form of strength and advantage to survival. Currently, economic advantages often translate to military advantage and vice versa. As has been the case throughout history, they represent two sources of power which seem to go hand in hand. A group or nation can acquire the implements of war through economic wealth and can often obtain economic wealth through the implements of war.

Currently, we are seeing shifts in this dichotomy of power elements. While a single nation may still constitute a military power, the economies of many nations are becoming more international in scope. This new form of internationalism does not bring the wealth home as did the practice of “colonialism”–it brings it to those who are enterprisingly engaged in such practices. This may present us with an ironic twist of fate, for while in days of old (not too old) when a pirate class arose to feed upon “nationally sanctioned” pirates (the crown or so-called merchant classes), it is likely that if a pirate class were to arise today, it may very well be the vestige of what we presently sanction to be nations! This is a radical difference inasmuch as the merchants of today are more and more able and willing to make and share profits with anyone at any location on the globe with national considerations fast becoming a thing of the past. On the other hand, this practice may have always been the case and, like our analogy to the “dominant individual” in a tribal group (protecting and serving others out of self-interest), such practices may be considered in the same vein. In any case, government officials seem stuck with having to cater to this runaway phenomena for its own benefit, while having to stave off or diffuse its effects upon the rest of us. Ignoring or diminishing the extent of change is one of the ways to foster the illusion that all is well.

August 12, 1993

Had several diverse dream episodes last night which I do not remember in any detail. However, there was a peculiar physical occurrence that happened to me and at least one element of a dream which I do remember vividly. I believe that the physical occurrence occurred in a waking state or semi-waking state and amounted to tiny explosions in my head. These were unlike the wave of “crackling electrical impulses” which went through my brain on at least two earlier occasions. This time, it was more like a gradual swelling of pressure in my head followed by a tiny explosive effect–a kind of “poof” releasing the pressure. It happened several times and I considered that it might have been due to the position of my arm or hand putting pressure against my temple. Only I believe that one or two other occurrences took place following my repositioning my arm.

The dream episode took place in a house which was not my own. I remember the door bell ringing (or remember seeing the door latch turning), and went to the door to open it (or as it was being opened). and was shocked to see a twelve foot tall man standing outside my door. Trying to quickly compose myself (I didn’t want to embarrass him nor did I want him to see how startled I was), I considered that he must be associated with a circus, or must represent some other proportionate reason. I then recall welcoming him into the house (or welcomed him as he entered the house on his own volition!). Regardless, the shock of his presence awoke me from the dream and I’m not certain if the explosions in my head followed or preceded the dream. I do remember laying there thinking that this figure was in some way “intended” to impact me; perhaps representing a forewarning of some large unknown force (out of my unconscious) that is going to enter consciousness. Or again, perhaps only representing a symbolic representation of my “fear” of the same, which amounts to a big difference.

Putting it mildly, dreams like this one are never dull. They startle because they are totally unexpected and (initially, at least) appear to have little to do with the sequence of dream events leading up to them. They shock or impact inasmuch as they leave one with the sense that something highly significant has occurred. One can’t help but search here for a meaning. I also recall some other dream elements, one of which, had me zooming around some road configuration at high speeds and doing quite well without crashing. I believe that I was in an auto, but can’t be sure of this. In at least one other previous dream similar to this, I was simply flying one or two feet above the road surface with one outstretched arm to serve as a steering mechanism. And, again, in that dream I was also successful making turns at high speeds while remaining on my side of the road. Are such dreams to be regarded as merely “descriptive of” my conscious attitude in symbolic, visual language, or are they “informing” me of what my conscious attitude is at present or where it might be heading? In other words, are we dealing with another form of “conscious thinking” behavior underlying our own? In fact, the preceding questions seem to have forced the latter, and thus, drive us to posing a broader view of the matter, vague though it may be.

On the other hand, I am led to suspect that such questions may be misleading in some other respects, and that, perhaps, we have been entirely negligent in presenting an accurate view of consciousness and the actual way in which the so-called “thinking process” works. (What drove this notion?) Perhaps the strongest example we can cite for “thinking” is the formulation of something new; a new idea, insight, conception, etc. which we are able to develop through visions and elaborate through words. Only the visions are not “pictures” in the usual sense, but mere glimmerings of pictures; elements accompanied by feelings or a sense of how the picture “might” develop. We then begin to interchange and juxtapose these various, though vague, elements in mind, trying to strike on one that will finally form a complete picture–a conception. But, in actuality, we do no such thing. We merely (impatiently) anticipate a potential or expected outcome. Having previously experienced (that is, viewed or received) other conceptions in mind, we now strain to see such outcomes again. This sense of anticipation, and the accompanying illusion of believing ourselves initiators and directors of the process, constitutes our notion of “intentionality” or “free will”. That is to say that such notions as these are in fact illusions. It is not to say, however, that we are without a sense of personal identity, or that there is not a dualism as such present in nature. On the other hand, we must be prepared to expect that these too will prove to be illusory once a proper perspective is framed to see it as such.

Again, when I questioned whether or not all such questions may be misleading in some respect or another, what led me to say this was a feeling or vague picture that something is amiss. Indeed, the very act of posing the question as to whether dreams are “descriptive” or “informing”, raises the question as to whether dreams represent worldly elements coming together in consciousness much as “outer objects” do, or as “consciousness-driven” elements of some unknown “thinking complex” underlying consciousness. Prior experience (conceptions received) has already made me suspicious of the dichotomous fashion in which we view consciousness and experience, and I suspect that it is this which is compelling the anticipation of a new vision within me. For example, I find our notions regarding the existence of “inner and outer elements” as viewed from an “inner or outer-looking consciousness” to be quite suspect, and full of inconsistencies, if not, contradictions. While we do in fact have a clear conception of a world surrounding us and, perhaps, a world within or comprising us, we do not also have an “inner-looking” perspective or standpoint. Try as we might, we simply cannot look within. To be sure, we can (in words) interpose consciousness between the distinctions we have made between the outer and inner worlds as such, and continue to speak in introspective terms, but, again, it is a bogus illusion and does not exist in fact. The most we can claim is that we are able to receive from within. Only this said, (I just received an intuition informing me that…) if “inner visions” must be regarded in this vein, then so too must “outer visions”. Reflecting upon this for a moment, it does seem to make equally good sense to hold that we do not, strictly speaking, “look” without, but “receive” from without in the same manner as we receive from within. In other words, while the dichotomy which we apparently derive from experience appears to be inherent in it, so too does its dissolution! And now we sense a compulsion to look toward middle ground–to now synthesize the distinctions which brought us to our present dilemma.

While such perspectives may be experienced as “problems” or “longings” due to ever new visions appearing on the scene, what had once been a “glimmering” now begins to take firmer root within us. In my own case, I am growing more and more to believe that, far from our being “initiators” or purposive “free agents” in life, we are no more and no less than parts trying to understand the whole to which we belong. Like a “Venn diagram”, what takes place within the portion comprising two intersecting circles (that is, experience) is what concerns us most, and may be what we are all about. Only, what exactly it is that comes “to us”, or proceeds “from us”, or repeats itself “in us”, remains unknown, even while nature continues to drive us to “anticipate” and then “acknowledge” whatever visions are appropriate for the time. Yes, because of previous experience, we may strain ourselves to see such visions, “call” for them, or in desperation, even try to lay claim to them. But the fact remains–“we” cannot deliver, and we are lying if we claim otherwise!

August 16, 1993

If the characteristics of an object are such that one is not certain as to the appropriateness of a word used to describe it, its affirmation or denial by others will serve to strengthen and make its meaning more precise. For example, if one wrongly describes an object by means of the word “table” and is corrected, the meaning of the word “table” is made more precise, at least, insofar as these two individuals are concerned. Of course, it is likely that such parameters will be decided upon by more than two individuals and thus, it is also possible that one’s understanding can be made less precise if wrongly accused of a misusage. The point is only to recognize that meaning is tied to usage and usage to other individuals.

DREAM

Last night I dreamt that I was behind the wheel of our car with Jane next to me and my father in the back seat. I’m not certain, but my brother Augie did not want to join us for some reason or another. I remember leaning over and pulling some winter boots out from under the seat and saying that “these would be good for Pa to wear, but since I was saying that it would be a good idea, I openly said that he’ll surely refuse them, which he did. I remember then backing out of the driveway almost hitting a tree, continuing out into the street (without having the opportunity to see if any cars were coming), and crossing the road (unable to see if cars were coming from the opposite direction), and then finding that the car would not stop when I shifted into 1st gear to begin going forward. Rather, the car continued going in reverse and I had all I could do to keep it on the road while waiting for first gear to take hold. Like similar dreams (riding on the “fork truck”, “motorcycle”, “bear” and “elevator”), I found myself in an almost uncontrollable, potentially dangerous situation. While in those other dreams I was able to “master” the fork truck, bear and motorcycle, this one (like the elevator dream) was much different, much more out of control. I could not have prevented on-coming cars from hitting me, nor could I have prevented the elevator from carrying me to the hospital.

August 18, 1993

NOTES

Saw a TV special on healing the mind and body through a broader perspective. Began with a discussion of the oriental system of medicine which is based upon the existence of a life force called “chi”. Acupuncture points reveal the system’s design and were found out over long years of successively approximating their positions. These points do not correspond with bodily organs, nerves, arteries, etc. As such, doctors can use hands as well as needles to manipulate “chi”.

The body must move to be healthy and virtually connects with nature through movement. Thus, proper exercise and meditation leads to good health, while it is believed that thoughts and emotions actually shape health and illness.

“Chi” is feeling good; feeling the flow of energy and well-being. Chi is surrounded by chaos. “Yin and Yang” are interdependent and must be in balance. We are born in balance but fall out. We must put ourselves back into balance.

If one is able to find one’s “center”, one can heal oneself. To find one’s center, one must “let go” of thoughts. Chi is considered to located in the abdomen–a ball of energy. One feels light when in balance. One can feel heat.

It is possible to use ones energy to move another body or move energy within another body. Chi is not something to be pondered but something to accept. It may take years to find chi and many more to learn how to use it.

Modern medicine must learn that the mind can affect the body through moods, emotions, thoughts, personality. “Mind is body”. Actors are able to call up real emotions and thus experience real effects. It is important that we reconnect mind and emotion to science. We are finding that nerves control the immune system and are not independent. In fact, the immune system can be “classically conditioned”, making it possible to withdraw the drug and continue to affect the immune system with the use of a placebo. (U of R Research–Adler).

THOUGHTWe administer drugs and note their effects (symptoms), thereby enabling us to apply the drugs to the symptoms. Could it be, however, that what we are witnessing as “effects” are not the `effects of the drug on the body’ but the `effects of the immune system responding to both the actual and potential effects of the drugs’? In other words, the effects of the immune system moving to safeguard the body may be wrongly attributed to the drugs themselves. But, does knowing this make any difference to the outcome? Perhaps not, but it is also possible that a more accurate description of what is taking place may free us from skewed thinking and perceptions. For example, our knowing that the drug actually serves as a “prod” to the immune system to take some defensive action, we might now be more open to other potential “prods”–such as “thoughts”! Moods, feelings, etc. may stir the immune system to action no differently than the intake of food and drugs.

It has been discovered that “neuro-peptides” move to other locations within the body acting as “messenger molecules” Cells are able to communicate with one another by means of chemical messages and these decide where the body should direct its energy. We are discovering that “emotions” may be a vital link between mind and body.

In terms of controlling bodily processes, galvanic processes show that one can control such things as pulse rate, or reduce pain in the body, etc. It is thought that the same chemicals run emotions as run mind and body. Negative emotions can have positive effects (grief can be healthy), while feeling can have a positive effect upon reducing arterial blockages. Sharing emotions with others can be very potent.

September 4, 1993

Jane told me about a dream she had last night. She was laying in bed in a room full of people who were in other beds. Among these were the Marchetti sisters who lived in Batavia, had a consignment shop, and also did permanents since they were not doing all that well. Jane wanted to buy a dress from them for our niece’s upcoming wedding but she considered that the prices were too high. She recalls David Elliott (a friend who works with her at Canandaigua Wine) being somewhere in the dream, but she doesn’t recall where or why. Yesterday, Jane had talked to Monica about her upcoming flights (she is a Flight Attendant with Tower Air) and her flying back to her New York base on US Air. The dream continued as follows:

It was night and we were all sleeping under this glass-domed ceiling. I was laying there looking up when all of a sudden there appeared four airplanes flying in formation (two in front and two in the rear). Suddenly, a piece of one of the aircraft (one of the rear aircraft she thinks) broke off and was falling to the ground. She tried to wake everyone around her as the piece was falling toward them. The piece fell to the ground in flames and then the aircraft exploded in the sky and also fell to earth. She saw a logo on one of the planes and was asking others if it was US Air’s logo. Then a bus load of people came to the scene. She thought that they were rescue personnel but was told that they had something to do with “computers”.

On the surface, it would seem that this dream represents Jane’s current state of mind as well as circumstances affecting our lives at present. However, I realize my interpretation may say more about my own state of mind than hers. I see her in the midst of friends who are more like herself than me, for instance, and that she may feel as though she is on the outside of her marriage. She identifies with the “Marchetti” sisters and, perhaps, suffers from both her own and their perspectives. They do permanents on the side to support their business. The four planes may represent the four of us, Jane and myself in front and Monica and Catherine in the rear. The one plane falling out of the sky would represent Monica, and there is reason to be concerned about her at present. She is stretching herself pretty thin flying too many hours and having to worry about other considerations such as moving to a new apartment. She seems very tense and up in the air, although she appears to have everything under control. I suspect, however, that Jane feels that I am not close enough to the girls in the sense of “being there for them” during such trials, and that they might feel as though I don’t really care enough; that I am too preoccupied with my own life which is usually the case in fact. The “rescue crew” turns out to be interested in “computers” rather than people, and this would be an appropriate symbolical representation of me from Jane’s perspective. I feel that she neither understands what I am doing nor cares to understand. As far as she is concerned, I’m in some way wrapped up with thinking about nothing, and it is all a hodge-podge of wasted effort. If something happens to Monica, she may feel that I will not be there for her.

Having said this, I have, at the same time, also admitted to my own perspective regarding our situation, whether I happen to be right or wrong regarding hers. We seem to be very different people in fact. She tends to be highly practical and literal–I tend to be idealistic and abstract. We share a common concern about the “plight of the world”, but her concern is more specific and individual, while mine is broad-based and societal. Because of this, she is able to take advantage of a situation more easily than I without having to justify it or feeling remorse or guilt because of it. For her, the rules can be altered when something is to our benefit; for me, they cannot–at least, not without some feeling of guilt. For her, the immediate world is all that we need to inform us of what we need to know–for me, the world is neither sound nor sufficient as yet. While I may lament the world for being what it is, I recognize that our challenge is to adapt to it in a way that is beneficial to all of human kind. But concerning our efforts in this regard, I feel that there is much that is wrong with our behavior regarding it and one another. There is much that must be done, even while we may continue to lament it. Jane tries to meet immediate needs–I try to forestall them. I procrastinate until forced to do only what is absolutely necessary. Jane shoots for closure–I shoot for openness, more perceptions, more thinking, more direction to aid me in formulating an ever-larger picture. Jane is specific–I am general. For all of these reasons, she cannot help but to feel as alienated as I. But she at least has the comfort of others as well as the “certainties” she attaches to what surrounds her and to what she is told–I have none of these. I am more alone than she and seemingly outside her sphere of influence and the comfort she might otherwise bring to my situation. And neither am I able to bring comfort to her, although I do try. Ironically, while I seem to be failing on every account (self, family, and society), I can’t help but feel that my efforts have been more than admirable in trying to balance and deal with each of these spheres. But in the eyes of friends and family members, I know that I am regarded as a failure. And, of course, I regard myself as the same, even while clinging steadfastly to the belief that my intentions (actions or inaction) have been nothing short of honorable. Only it’s a lonely honor so long as it is denied or goes unrecognized.

My wife has just called out to me to remind me that it’s a beautiful day and that I can’t count on having other days like this. I recognize this as my cue to get some chores done around the yard. And so it goes…

September 17, 1993

Wake and Sleep
Day and Night
Consciousness and Unconsciousness

Only day to night to day can be said to be a continuum. The other two are qualitatively different states comprising thresholds or crossovers from one state to another OR “takeovers” whereby the primary state controls the events. In our own case, it makes more sense to believe that what we distinguish as being “unconscious” is primary to consciousness since the latter is known not to be in control. We must sleep. We do not intentionally day-dream or lose sight of consciousness while we do so, etc. Something outside of consciousness, more powerful than ourselves, compels us in ways which we cannot alter to any significant degree or for any duration.

There is an obvious dualism (or threshold) within consciousness that is crossed and re-crossed on a continual basis. While it can be safely said that consciousness is never turned off, meaning that we are always conscious of something whether we are within the grip of imagination (and thus, outside our normal conscious state), or within our normal state (from which we derive our identities).

Continuity of outer and inner sensations in waking state constitutes our normal sense of consciousness. We are also capable of imagining and remembering things while in the normal waking state. In such cases, one does not cross over or relinquish control of consciousness to some other part or power of mind.

But one also imagines and remembers outside the normal state–the normal state being taken and given over to the imagination or remembrance. One is only conscious of the imagination process or remembrance. And, upon returning to normal consciousness, one has an immediate awareness of having been taken over and presently returned. “Day dream” episodes can be momentary “crossovers” or last for a considerable amount of time much as night dreaming.

States of consciousness:
A.Waking state simultaneous awareness of sensations, imagination, and remembrances. No one of these is lost to the others.
B.Waking state (or semi-dream) state comprising imaginative excursions or “crossovers” such that while we are in the state, we are not aware of normal sensations.
C.Sleeping state whereby consciousness appears to be absent until a dream state commences. Although we remain asleep, we are nonetheless conscious of dream episodes.
D.Since a day dream is properly speaking a “wake-dream” just as a night dream is properly speaking a “sleep dream”, and both have the character of a non-conscious state, so too might we imagine the possibility of there being a “sleep consciousness” in the same way as there is a “wake consciousness”, and each of these having all of the characteristics of their counterparts. How can we say that we are unconscious when dreaming while we are most assuredly conscious of dreaming?

We are forced to admit that either it is not necessary to be asleep in order to dream, or that there exists an intermediate state between wakefulness and sleep which must presently be distinguished. Again, insofar as consciousness and the unconscious are concerned, it would be a contradiction in terms to claim that we can be “conscious of the unconscious” or even of unconscious elements. Thus, it would be most inappropriate to call dreaming an unconscious activity, but can only claim that its elements derive from an unconscious (unknown) source, or else is “directed” or “controlled” by the same.

It becomes necessary to distinguish between the “wake-sleep” and “consciousness-unconscious” dichotomies. These are different states entirely and should not be interchanged.

EXPERIMENT
I am going to see if I can, upon a return to normal consciousness, remember having been conscious of things surrounding me while I was in the cross-over state of imagination.

Had an extremely brief crossover and return in which I immediately recognized that I was not cognizant of my surroundings while I was day-dreaming. Not being satisfied with such a brief example of this, I then attempted another try but discovered that so long as I was trying to remain attached to my surroundings, my imagination simply went from association to association (a string of 10-15) without lighting on any of them and crossing over from normal consciousness. I will try once more and will not try to hang on to my awareness of things surrounding me… No good.

We experience both types of conscious activity during the course of a normal day, although, unlike night dreams, day dreams seem to be recalled much more vividly in mind following the episode. Perhaps this is merely due to the time element. We do not usually day dream for long periods, or go from day dream to day dream without an interceding return to our normal state. Thus, they are fresh in memory, much like the last of our night dreams often are upon waking.

Because we can sometimes recall dreams vividly and sometimes not, this is good reason to suppose that in the latter case, there was a (full) dream episode which was lost to consciousness, rather than suppose that only fragments of a dream came into existence. Thus, we come by our notion of an unconscious reservoir.

If we begin with the assumption that we are born into the world at some point or another, then we seemed forced to look for antecedent, ultimately, spontaneous, causes to explain our behavior. “It suddenly occurred to me that…” can initiate a whole sequence of events which, presumably, can be traced back to itself. But who can point to the beginning or end of a thought?

In like manner, we might ask for the beginning or end of consciousness. As we have seen, it is not simply a case of being awake or being asleep. Both states can occur within us while we are awake, and we must suppose the same for when we are asleep since we often retain consciousness of our dreams after waking, although it is of quite a different character from consciousness during sleep.

It is somewhat ironic that while we are having a “cross-over” type day-dream, we are totally lost within it (meaning that we are without a conscious awareness of our own identities while we are having it), and while we are night-dreaming, we do in fact retain our personal identities throughout. Again, while we remain passive players for the most part, it is ironic that the night dream nonetheless imitates our conscious standpoint from the normal waking state. We do not lose our sense of conscious awareness; at most, we simply recognize that we are not in control of the dream situation; that we cannot exercise our own wills–walk to some particular location, read a passage from some text, understand something which we may be aching to know, etc. And, while we may appear as active players within the dream context, whenever we do try to exercise our own volition, we generally come to understand that the dream “has us” rather than the other way around.

September 20, 1993

CONSTRUCTING A CONCEPTUAL GENERATING/PROBLEM-SOLVING TEAM BASED UPON TYPOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS

It may well be that our next task is to recognize, and take at face value, the legitimacy and appropriateness of individual personality and temperament characteristics, and to construct team models based upon the same.

We must begin by trusting that there is nothing in nature that is lop-sided or wasteful, but that everything exists because it has evolved successfully. It is true that a given characteristic (or set of characteristics) might prove to be ineffectual in the future and, thus, may cease to exist within our conceptual frame of reference, but this is to make the mistake of considering ourselves individual rather than composite. I doubt that nature distinguishes between man and ape, and on down the line. If humans should at some time in the future disappear from the face of this earth, this will not mean that we have ceased to exist. For much of what we comprise is not only part and parcel of many other mammals besides ourselves, but part and parcel of the whole of so-called “animate” and “inanimate” nature. Our disappearance may prove to be a corrective action in the evolution of all of nature. We must put away this foolish thinking that because we appear to be the most evolved of all creatures, that we are in this way guaranteed continuance.

Thus, the differences we have distinguished between ourselves are only differences from each of our individual perspectives. Again, if I may be allowed to personify nature, I doubt that she recognizes such distinctions, let alone cares about them. And yet, “we” do seem to care, sometimes vehemently. It seems that we have not yet come to the realization that it is just such divisions which have made possible our advancement in the first place; that without these, it is doubtful that we could have progressed at all. But here again, it is a mistake to hang on to such distinctions at all. For no distinction can constitute a unified whole; no word a unified usage; no concept a unified meaning; no theory a unified system. All of our distinctions spring leaks and they do so because they share an arbitrary existence.

A simple perception of any change whatever must be considered an abstraction against some unified background. A perceived commonality shared by several things is yet a higher level abstraction built upon previously identifiable (and therefore, abstracted) “things”. Indeed, it can be said that our very existence (physical stature) constitute abstracting devices; our organs of perception as well as the very space we displace in the universe. And so it would seem that abstraction is the way of life as we understand it, and, most certainly, our means to knowledge and action–that is, experience.

The distinction we have made between knowledge and action has led us through many stages of thinking so that now we are presently in a position to abandon it. By this I mean that knowing and acting are more and more appearing to be two sides of the same coin which we call experience.

September 29, 1993

It never ceases to amaze me at how our perceptions can sometimes get stood on their heads. Take the conservative and liberal standpoints or “types” for example. We think of conservatives as favoring concentration and a general withdrawal from life rather than embracing it in all its complexity and variation. They seem to want to confine themselves to things of a “personal” nature or consequence. Liberal types, on the other hand, appear to us to be open to expansion and much more accepting of change and diversity in the world at large. But when we look at these characteristics from a slightly different perspective, we find that just the opposite is true.

For example, it occurred to me that the liberal point of view, far from being open and accepting of change, is really an attitude which refuses such acceptance. On the contrary, the liberal’s “apparent openness” is really the result of his refusal to accept the world for what it is. Or, more to the point, he steadfastly refuses to accept a passive, relatively powerless, station within it. Thus, he is compelled to reach beyond himself in order to prove the opposite. The conservative, on the other hand, appears to accept a more resigned, passive or “fateful” stance regarding his place in the overall scheme of things. He simply wants to make the best of his situation from wherever he happens to be. Since nature is in control, he is content with not having to worry about “distanced” concerns, intellectual and otherwise. In fact, he is suspicious of all such claims and generally considers them “egotistical” stretches of the imagination belonging to those who cannot bring themselves to accept their station in life.

From this view, then, liberals seem prone to an arrogance of a rather high order, reflecting an attitude which defies passivity, or God or nature, or both. Only this attitude is not so apparent and, in fact, is a very well kept secret. We understand the conservative attitude to be forceful and “hard”, while liberals are thought to be compassionate in their openness, and rather “soft”. Only why would each exhibit characteristics which seem to run counter to their respective standpoints? Given their respective standpoints, why, indeed, should conservatives not be docile, considering their acceptance of God or nature as being supreme? You would expect their liberal counterparts to be “pulling their hair” out of sheer frustration and despair, while they should go tranquilly about their business, rest-assured that all goes well in the universe. And yet, we find just the opposite to be the case.

Being prone to idealism, liberals do in fact despair whenever life comes up short of their expectations, but this sorrow more often translates to sensitivity and quiet remorse rather than excitation–fatigue, rather than anguished outcries or rage. Indeed, when they are seen to act boldly and forcibly, you can bet that they are on the scent of a new possibility (or ideal), a new hope which must be pursued at any cost. On the other side of the equation, from their polar standpoints, conservatives appear softest when forced with having to deal with such “ideals” and “abstractions”, and toughest when going about their normal business–that is, when in their own (realistic and natural) element.

From the above remarks, we must consider the possibility that the abstraction-seeking liberal may not be so much in search of God as he is trying to become God, or, at least, something of a “demigod”. On the other side, the realistic-prone conservative has not so much accepted the fact of God as he has accepted the fact of his own situation. If God exists, fine. But it is absolutely certain that nature exists, and this alone is sufficient for knowing where the real power resides. The conservative, in other words, is more prone to accepting and joining the struggle where he finds it, and this refrains from meaningless, useless matters far removed. What is closest matters most–what is not, matters least.

And so we find that conservative types look after their own first; families, friends, clubs and organizations, etc., while country and world remain at a distance. Liberals would, of course, profess to having the same concerns, but it is obvious, on closer scrutiny, that they do not carry the same strength as their counterparts. Rather, liberals can be seen to be internationalists first and foremost; big idea and picture people, the bigger and more encompassing, the better. While family and friends do count, they do so in a manner that befits society and the world at large. To liberals, the UN has a much greater and important role and responsibility than our own government. A parochial patriotism is somewhat of an embarrassment to themselves while to the conservative, it is everything. Thus, we find conservatives to be more nationalistic, patriotic, and prone to “joining the Marine Corps” than are liberals. Liberals would find the milieu of the Corps extremely distasteful, let alone the training. While Marines consider rigidity, structure, abeyance, discipline, certainty, confidence, realism, and general acceptance, to be proud emblems of humankind, the liberal is all but sickened by them!

October 3, 1993

DREAM:

I was riding in a jet airplane with an ex-brother-in-law at the controls. I can’t remember what problem we encountered, but he began flying the plane lower and lower for some reason, until we were skimming mountains, flying underneath telephone wires, flying through thick fog cover (without knowing what lay below us), and even touching down and lifting back off of roads! He simply pulled up whenever a car was coming and then set back down on the road. Finally we were flying (or fast-taxiing) through forests where the tips of the wings were just barely scrapping trees as we went by.

During all of this time I was yelling at him for his dangerous carelessness, pointing out that were surely going to crash because of his obvious recklessness. Through it all, he was extremely confident, continuing to do the craziest things, and each time proving my fears to be wrong. Finally, he brought the plane to a stop in the middle of a forest where I could see two men outside pulling something like a sled behind them. As it turned out, they were expecting us. Dale got out of the plane and examined two large pillows which were on the sled, saying to one of the gentlemen that there wasn’t enough air space in between its layers and that they simply wouldn’t due. He said that we would be in need of at least two more in order to surround our bodies in the cockpit. I was left with the definite impression that these pillows were to serve us on the remainder of our flight! I seemed to know instinctively that we would be getting airborne again and would be “crash-landing” at our final destination, wherever that might be. Although I accepted this fact, I also remember questioning why it was necessary since we were already safely on the ground. I vaguely remember that my daughter Monica may have been with us in the plane and considered it appropriate for her to be left behind. I reasoned that these people on the ground had obviously come from somewhere and so would be able to lead her safely home. I awoke at this point.

I also recall that this flight was something of a diversionary tactic although I can’t remember why. As such, Dale was going to have to explain our disappearance when we got back and I was wondering how he was going to do so. I also recall thinking, either within the dream itself or during a “semi-waking” state following it, that I must not spend too much time trying to figure the dream out verbally, but that I needed to allow successive “visions” to speak for themselves; that my returning to the dream, or others which might be forthcoming, would be sufficient to allow each story to present its own meaning. I remember trying to balance this thinking with a countering idea that, perhaps, some verbal reasoning would be necessary (and appropriate) following each vision as it was presented to me. Only, again, I couldn’t be certain as to whether these thoughts were taking place during the dream or in-between, although I suspect it was the latter.

To amplify some of the components of this dream, I should begin by saying that my ex-brother-in-law was in real life a somewhat daring or spontaneous type who was always willing to take full advantage (and more) of whatever situation or opportunity presented itself. Although he is was not a bad person, his sense of morality always seemed to border on the line between right and wrong, while his attitude made it relatively easy to cross back and forth over this line. Aside from this (or, perhaps, as part and parcel of this same attitude), he was prone to turning his back on traditional practices. For example, I recall his daring to give one of my young nieces a shot of penicillin when she was sick although he had no medical training outside of being a meat inspector for a time while in the military. He was very individualistic in this sense and seemed to have his own set of rules at his disposal. He was definitely not in sync with society in this regard and this certainly allowed a freedom which most of my family members found despicable most of the time.

I guess that his being in my dream might be a good symbolic stand-in for an “unfettered ego”, and, perhaps, my dream is suggesting that my own ego is in the process of “taking control” over my own situation; that is, preceding in an exceedingly arrogant, bold and dangerous manner which is putting my life in jeopardy. Perhaps, it has even gone so far as to suggest that I am bold enough to believe that I can survive the coming crash! [This is reminiscent of a previous dream where I intentionally crashed into the ground while in a flight simulator. Since I knew I was in a simulator, I knew I wouldn’t be hurt–only what compelled me to take this action at all!] Because I was the pilot in that dream, I presume that my “ego” is also (through symbolic representation) the pilot in this one as well. Only why am I still unable to see this sense of arrogance or egocentricity in myself? Why is it that I can speak in such totally opposite terms and yet be accused in my dreams of maintaining this self-same attitude? After all, I believe in fate; I believe that I am subordinate to nature; that the narrow slit of reality which consciousness represents is but a small part of my existence; that there are unconscious powers much greater than my own acting within and without me; that I, in fact, may possibly be totally in the hands of fate–without any volition whatever! If this is arrogance, then it seems to be an arrogance directed against itself! After all, aren’t “I”, in effect, an ego subordinating itself to the world on the one side and to my unconscious on the other? Or is it the case that this so-called subordination is merely verbal while the real test of faith rests with action? What have I actually done to demonstrate my confidence in the existence of the so-called greater part of myself? Hasn’t it really been the case that I have found my unconscious (through imagination, dreams, Autowriting episodes, thinking and feeling) still too uncertain or tenuous to want to trust? Isn’t it the case that I am simply unable to let go of consciousness? But who among us has learned how to let go of consciousness? And how can I be certain as to what it is that even comprises consciousness through me? This is not a clear distinction. I do not know how much of one thing and how much of another (that is, unconsciousness) is involved in awareness. And if I try to remove all such distinctions, and regard myself as a whole, I seem to be left back at the starting gate; that is, unable to move at all.

With all that has gone on with me over the past years, and to the extent which events have portrayed themselves, oftentimes in highly exaggerated form, you would think that the direction of my complex or neurosis would be altogether obvious to me by now. And yet, I am still in the dark on this one central issue: Am I in fact suffering from an exaggerated ego or from one too weak? In other words, has my crime resulted from my shunning the unconscious or because I am refusing to shun it? Again, I do not feel as though I have confused my ego with my unconscious, or have been guilty of crediting myself for its gifts, as Jung described for the introverted personality. On the contrary, I fully acknowledge all that is owing to matters outside myself. But does this acknowledge itself reveal the fact of my own segregated and “oppositional” standpoint? That, although I may not be confusing or substituting my conscious standpoint for all that surrounds and contributes to it, I am, nonetheless, guilty of safeguarding it! Yes, I believe that I can claim this to be a fact about myself. Only how does one extend and rejoin oneself to all that one is–dreams, imagination, feelings, compulsions, earth and sky? How does one become all when one is fragmented to begin with? With a conscious standpoint primary and remaining steadfastly in place, how does one admit back in the very things that had to be denied in order for consciousness to distinguish itself in the first place?

We are prone to thinking of consciousness as a representative fragment, pulled or distinguished, from the imagined full fabric of the “unconscious”. We think this because we recognize that there are a large number of things occurring in consciousness which neither originate in the outside world nor in consciousness itself. Thus, “consciousness itself” comes to be regarded as a “sensor” or “receiver” of contents emanating from both the external and internal worlds. Because it remains integral and continuous while various “contents” come and go, consciousness comes to be regarded as a “meeting ground” for experienced relationships of any kind. In such a way, it develops as a center or identity in its own right. And, over time, it comes to see itself more and more as an “initiator” than “receiver”. Thus, we no longer think of ourselves as merely receiving dreams, thoughts, visions, feelings and moods, but that it is “we” who are “doing” the dreaming, thinking, speaking, imagining, fearing, loving, running or fighting, etc.–and “we” are no more in this context than we were in formerly limited sense of what consciousness comprised. In other words, we extended ourselves, not by bringing the world and all that rests outside of consciousness into the fold, but by simply taking credit from both spheres and then proceeding with living the lie!

What would happen if I tried to embrace all of me and the world as it comes to me? In trying, I am immediately aware of all sorts of emotions and confusions which are tying me into knots. I am immediately aware of the sorry state my life is in and just how unsuccessful I have been in trying to sort it out through reason and awaited revelation. I am immediately aware of the cowardliness I have shown regarding my own state and my willingness to avoid having to face the distasteful things in life. My state of “unknowing” presents a ready justification for not acting, and if any further support is needed, I can always bring in traditional or societal rules governing one’s behavior, or the uncertainties attached to the thoughts and opinions of others. Nevertheless, if I can succeed in embracing all of myself, what compulsions will follow?

October 21, 1993

Jung gave us the notion of a “collective unconscious” which is presumed to be underlying, motivating, and steering our outward behavior. He contrasted this notion to the idea of a personal unconscious which, unlike the “collective”, owes its existence to one’s own personal experience. This commonplace notion claims that whatever is unconscious, is so only because formerly conscious contents have been forgotten or repressed for whatever reasons.

Now the collective unconscious is quite another matter entirely. According to Jung, it is a second psychic system (to consciousness) which owes its existence to heredity rather than personal experience. As such, its contents have never been conscious. Rather, it is essentially made up of “archetypes” which Jung says may be regarded as pre-existent forms (motifs, representations, categories, etc.) which can be found to exist everywhere in a collective, universal, impersonal, and, indeed, identical nature in all individuals. Archetypes, says Jung, give form to certain psychic contents.

For evidence, Jung points to the ordinary as well as scientific belief in instincts which likewise have been construed as inherited forms or propensities which have variously motivated or compelled us to action throughout the generations–and, most often, without our being conscious of their existence. In fact, they are so close to archetypes, says Jung, that there is good reason to suppose that the archetypes are the unconscious “images” of the instincts themselves. In such a way, Jung posits a notion which gives visual or pictorial form to instincts–“patterns of instinctual behavior” to use his own terms.

At this point, we might wonder if “archetypes” are to be regarded as anything more than pictorial forms of instincts, but, rather than pursue this line of thinking, I would like to raise another matter worthy of attention. I want to point to the fact that Jungian concepts, like all concepts, represent fragmentation made out of the material of whole experience, or, more accurately, made out of the whole of whatever it is that constitutes world. Admittedly, such terms are vague when used in such a way, but so is the “world” vague. We are familiar already with the world as it appears to us, but are absolutely uncomfortable with the imperceptible concept, for example, of the “world in itself”. Nevertheless, this distinction has been made and it is a worthy one. I merely wish to point out the fact that such distinctions do not exist in any other reality than our own. Because we are prone to believe that our distinctions “picture” reality, however, we are too often led to posit various constructs (compartments, regions, types, etc.) to serve as storage or source locations for the same. Over time, such constructs wrongly come to be regarded as empirical realities.

What we fail to see is that our apparent “ability” to perceive, abstract, and distinguish “things” of this world, is not something that we do to objects, but something inherent in the structures or processes themselves. The eye cannot help but see what it is capable of seeing, and not see what it is incapable of seeing. And what will determine these factors will be found in the allowances and limitations inherent in the structures themselves–and not in any supposed ability on our parts. Again, our distinctions do not modify reality–they create it!–only, we are not the creators. In fact, “we” are simply another distinguished fragment of the whole made possible by structure; that is, by the mere fact of our simply being. Thus, we must be careful to remind ourselves that our window on the universe is not “the window”, or that it actually constitutes its own underlying reality.

Returning now to Jung’s notion of the archetypes as “pictured instincts”: For whose benefit are they pictured? If for our benefit (our conscious selves), then we must admit that we don’t know quite what to make of them, and thus, are still inclined to ignore such images as they occur. But this does not prevent us from trying to locate the meaning in some “inner source”, “provider”, or “organ” which might still be said to act on our own behalf. And, in fact, the more empirical our thinking is, the more we will try to depersonalize the issue by looking for causally-linked “material” to serve as a proper explanation. It is somewhat ironic that we feel compelled to look without ourselves for answers while, at the same time, sensing that we are inwardly, rather than outwardly, “connected” to the world. We don’t look to the world for the “meaning of a tree” or ask the world why it should be “presented to us”. On the other hand, we think nothing of looking inward for both the source and meaning of images, dreams, thoughts and feelings. Why? Despite what we may feign or claim, I suspect that we have an instinct about such matters, and that this instinct reminds us that there is much more to ourselves than our conscious sense of “we” can ever hope to claim.

————————————————————-

According to Jung, then, archetypes are pre-existent, visual forms of instincts, which derive from our collective past through heredity.

It seems likely that if we are to assume that learning, motivation, or preferences for specific types of behavior, does not begin anew within each individual (from the time of birth), but that they, instead, build up and accumulate through generation upon generation of experience, then we must assume that the “collective” content within a given individual is going to be far more comprehensive and stronger than the paltry sum which an individual lifetime can be expected to add to the storehouse. And yet, to consciousness, this “paltry sum” appears to be everything. Rather than hold the “collective instincts” to be the most powerful and influential force working within and through us, most of us would “weight” personal experience in quite an opposite manner. We would claim personal experience to be far stronger than whatever instinctual preferences reside in us. In fact, it is almost a “tautological certainty” that we do so inasmuch as experience is immediately apprehended, while notions of a “collective unconscious” or “instinctual preferences” have to be sought after or developed. In any regard, whatever shape instincts take–however they are formed–we do know that they are anything but apparent.

Now if the notion of “weighting” is true such that what one inherits from one’s parents is stronger than what one inherits from one’s grand parents, etc., then it would follow that the first born in a family would be the recipient of a lesser part of the parents experience than the latter born. If a couple has a child when they are twenty years of age, the child can receive (through heredity) only what they experienced up to that point. If this same couple has another child at forty years of age, then there will be an additional twenty years experience available to this child which, because it is weighted, ought to make a noticeable difference.

I read somewhere where there is strong evidence that, in large families, the youngest siblings often have a ten to twenty point I.Q. advantage over their older siblings. Since I’m the ninth child out of a family of ten, I must confess that I find this thinking personally appealing. And, since my father and mother were each the youngest members of their respective families (which were also large), it has greater appeal yet!

—————————————————————-
Once again, intuition and thought has stalemated me by opening more doors than I can possible go through, while still leaving me with a vague sense of the existence of something deeper which I am still unable to reach, much less, grasp. My groping for an underlying essence is provoked by my need to connect this multiplicity of directions in thought. I feel that I am making progress, but am always overwhelmed by a sense of the distance I have yet to go. Why do I subject myself to such brutality? I simply do not know. I only know that intuition and thought have made it increasingly impossible to take anything anyone has said seriously. I find great thinkers making the boldest presumptions and taking the greatest liberties in their usage of concepts. And yet, as confusing as their conceptions may be, they do manage to express something new. What is it then that I find so disconcerting? Is the fact that I find their foundations to be weak? Yes! But, perhaps, this doesn’t matter and shouldn’t be looked at. Perhaps, it is not their thinking which should be looked at–but their vision. In this view, it is not so important to “justify” Jung’s conception or elaboration of a “collective unconscious” as it is simply to accept the fact of the idea or vision itself. It’s a great idea, and whether or not Jung himself proved capable of dealing with the notion to anyone’s satisfaction or not, is really beside the point. The “point”, then, is the vision, and this had little to do with Jung’s thought. Indeed, if it were true that the vision or concept of a collective unconscious really resulted from Jung’s thought, Jung would have a lineage of protracted thinking which could serve as a explanation of the same. Instead, his thinking seems totally bent on justifying a vision which has already presented itself! Am I saying that intuitions needn’t be thought upon nor justified? I’m not certain… perhaps. But maybe my personal experience and frustration is leading me to believe such visions needn’t be justified at all. Maybe our job should be to simply apprehend (and string together) all subsequent intuitions which are certain to follow from this one.

October 21, 1993

If the above remarks are correct, then a more fruitful way of understanding ideas would be to accept the vision and await whatever intuitions result from having held it. I would like to put this to the test by imaging Jung’s notion of a “collective unconscious”. I will simply hold the idea in mind and note what follows.

I tried imagination alone, but nothing was forthcoming in terms of new visions. Instead, I wondered about how the collective instincts could be established (in what form?, where located?, how passed?, etc.) which seemed to have all of the characteristics of thought. But maybe I am too hasty in this view. When a question, felt direction or mood, arises in mind, this is not the product of thought but something which gives rise to it. I resisted it for the fact that it was leading me to think. And, of course, this is not my purpose. I’m holding out for something more akin to a vision which will serve as a another rung to Jung’s own and not to trying to justify his. I’m going to try again, only this time, I am going to act on my intuitions by typing them as they occur. Past experience has shown me that visions are more apt to derive from some action or activity than by simply relaxing the mind and leaving it blank. But, then, this has all the appearance of my usual form of writing. So what am I talking about? Nevertheless, I’m going to proceed as if I am embarking upon something new. I will proceed with thinking and will put whatever intuitions arise in brackets when and where they occur. I will then think upon the new intuition, if compelled to do so, or will simply proceed with my previous thought if otherwise.

I feel that ideas must first be integrated within oneself before they can be understood. I can accept the notion that there are instincts that may initiate, compel or guide behavior, and that they are passed from generation to another by genetic means. I can believe this without knowing whether or not [outside world may play a part] they have a location in some part of the brain. Forms or compulsions are very nebulous things and I can’t help but wonder how a form or compulsion can affect behavior. [thinking does] [we are products of long lines and didn’t appear magically in all our complexity] [our personal structures are in a process of building–instincts are in the same process and are needed to keep pace] [instincts and physical growth are two aspects of the same process] [all one world]…

I am finding it difficult to separate intuition from thinking. When I relate the intuition, this has all the appearances of usual thought. It seems that the only thing I am bringing out is the fact that thinking emanates from intuition or is nothing more than intuitions expressed. There is no logic here to discern, no system or model being followed. Should I assume from this that all of my expressions result from intuitions? I will continue as usual but will no longer bracket my intuitions as they occur. Rather, I will try to note where “thinking” may come into play, if it does. I have a hunch that it will show up as some form of divergence from the norm. If not, then I must conclude that intuitions can also lead me astray, something which I very much do not want to believe. If this is true, then we are left to consider that there may be a multiplicity of (competing?) sources within us which can lead us on wild goose chases or into the proverbial brick wall.

I am finding that my head is so full of various psychological concepts that it is proving difficult to know which ones ought to be considered relevant to the matter at hand and which not. But why should these storm into consciousness at all. I am trying to focus upon Jung’s notion of the collective unconscious and you would think that this might preclude this sort of action from happening. [freedom vs. determinism] Why do perennial philosophical problems keep cropping up whenever I am thinking on some matter. This business of freedom or fate seems fundamental to everything inasmuch as I seem always to wind up with having to deal with this notion, no matter what the topic of thought. But where is there a connection with what I am thinking at the moment? Or is it the case that my “unconscious” wants to steer me in this direction? If so, should I accept this impetus at face value and set all else aside? Should I trust that this avenue will prove to be an appropriate means to all the rest? Should I stop resisting?

Or might this compulsion be for my own personal benefit and have nothing whatever to do with the resolution of “perennial problems”. The mere fact that I have just now intuited this seems to be proper justification for believing it! Only, what did we conclude above about justifications? I sense a mood of confusion coming upon me at the moment and I suspect that it has something to do with the sheer immensity (or considered wastefulness) of having to deal with so monumental a problem when my life is in dire straits at the moment. And it is in dire straits precisely because I have been too far removed from present-day realities like working, earning money and paying bills. And, despite these realities, I am motivated to head in this obscure direction. So what am I to do–leave Jung and his notion of a “collective unconscious” for the sheer exhaustion of dealing with a problem which has all but plagued human kind and, at the same time, appears not to have been of any consequence whatever? Or is my or the world’s present confusion owing to this matter? Has this philosophical issue now become a psychological block to human progression? Must it be resolved?

NOTES

Most contents of unconscious will never be used. Use is determined by outer world and humankind’s current relationship to it. Because we are somewhat different today from our ancestors, most of what lies in the unconscious is not required. There are parameters which serve as boundaries, but most probably are not hard and fast but slowly diminish through lack of intensity. A diamond shape on its side may best represent the unconscious although it is a moving diamond continually taking in low intensity information from the front and expelling the same from its rear.

Jung says that Unc. is normally grouping and regrouping contents in a coordinated, compensatory fashion with consciousness (71)

Might unconscious tendencies have a goal beyond the individual? Longing for god?

Our personal psyche bears the same relationship to the collective psyche as the individual to society. Just as certain social functions or instincts are opposed to the interests of single individual, so the human psyche exhibits certain functions or tendencies which, on account of their collective nature, are opposed to individual needs (93)

Why suppose that unc. is compensating for inflation by further aggravating it? Why not suppose such exaggerations are simply the mechanism at work? Why credit the unc. with this intentional act? Stifling self-confidence or heightening ego’s importance?

Moral pair of opposites–virtue and vice–are contained in the unc. Repression results when reason discovers the irreconcilable nature of the opposites. Repression necessary to development of personality (person) in primitives. Inflation necessary to individuation, an unpleasant consequence of becoming fully conscious. “The man who has usurped the new knowledge suffers a transformation or enlargement of consciousness which no longer resemble that of his fellow men and has alienated himself from humanity. The pain of this loneliness is the vengeance of the Gods, for never again can he return to mankind. (Footnote p104) ,
What is this “oppositional” dualism inherent in all thought… compensation, effects of inflation, etc.? Why paired opposites? Male unconscious has female characteristics (Eros) and male consciousness (logos), while female unconscious has male characteristics (Eros) and female conscious (logos), etc. Is the nature of these results due to true belief or false?

Why does one person take the collective virtue for his personal merit while another takes collective vice for his personal guilt?

Individuality vs. society. Latter wants mediocrity, complacency, etc. and sacrifices individual responsible for hiding in the collective. Former requires freedom and is source of morality. Small bodies safeguard individuality, large ones destroy it. Influence of society upon the individual is same as influence of collective uncon. upon individual psyche–only the latter is invisible! Those who fall are considered crazy or freaks.

Must keep personality integrated and not suppose that collective belongs to it. Universality is collective. Propensity to imitate is greatest tool of collective. Discovery of individuality is exceedingly difficult.

Outer necessity a good weapon against the unconscious. Outer necessity wears the same face!

Individuation (undivided), becoming one’s own self, self-realization…
Individualism means stressing a peculiarity rather than pay attention to collective considerations. But humans are collective units, wholly universal. Hence this emphasis is a contradiction.

Individuation means the better and more complete fulfillment of the collective qualities existing in him… fulfilling the peculiar qualities of one’s own nature… becoming the person that one is. Aims at a living co-operation of all factors. Aim is to divest the self of the false wrappings of the persona on the one hand, and of the suggestive power of the primordial images on the other (123)

Self equals totality of consciousness and unconsciousness. Self is supraordinate to ego and thus a personality which we also are. Can’t comprehend because we are a part. Unconscious compensates total psyche. Greater consciousness becomes, more diminished personal unconscious becomes… widened consciousness. At this stage, unconscious produces contents valid for both individual and others

Difficulty in regarding unconscious as opposed or complementary to conscious while holding that both constitute a total psyche or self. Difficult regarding unconscious as non-intentional force, simply providing appropriate images, etc. Uncon. seems much more cognitive and in every respect part and parcel of everything we understand to be in consciousness. Individuation of functions in consciousness… thinking, intuition, sensing, feeling, seem all part and parcel of unconscious although Jung holds opposite view. (133, 134) Uncon. to Jung is not deliberate or planning, but only an urge towards self-realization

Smart people who have remained on a primitive level (narrow conscious outlook) save energy which accumulates in the unconscious and finally explodes into a neurosis. “If uncon. were merely reactive to the conscious mind, we might aptly call it a psychic mirror-world” (135) Could uncon. contain distorted reflection of formerly conscious contents handed down through the ages and, thus, sharing in the creative process?

October 27, 1993

We mislead our children, and, indeed, commit the most vile of sins, whenever we present them with a picture of a world intended to convey a positive sense of completeness. I am referring to the common practice of presenting things in ways we know they are not; ideals and practices as facts, or as something striven for, when they are neither. Whether the deceit is perpetuated out of a felt need to protect our children from harsh realities, or out of a vanity that seeks to emphasize personal merit over personal or social failure, as parents, teachers, and society at large, such behavior seriously damages each and every one of us. Far from this being the “nobler” course of action, what results is a very important loss to self-fulfillment–that is, the satisfaction that derives from “being needed”,

To be truly fulfilled, all of us need to know that our existence is celebrated, and that our progress is looked forward to, not merely by parents and teachers, but by the whole of society as well. What this means, in essence, is that each of us has the “need” and “right” to expect that others will be looking forward to those contributions we hope to make and, thus, it is imperative that we foster such feelings in one another. This, of course, cannot be accomplished by painting false pictures of life “as we wish it”, or “as best befits younger minds”. No, the youngest of our members can see through such delusions, and what has resulted from this awareness has been a void rather than the protective “filling” or “coating” we sought to impart. Loneliness would be another appropriate term to describe this outcome–for it is loneliness that is finally suffered!

Through our deceit, all that we have succeeded in imparting to our children, then, is little more than our own dire sense of what it means to live in this world–the very thing we sought to protect them from. And, because we do not fully understand this to be our “own” dilemma, out of sheer desperation (or ignorance), we will ready ourselves to repeat the same mistake over and over again. Until we become mature (or responsible) enough to confess ourselves and our world for what it is, we will continue to believe it possible to “reconfigure” our children without having to reconfigure ourselves! Our schools will no doubt continue to be looked upon as “fertile soil” in which to plant and nurture the new and healthy seed, but this deceit, like always, will come back to haunt us in a most “appropriate” way.

October 28, 1993

Jung speaks of the “attitude types” of Introversion and Extroversion as a fundamental contrast which, although sometimes obscured, is always apparent “when one is dealing with individuals whose personality is in any way pronounced.” (178)

Does this mean that all individuals fall into one or the other category, even if it is not always apparent? If not, then why not simply suppose that the dichotomy is a continuum of behavior which neither favors one side or the other, but merely is distinguished as such?

Jung speaks of the types as having a “random distribution”, and thus, must be owing to some biological basis.

Nature endows us with one of two basic dispositions, extroversion or introversion, which are primary means of adaptation to the world. The attitude of extroversion… The attitude of introversion…

Extrovert allows himself to be oriented by the given facts, while the introvert holds in reserve a view which interposes itself between him and the objective data. The formers actions are determined by the objective conditions; the latter’s by the subjective view. (182)

A truer representation of the above remarks might be to say that in both cases we are speaking of subjective attitudes. The extrovert’s subjective attitude is drawn to the objective data while the introverts subjective attitude is drawn away from it. The former willingly “expends” and “propagates” himself (prolific), while the latter “conserves his energy by withdrawing it from objects” (devouring). Consciousness appears to be more a vehicle for effecting or translating these subjective tendencies than it is a catalyst in its own right.

Extroverts seek to adjust to external circumstances as a means to adapting; however, adjustment is not adaptation, says Jung. Rather, the very adjustment of the normal extraverted type is his limitation, since he may very well adjust himself to circumstances which are too far removed from “the universally valid laws of life”. In such cases, he will share in the general collapse to the extent that he deviated from himself. What these “universally valid laws of life” are is not very clear and this may prove to be a weak point in Jung’s assessment.

In any event, if we hold with our original notion of “two opposing subjective attitudes”, we must now hold open the possibility such attitudes are capable of going astray.

It seems as though the extrovert is engaged in an outward search for personal identity and meaning; trying to find a bridge to connect up with his own person, while the introvert is trying to build a bridge from his own location in order to reach the outside world. The former trusts that the bridge is there to be found; the latter is distrusting of this hope, and, in fact, generally finds fault with any evidence which might demonstrate the existence of such “ladders”. He, instead, steals elements of the outside world and brings them within. His purpose is to integrate such elements with his center.

In his eagerness to adapt to external conditions which, of course, are forever shifting, the extrovert oftentimes finds that he is bordering upon a sheer imitation of adjustment, much less, adaptation. Thus, Jung speaks of hysteria (exaggerated rapport, wanting to be at the center of things, produce an impression, etc.) as the classic neurosis of the extroverted type.

What I have referred to as differing subjective attitudes, Jung calls “attitudes of the unconscious” which are considered to be compensatory to conscious (186). Jung speaks of the extroverted attitude as something belonging to a particular type. He speaks of the extrovert’s tendency to expend himself for the apparent benefit of the object, or to assimilate subject to object, but who or what is this individual or force taken to be? Is it “consciousness” which is suppressing or overlooking the subjective factor? Then how do we regard consciousness apart from the subjective factor?

When all is said and done, we are given the view that holds that “extroverted consciousness” has an underlying “introverted unconscious” which stands ready to compensate its behavior should this become extreme. It would follow from these remarks that extroverts are inwardly introverts and vice-versa. Thus, the introverted unconscious of the extrovert begins to concentrate the libido on the subjective factor (“that is, on all those needs and demands that are stifled or repressed by the conscious attitude.” [187]), and, thus, serves to compensate for a too objective orientation.

The introvert, on the other hand, orients himself by subjective factors; that is, “interposes a subjective view between the perception of the object and his own action, which prevents the action from assuming a character that fits the objective situation.” (229) Introverted consciousness considers the subjective determinants as being decisive in perception and cognition; e.g., upon what the sense impression constellates in the subject. Jung reminds us that perception and cognition both have their subjective counterpart, and are subjectively conditioned. To deny the subjective factor, therefore, would be tantamount to a denial of the subject. Only who is the subject, asks Jung, if not man himself?

Jung provides us with a definition of the subjective factor as “that psychological action or reaction which merges with the effect produced by the object and so gives rise to a new psychic datum.” (231) Thus, as the effects of objects (through sensation) are received, they are acted or reacted upon (merged or conditioned) by subjective elements and, thus, produce new “psychic data”. It is just this subjectively filtered or conditioned data that is interposed between the perception of the object and the introvert’s own action, (described in the preceding paragraph), which prevents the introvert’s action from assuming a character that fits the objective situation.

Now we might wonder at this point why the subjective element would want to interfere with an appropriate response “befitting” the situation. What could possibly be wrong with responding to an objective situation in a suitable way? And, if “we” are the “subject factor” in essence, then why would we seek to maintain a prejudice which can have harmful consequences for ourselves? Why interfere with successful adaptation!

We might also wonder why, if the extrovert also has a subjective counterpart, the very same thing does not take place within him. If his perceptions and cognition are also subjectively conditioned, except they do not interfere with his subsequent action (that is, interpose themselves between the perception of objects and his action), then why have a subjective counterpart at all? It seems that we are forced to conclude that the extrovert’s subjectivity is itself extroverted! While the interference of the subjective factor tends to withdraw the introvert from the outside world (or, perhaps, causes him to attack and devour elements in the outside world for his own benefit), the extrovert’s subjective interference forces him outside. In my opinion, the Jungian model needs to de-emphasize consciousness in a way that places these attitudinal differences in the subjective constitutions of the extrovert and introvert. As such, consciousness would seem to be more of an apparatus or tool, than a power or catalyst in its own right.

Like the extrovert, the excessive development of the introverted standpoint also has its problems as it leads to an “artificial subjectivizing of consciousness”. (231) Here we have a picture of consciousness which either must have the power to artificially subjectivize itself, or that this is accomplished in spite of itself. If the latter, then we would have to ask why the subjective counterpart would allow this, much less introduce it! However, it is clear from Jung’s writing that he treats consciousness as an entity (or relatively autonomous complex) which he refers to as “ego”. The introverted attitude is normally oriented by the “psychic structure”, he tells us, and this (“the really fundamental subject, the self”) is something which is much deeper and comprehensive than the comparably simple and somewhat fragile ego. Now, the problem (and pathology) of the introvert begins when he confuses his ego with the self, and then proceeds “to exalt it as the subject of the psychic process”. (232) In other words, the ego (the focal point of consciousness) begins to believe itself to be the originator of the psychic processes working within consciousness. It steals the credit, so to speak, since there is no one there to object and, perhaps, also because such processes apparently originate and exist within himself.

At this point we are introduced to the Jungian notion of a “collective unconscious” which, according to Jung:

“The individual self is a portion or segment or representative of something present in all living creatures, an exponent of the specific mode of psychological behavior, which varies from species to species and is inborn in each of its members. The inborn mode of acting has long been known as instinct, and for the inborn mode of psychic apprehension I have proposed the term archetype.” (233)

Now we are at or very near the real powerhouse driving us all. This view holds, in essence, that our total human ancestry is alive, present, and, presumably, well within each one of us (in the form of genetically inherited instincts and archetypes) and that these “contents” can be seen to be represented in consciousness “in the form of pronounced preferences and definite ways of looking at things.” It is just these “subjective tendencies” and “views” that wrongly come to be regarded (by either type) as being determined by the object. But, again, they are merely released by the effects of objects, says Jung–“They are stronger than the object’s influence, their psychic value is higher, so that they superimpose themselves on all impressions.” (233)

Again, it is difficult for us to understand just who is fooling whom. On the one hand, we are presented with a picture of a consciousness which is not only unaware of the unconscious elements driving it, but (in the case of the introvert) is dumb enough not to realize that what it has is not of its own making; on the other, consciousness appears to be powerful or autonomous enough to resist the unconscious, enough, at least, to warrant the need for compensation when it gets too far afield. If all that comes into consciousness derives from outer sensation and inner receptions, and in either case, all such experience is “subjectively conditioned” and, thus, in part, unconsciously controlled, then it would seem that consciousness is little more than a mediating ground for the unconscious to meet or experience the outer world! Thus, the beloved “ego” appears to be losing more and more of its stature as we continue to try to make sense of Jung’s model. Jung did in fact regard “self” and “world” as commensurable factors, “whereas the ego is a very limited and fragile thing” (235), only, in my opinion, such remarks continue to fluctuate between a view which holds the ego as a sort of passive spectator to the forays of the two main players involved, and the view which holds the ego as a third, though less powerful, player in its own right. The following remarks might serve to make this clearer:

“… If the ego has usurped the claims of the subject, this naturally produces, by way of compensation, an unconscious reinforcement of the influence of the object….

“As a result of the ego’s unadapted relation to the object–for a desire to dominate it is not adaptation–a compensatory relation arises in the unconscious which makes itself felt as an absolute and irrepressible tie to the object. The more the ego struggles to preserve its independence, freedom from obligation, and superiority, the more it becomes enslaved to the objective data….” (235)

Here we have a picture of an ego that is capable of “usurping” the claims of the subject–the all-powerful “Self”!–thus, revealing not only its desire “to dominate”, but also that it has the wherewithal to try… Now this is a force to be reckoned with–a power in its own right. Nonetheless, the more powerful unconscious finally succeeds in bringing this egotistical force to its knees and, thus, putting an end to the illusion of power and the fantasy of superiority. Now it is the unconscious that takes over the relationship to the object.

October 29, 1993

Emotions form our basis of knowing and connecting with one another. Our natures mediate us finally–not speech and other collective pseudo-intermediaries.

We are fast becoming individual because we must. The power of the individual in outer life is reaching dangerous proportions and nature is moving to correct the imbalance. We are in the process of moving away from collective norms toward an individual self-reliance. The transition will no doubt be messy.

It may be time for society (and its various institutions–especially the church) to begin letting go. Transcendent ideas were given us by nature–including our many forms of deity–and is hers to take away if need be. What we must not lose sight of is the fact that all nature (including all of life) comprises building blocks of a sort, and that the processes of change and transcendence to newer forms is everywhere present. We have a right to expect that nature is continually in the process of making room for new realities. In any regard, we must recognize that we are not in control.

Resistance is also a part of nature, but resistance is merely a want of continuance on a known path. It is not so much oppositional as it is a conservative tendency to want to progress on a familiar path. We resist anything threaten to remove us from our accustomed lines.

Do we foster violence or evil by resisting it? Do we dare risk vulnerability by allowing threatening actions to take place?

There are undercurrents to thought and feeling. We sense that we and life in general is built up from the same, layer upon layer. This means that, in a real sense, all of our past remains alive in the present. Thus, “we” comprise our own living heritage–generation built upon generation.

It seems natural to assume that each of our collective heritages–ourselves–must be growing thicker and more complex as time goes on. Thus, there appears to be a built-in dichotomy between our “personal collective” and that which constitutes society–namely, a “collective of collectives”!. This outer world collective was built up from generation upon generation of family, tribal and civilized traditions, and has served both as guide and controller over our individual perspectives. While we can say that societies are always undergoing some form of transition, there seems to be a disintegrating factor, at present, which, from all indications, is favoring the individual perspective. Why?

Technology has not only increased the power of societies to date, but has increased the power of individuals as well. Because we will soon be reaching the point where a single individual will have sufficient power to cause large-scale destruction, nature may just be moving to correct the situation–that is, may be moving to protect us from ourselves. Thus, each may have to engage a personal struggle which, if successful, will transfer the reins of control from the social or institutional sphere to billions of personal ones. In essence, since it will be individual power, rather than societal, that will ultimately threaten our existence as a species, it is here that any hope for survival must rest. The challenge appears to be impossible as each one of us must, in essence, find the means to self-control within ourselves. As society is made up of these same “individual collectives”, individual success will automatically ensure a successful outcome for the whole society.

It would seem that all of us ultimately share the same “collective”, although we do so through different lineages. We might wonder why, if this is so, we do not feel like brothers and sisters? or why we are not united in our dealings with nature? Perhaps it is because we are not united with nature that we are not united with one another; that the way to one another must be mediated by nature and cannot be accomplished by dealing directly with one another. Perhaps the way to others is through ourselves. For we have all experienced the same threats emanating from nature; these in turn have caused us to fear the strange and unknown and to be suspicious of the intentions of others. And we seem justified in our suspicions of others if for no other reason than we know what we are about. Thus, the dangers we recognize in others is owing to what we already recognize within ourselves. And we must assume from this that each of our collective constitutions share these traits since we share the same earth and history. But why did it have to be human against human? At first sight, we seem forced to conclude that nature does not share our sentiments; that she is not sentimental at all. But this is only because we have already excluded her from the picture by excluding ourselves! Thus, our limited picture of nature appears to us as raw and cruel; its meaning and purpose to be judged by the “survival of the fittest”–“eat or be eaten”, or “be or not be”. And, again, we feel justified in assuming that every fibre of our being is owing to this cruel source and, thus, we are not responsible for any of it! In fact, in the absence of an appropriate caretaker, we sense that we are literally stuck with having to take this responsibility upon ourselves.

In such ways, we come to feel fragmented. On the one hand, we cannot help but acknowledge our inferior status and passive existence as compared to nature’s awesome (though seemingly uncaring) power; on the other, we recognize that there is a need to fight for control of “the controller”. Since we have excluded ourselves from nature, nature appears to us as stripped of human emotion, and it never dawns on us that we could in fact be sharing in her plight; that we are joined to her and she to us, and very much more besides. On the contrary, we continue to struggle with maintaining the contradictory position of having to acknowledge that we are integrated with and yet opposed to her; a part masquerading itself as a whole. Perhaps we lack the conceptual apparatus required for the broader vision, but then, this limited view is “only” a feeling on our parts, for it is certainly the case that we “think” and “know” otherwise. But, if our emotional base is truly fundamental to our makeups, we might question how this state of affairs could have come about. Does this say something about the merits of thinking, or something about the extent to which our feelings have become dulled by the same. While reason cannot deceive itself, it may be quite another matter for those things surrounding it. In some way, it just may be possible that reason has managed to wedge itself between our emotions and the so-called objective world. In some way, nature, herself, may be exaggerating such proportions within us in order to bring us down from our lofty perch.

In many ways, our fight against nature appears to work very much like the Jungian scenario of a neurosis. In fact, Jung’s entire psychology appears like a microcosm of the whole of nature at work. In particular, society’s relationship with nature seems identical to the unconscious compensations which take place within the neurotic, striving to maintain a psychic balance between the outer and inner worlds. Perhaps all of human history is no more than one large neurosis of a kind being fought (and in being fought, maintained) by two powerful forces. In such a scenario as this, society would represent consciousness, while outer nature and inner nature would represent “objective reality” and “subjective reality” respectively; two forces of nature coming to us, and acting through us, from two different directions. We, of course, (individuals or society as a whole), are caught in between this oppositional pair which, presumably, is striving to maintain an equilibrium. What part we play in this scenario is anybody’s guess at present, although we cannot help but consider it to be an important part. Perhaps this is only owing to the fact that it is our perspective; other animals would undoubtedly feel themselves to be at the center of nature. It seems as though the deeper we dig, the simpler and shallower our picture becomes, making what had long ago been discarded as “primitive thinking or forms of life” (religion, mythology, poetry, and mystical thinking of all kinds) come to light with new relevance for our lives.

=============================================
In any regard, in our role of “resisters” (or would-be controllers), important means for dealing with nature have been given us. No, we did not create them–they were given us. I realize that language has developed in a way that would state the case otherwise, and it would be appropriate for it to do so, but new visions or conceptions force changes in language, and such is the case at present. Jungian psychology has broadened our view of the workings of life and has provided a basis for extending knowledge of ourselves as well. Because of his psychology and my own thinking in light of it, I cannot lay claim to my personal visions whether I equate “myself” solely with “consciousness” or not. As it is, I recognize that there is much more to me and others (many lifetimes of differing experiences–perhaps even “personalities”) which go into making up our “personal collectives”. And it almost goes without saying that most of what constitutes us in this vein, remains outside of consciousness. Speaking for myself, I know this to be true partly because I cannot help but acknowledge such things coming into and going out of consciousness on a routine basis; partly because I cannot deny the fact that I did not originate them in consciousness; and partly because my feelings and thoughts cannot help but anticipate–indeed, grope for–answers to fill in the gaps. If I was the initiator or creator of all that comes to into consciousness, I would not have to search so ardently for answers. Fortunately, such answers are everywhere to be found–given us through the vehicles or mechanisms of sensation and intuition, two seemingly different forms of perception.

But let us leave this digression and get back to those means we have discovered for dealing with a threatening nature, our own and all that surrounds us.

It seems contradictory to speak of change as a constant, but it certainly appears to be so. Nowhere in this universe does there appear to be evidence of anything which is not undergoing change. While human kind has, since time immemorial, sought after permanent and universal “absolutes”, I think it fair to say that the search has failed. The search, in fact, has all of the appearances of having being an impossible pursuit from the very beginning, if for no other reason than change really is a constant. So long as things remain in a constant state of “flux”, as the philosophers of old put it, we can never find absolute or certain anchors upon which to rest anything. We seemed doomed to having to withstand this truth, if it is a truth, and, for many of us, it represents a kind of sentencing to life-long, epoch-long, fragmentation stuck in a never-ending search for the “whole” that will complete it. Again, for whatever reason, we seem unable (perhaps, unwilling) to envision or, at least, feel that we are already a part of all that surrounds us. On the contrary, we cannot help but feel that we are in some way opposed to it.

Regardless, although humankind has never given up the search for absolutes, in the absence of finding any, we have become quite adept at inventing them. What is important to understand is that we have an absolute need for anchors in our lives and, humans being what we are, or nature being what she is, a “relative” sense of stability or permanence has been given us. Without this ability to create the illusion of “stoppage within motion”, if you will, we would all be sent reeling from dizziness at best. On the other hand, were there such a thing as a concrete, absolute, finite permanence; but, with it, existence as we know it would be impossible! It’s ironic that this should be the case, but it does not take a great deal of thought to understand that the absence of change translate to stagnation.

November 2, 1993

So now that I have presumably arrived at the doorstep of feeling, what is it exactly that I FEEL like doing with my life? Something to help humanity: assist youth; or, perhaps, attempt to resolve the personal, social, and “perennial” problems of humankind?

But I am told (if my Autowriting of October 27, 1992 is to be believed) that “nowhere is it possible to recompense what must be called earth; nowhere is there any time for forbiddance; nowhere is there forgiveness to bear, time to be undone.” Thus, I should not concern myself with trying to pay back earth for my own or all of society’s transgressions. “Earth must be called earth” and, presumably, requires no apologies nor assistance. I take it that this should not be my personal goal. I take it that I should not waste precious time suffering the guilt of past deeds, or by awaiting understanding or forgiveness for my own transgressions. Nor should I be concerned about actions which may prove contrary to what is “acceptable” at this time. There is only the present to be concerned about; the past is gone, and the future has yet to unfold.

Now what I desire, I am reminded, is to do “some good which will allow me to recompense my loved ones and show the world the love I both feel and desire”. Mine is the “cry of heaven and the pain of hell, both beseeching unity” and, again, this may have nothing whatever to do with resolving the “perennial problems of humankind”; or, if it does, it most probably will not be “thinking”. Instead, my goal or quest may result from my demonstrations of genuine “feeling”.

I fear rage and brutality both within and without me, and it causes me to cower from the dark side of myself and others. I am disappointed in faces which seem always distorted in one fashion or another; never revealing the true character of the real persons inside. I sense that it is the very same thing which each and every one of us is masking, and it is love or the “want” of it. At its polar opposites, it is an emptiness and an overflowing; at its center, both the desire to love and be loved. It seem that individuals appear less than they are to the degree that it is masked. Some people are ugly for the sheer lack of it, and we are right to fear such individuals. But a fearful “recognition” and “understanding” of their disorder would be better than fear alone. But here I go again with trying to ameliorate the human dilemma. Why do I insist on such digressions?

I must remind myself that “feeling”–not words–is becoming of me; that I must be true to whatever quest derives from this source alone. Again, I have been reminded [Journey’s End] that my true strength derives from “wanting” the “source of my travail”, and from this latter “Autowriting”, that my quest is “to reach heaven” (through wholeness?), and that if I am able to see this through, I will receive a just reward. But first, I am told, I must turn my conscience over to whomever it is that is speaking to or through me. Only then will I be able to cross “the threshold which rests beyond me”. I am then told to release myself from the “burden of living” which, according to this voice, “is nothing”, and that I should rejoice from the fact that I am “heaven-bound”, and should not be deterred from this voice. “Together is our strength” and I have the “whole of humanity and soul of earth” to support me in my cause. Because of these words, this voice appears to be the voice of my inner “Self” which, to Jung, is to be considered as being central to all aspects of personality; that is, to “consciousness”, the “personal unconscious”, and the “collective unconscious”–the whole psyche, in other words (or worlds). This also suggests that these separations (or apparent separations) are real in some sense and that, perhaps, they ought not to be; that, at least for myself, “unity” would seem to be the order of the day. But, here again, I seem to be thinking on such matters rather than flowing with feeling.

What is this burden that I call living? It is the sorrow of pain, guilt, shame, and embarrassment; the knowledge of knowing that I have not as yet lived a worthwhile life, and the burden of dreading that it will to the end in the same way. It is the feeling that “I” am of no consequence, and that I will continue to live out my life in darkness and loneliness. So how am I expected to “step my way to God” when all I’ve known is the struggle of ignorance and the pain of abstinence? How do I “let go” of a conscience that may not be mine to let go of? Am I to turn it over to “humanity and the soul of earth”, presumably existing and acting within me? I want to let go–I want to let go; but it is not happening. For the truth is, I have always equated the strength of being able to resist, abstain, or withstand, as a means to, or example of, “self-reliance”. I have always considered this to be the most worthwhile goal anyone could ever achieve. But it is a “self-reliance” which is different from the sort that ensures that oneself and ones family is taken care of, and so on. This form may be considered too stupid or pathetic to most. Nonetheless, I have always considered it a form of weakness to ask God for forgiveness. If I deserve blame, then I deserve to bear it; and the more transgressions I am able to bear, the more worthwhile I shall prove myself to be. My feeling has always been that God was disappointed in his creation and fully expects that we will fall short. But, of course, someone is going to have to prove Him wrong! Someone is going to have to find the means to please Him!

[How disheartening it is to suddenly realize that the dynamics in my relationship with God exactly parallel my relationship with my father.–How demeaning! It stops me in my tracks.]

Apparently, God is further removed from me than what I imagined; that the symbolism expressed in me has more of a historical, personal, or psychological foundation than what I had wanted to think. But, assuming that it is my unconscious “self” that is creating such delusions, why should it not, instead, maintain the reality of the actual circumstances at hand?–keep to the actual players involved? Why this digression and delusion only to have to return to the truth in the end? Presumably, my father presented a disappointing face to me–one which anticipated and “projected” upon me the very visions he held of himself. I, in turn, received his projections and, while still carrying “his” pangs of guilt and shame (as my own); on an unconscious level, my burden was being symbolically “justified” (and thus, somewhat alleviated) by substituting a relationship with “God” in place of my “Father”. Only, to whose advantage?

Did my father’s projection of undesirable attributes lessen his own pain? Did it really free him of those attributes he did not wish to face in himself? I suspect not. Rather, it would appear that, far from leaving behind a clean slate, successful projections leave the projector “stuck” with having to face the residue each and every time he projects it. Assuming that those closest to himself are the most likely targets, he soon finds that he is surrounded by distasteful types. Now if projection were a normal state of affairs, it would seem to follow that, after a time, by building and reinforcing projection upon projection, we would come to literally despise those closest to us. Although this may be a more common state of affairs than we would like to admit, still, it does not explain the many solid and positive relations we enjoy with others. This seems to point to the fact (if it is a fact) that there are both “positive” and “negative” projections at work in our lives.

Jung spoke of the mechanism of projection as though it were something taking place on the unconscious level only. In this view, we are not conscious of (nor do we really understand) that this transference is taking place at all. I’m not so certain of this. Since it seems necessary to first “amplify” (give shape to, recognize) what one finds burdensome before one can “relocate” it in some other individual, then one cannot help but be conscious of what is being “felt” at the time. That is to say, what one may “see” in another, is still “felt” and located in himself. It is like trying to distinguish between “love felt” and “love desired”. We want to say that the former is in some way “contained” in us and is, thus, capable of being “given”. In the latter case, somewhat ironically, we want to say that here love is “felt” (or lacking) but that we want to receive more of it. The upshot is that we do not merely feel the repulsion of what we have projected while we project it, but it somehow (gnawingly) lingers on within us. In such a way, we wear our hatreds and prejudices like yokes around our necks. They are incessant reminders that we cannot be rid of ourselves–not really–and so long as they remain with us, they will not only become targets for the projections of others, but will be subject to our own thought as well.

I suspect that projection is more of a “sharing” or “expression” of what we feel than an attempt to transfer such feelings to others. It is more of a cry on behalf of something which needs to be acknowledged and understood. The stronger our emotions, the greater the need to understand them, and, perhaps here is the real motivation behind the transference process. Depending upon one’s own threshold of tolerance, it is sometimes necessary to identify and bring attention to what is painful (which, more often than not, is something considered embarrassing or shameful) by “locating” it outside oneself! By “accusing” another, the problem stands a chance of being resolved outside oneself. It would be tantamount to seeking out psychiatric help “for a friend”.

In the case of the existing relationship between my father and myself, I fully expect that his actions have had this “relaying” quality about them. His hope has been, of course, that his off-spring would be able to resolve his own issues; that, since they are at once “felt” to be in himself and “seen” to be in me, any success on my part would translate to success for both of us. Thus, the burden of proving my father (and by now, myself) wrong, rests squarely upon my shoulders; that is, should I choose to carry it. And, if this analysis is not simply an elaborate disguise on my part for not wishing to deal with my own shadow, then all I can say is that I am absolutely not aware of it. In fact, I would say that my getting this right would presently afford me an opportunity (although I’m not sure of this) to take the challenge upon myself, or else throw it back into his face. Only, this said, my father’s “face” could in fact serve as the “telling truth”. It exonerates him, as much as I almost don’t want to admit this. For even when he is at his worse, his expression reveals a quiet remorse which appears to be as inevitable as is its message that something hoped for had not been gained.

And should I prove unfit for the task, then it behoove my unconscious to want to lighten my load for the very same reasons and by the very same means. Thus, I may proceed to pass my father’s burdens onto my own children while, at the same time, their unconscious’ may also be replicating the conflict into a conscious, though symbolic, God-Self relationship. And what about my father’s father! Has this same transference gone on through the generations? Is my father carrying his father’s burden as well. And has his own unconscious symbolically represented it in different terms than my own. As it is, my father has tended to deny God on account of the amount of evil existing in the world–innocence which appears to be punished. He lost his own first born son. But the real culprit he has chosen to blame is the church and its messengers whose hypocrisies he abhors. Rather than seek out or attack God, perhaps his symbolical representation has translated to this. How the church may stand in for his father, I simply cannot imagine. But here I go thinking again! I simply cannot prevent it. I “feel” like thinking. Surely this ought to account for something!

Or am I not to be concerned with such issues at all, no matter how compelling they may be? Am I simply to remain concentrated on my quest for wanting to do “some good” for loved ones and humanity? It doesn’t sound like a very lofty goal. Demonstrating a love which is both felt and desired almost appears kind of shallow, if not selfish! Surely, there has got to be more to life than this. What about earning a living, being truthful, handling responsibilities and obligations? Will all of these things simply fall into place of their own accord? What about coming to grips with myself; fostering a better “self-understanding” as a means to addressing or alleviating personal difficulties? Will these too take care of themselves? Is it the case that I have already received an appropriate foundation for action and require nothing else?–that this is to be my starting point?

But what if this is all “gobbledygook”, and it turns out that I don’t really feel this love for others, but merely desire it for myself?; that my so-called demonstrations and concerns for humanity amount to little more than an attempt to win attention?; that I would gladly “give away the store”, if necessary, to win such acclaim. What a pathetic state of affairs this would be. But, then, “showing the world the love I both feel and desire” does not necessarily mean that I “feel it for others”–only that I both feel it and desire what I am feeling. Can one feel love without bestowing it, in the same manner as one may desire love without receiving it? Is there a difference between “feeling” and “desire”? I suspect that the “cry of heaven” is compelling us to feel and bestow love, as well as desire and receive it; while the “pain of hell” may be to feel (or not to feel) love without bestowing it, or to desire (or not desire) love without receiving it. Thus, the desired outcomes would be for us all to “feel”, “bestow”, “desire”, and “receive” love–a blessed unity, I am sure–while the undesired outcome would be for us to be deprived of either or both. But enough of this philosophical meandering! Surely I have by now received sufficient information which ought to shed light on my direction. It might prove worthwhile, then, to skim over some of the suggestions that I have been able to glean from dreams and so-called “Autowriting” episodes. Again, I make no claims about these latter experiences other than that they are a means to relaxing consciousness and to allow associations to develop or emerge.

Beginning with “Journey’s End” which outlined the patterns of my life and summed up my situation to that time, my successive dreams went on to inform me that: I need to be preoccupied with what really matters (as depicted by three mahogany doors) and not with what I consider to be important; that I may not as yet be up to par for facing or managing my personality–perhaps, not far enough to the right; that I seem to be showing an utter disregard for my unconscious and am willing to risk the lives of others to protect my own egocentricitys; that we are all deluded to a great extent in life; that I am not as honest concerning myself as I would like to believe; that there is a need for me to come down to earth to join with it (or the spirit of humanity) in aspiring to heaven; that I am hungry for love but am myself blocking it; that we may all be living on illusions and must recognize that we can only come to knowledge through faith in action (that knowledge is derived from activity and not vice-versa); that my body is not going to be able to withstand for long the tormenting disposition which the outside world is causing me; that I must prepare myself to go into the world and aid humanity by preaching the visions that will be given me; that it is not possible to pay back what must be called earth; that there is no time for forbiddance; nor forgiveness to bear; nor time to be undone;–that I am heaven-bound in my quest and that I need to let go of my conscience and turn it over to “self”; that I am unknowingly feeding upon my own flesh or the flesh of others like myself; that I must understand the need to do what must be done; that there is no easy way around the task, nor should I attempt to circumvent it; that the world is not evil in itself and deserves to be acknowledged and understood in its own light; that should I do this, I will come to understand my own sorrow and toil; that I am deluding myself by believing I am going “up” when I am in fact may be heading for the hospital; that my moral dilemma arises from a too passive nature which weighs me down by not tending to what needs tending; that I am finding myself increasingly alone; that my crime is that I refuse “to be” or have refused to accept life for what it is; that life may be deterministic but this does not mean that we cannot learn from it; that we are being watched in all that we do (presumably by the unconscious); that my life parallels my father’s and carries with it the very same blinders; that I must safeguard or trust that I will remain a “unity” even though my “parts” (fragmentation?) may be perceived to have value; that I must live through experience no matter how it presents itself to me; that I will meet highly aggravated “conservative or judging elements” when I venture into society; that I must not waste my time trying to ameliorate insignificant situations and circumstances; that I cannot escape doing the hard work (requiring judgment, structure and strain) if I am to do my work; that I am deluding myself into believing that I have been able to circumvent the same; that I must now lean to the “right” to propel myself; that I must not be so cocky about my ability to handle things myself; that I cannot control the unconscious elements within me; that my unconscious will not be fooled by me and will see to it that I am the one who will drown, rather than it; that I must decide whether to put on the clothing of success and determination, or the clothing of passivity and impoverishment; that I must not feign caring or refrain from revealing my true feelings; that I must learn to speak the truth always; that I am carrying a dead carcass around with me that may represent my father or the pull of him upon myself; that I must face and deal with this issue myself rather than expect that I can leave it to others; that I must go through the door of the unconscious to do so; that I am a soldier for “unity” and must carry this cause; that there is something of value that awaits me if I follow the dictates of my dreams; that I, perhaps, need to turn from “thinking” to “feeling” as well as begin to utilize judgment over perception; that I must proceed as a knight toward this heroic pursuit toward a fuller personality; that I must cease to protect myself from myself by accepting my true value and know that my feeling side can assist me in doing “my work”; that I must stop deluding myself regarding the love I both feel and desire; that I should stop claiming values which may be false; that I am presently like the caterpillar of a moth spinning itself a cocoon; that I may be opposed to white customs and Christianity; that my plight has to do with achieving a unity comprising the four functions of personality; that I am interested in developing humanity; that I may be crossing over from one set of beliefs to its opposite; that the “middle kingdom” may be what I am seeking; that, once achieved, I will find the freedom I have sought; that I will be known for the messages I bring from God or the unconscious; that my aim is to express subjective feelings and emotions; that I may succeed in centralizing psychic energy at the cabinet level, and may receive public financing for the same; that my concern will be for the sick, the injured and handicapped; that the city of Naples (or its 13th century university?) will prove to have some sort of significance for me; that I may be murdered in a revolution; that I must refrain from withholding my true feelings and circumstances, or from putting my responsibilities upon the shoulders of others; that I must refrain from trying to circumvent or ameliorate problems through wishful thinking or fantasy; that I must follow the rules and judgments which are necessary to my success; that I am still torn between judgment and perception, trying to favor the former; that because I cannot let go of perception, I will have to prolong my agony; that all of nature is contained in me; that, as humans, we must proceed always with “wholes” which we will create to fill in the missing pieces; that nature always wins and is always in control; that we can get in touch with nature’s voice simply by speaking the truth; that our problems result by our shutting out the unconscious; that memory is what gives consciousness its identity; that we may comprise many personalities within; that such personalities are in some way mirrored by the unconscious; that everything about us is directed outward; that we are deluded by forces unknown to us; that such forces are big and powerful and it will do little good to pretend that we are in control of them; that I cannot continue for long to ignore the unconscious without risking a severe accident; that it is increasingly acting outside of my ability to control it; that I am taking dangerous chances (or am allowing others to lead me into danger) which may turn out to jeopardize my own life as well as family members; that I am literally preparing myself for a crash which I both expect and accept as coming; that this crash may be merely the result of my allowing it to take place!

November 3, 1993

I still have not as yet been able to escape my personal dilemma of not knowing where or how to proceed with life. I am frightened from the thought that the thoughts and feelings I have both enjoyed and suffered over the past (soon to be) fifty-three years, have all but left me empty in terms of vocation. [It’s a hell of a time to be thinking about a vocation!] In any regard, about a half hour ago, I found myself reflecting on what such a vocation might be and was reminded of one of my “Autowriting” episodes which informed me that Emerson “is my friend in both spirit and vocation”, and that I ought to learn from him just “how to let go” and that by doing so, in essence, I would begin to receive “wholeness drop by drop”. In recalling these remarks, I entertained (and was somewhat enthralled by) the notion that, perhaps, my vocation in life is to be an “essayist” just like Emerson! Of course, it would be an arrogant form of redundancy to ever think I could add to his words or be capable of such expression since I am in no way a poet. But, I considered that perhaps my vocation would be to write on “personal and social issues” since these seem closest to my own heart and mind; that is, next to my preoccupation with self.

But, alas, no sooner than I began to enjoy this notion–particularly since much of what I’ve written over the years is in essay form–than the remembrance of a previous passage dawned upon me. Here I am told that “words are not becoming of me” and that “they are lost art and of no consequence”. I am told further that I am “heaven bound in all my struggles and that I need to be true to this quest and hear only what bade me to it.” Well now, which is it going to be?–essayist or what? I then decided to reread the first passage, and, following this, realized that “having the same vocation” as Emerson needn’t mean that I am to be a writer. Writing was not Emerson’s vocation–it was rather a “means” to it! And so, if I am to continue to take these “sessions” seriously, as I am inclined to do, I must now consider the possibility that “my vocation” may be a personal one which might end up having little or nothing to do with the world directly. Perhaps, like my “Journey’s End” so pointedly expressed to me, my vocation is to proceed on the path to self-discovery and, in so doing, the “unity” expressed and gained may in some way translate to a worthwhile “good” for others beside myself.

November 5, 1993

Had a couple of interesting dreams over the last two nights. The first one was disappointing and uplifting at the same time. The second appeared to contain two segments, each of which, demonstrated my difficulty with finding my way. I fully recognize these dreams to be no less than depictions and responses to the impact my recent findings (regarding my father) have had upon me. The fuller realization of recognizing that the yoke I have been carrying around my neck may not have been of my own making, but, properly speaking, is owing to the relationship I share with my father, has left me with a feeling of utter remorse. This feeling is also owing to my discovery that a relationship I thought I had with God, in essence, is no more than a “disguised form” of this very same relationship I share with my father.

My first dream, as it were, brought me into contact with royalty, no less than with Queen Elizabeth herself (although she appeared to me as Margaret Thatcher). The way this all came about is almost comical since it was all over my accusing one of her off-spring (or someone connected to her in some way or another, although I did not realize it at the time) of not having paid for some “olive oil” which I had, presumably, sold her. [It may be worth noting that Lee Iaccoco was on the Larry King show two nights preceding this dream, and had mentioned that he had an olive oil business, while Margaret Thatcher appeared only hours before this dream took place]. When I realized that I had not been paid for my olive oil, I threatened a law suit against this young lady. Although she ignored me whenever she happened by, I recognized that she was in the process of making preparations to challenge this accusation.

In the meantime, there was to be a meeting (more like a court session) which would settle this issue. I got word that the Queen was coming with all of the dignity befitting a queen. There was a ship loaded with soldiers in full dress uniforms (ceremonial parade dress was more like it) who were standing on deck as the ship sailed into port. [There was some feint recollection of my trying to go out to meet them in a ship of my own–or was trying to cut them off?]. The next thing I remember was being outdoors (it was to be a lawn ceremonial) awaiting the arrival of the “King” and Queen. Their entourage was already there seated under a canopy, while I recall my standing alone just a short distance away (in full uniform casually holding onto to a saber) while feeling only slightly awkward by the anticipation of what was to take place. I remember glancing over to my wife (who was seated with the other dignitaries) and whispering: “Don’t worry, I’ll know how to handle myself”, making obvious reference to the protocol which would be expected of me.

While I was awaiting the arrival of the King, Queen Elizabeth had somehow arrived and was now seated (to left of her entourage) on a simple wooden folding chair. She was surrounded by a number of people and was engaged in casual conversation. Some were standing and some seated, as though everyone (including the Queen) were simply biding their time while awaiting the King. The next thing I remember is coming to the sudden realization that the young lady had not cheated me after all! When explaining the matter with my wife several days earlier, I had taken out a shiny container of olive oil to use as convincing evidence of missing oil.

[I vaguely recall my wife considering that something may have been cooked by means of being in contact with this can, while I was proving to her that they would have had to have been inside the can in order to be cooked. I have no idea what this alluded to and see no connection with the dream]

I recognized the need to convince both my wife and myself that I was correct in my accusation.

[It was understood that we needed to entertain the possibility that the confusion could very well have been mine–that it somehow “typified” my behavior–and that, because of this, it was quite possible that I could have lost track of the payment, or was forgetting the fact that I had conveyed an impression that no money was expected].

Only now, it suddenly dawned on me that the oil I gave to the young lady did not come from this can, but was, instead, old oil which was leftover in a small electric deep fryer. It was this oil that I had given her at no charge!

I next remember myself casually strolling over to a section behind the Queen where members of my family were to sit. My sister-in-law Anita was seated in one of these chairs, and I was about to apprise her of my error and how I would have to reveal it to everyone. Anita listened to my explanation and then pointed to the fact that my brother Leonard had just arrived with one of my wife’s brothers. Only rather than recognizing one of my wife’s brothers, I saw this individual as Bob Grant, a long-time friend of Leonard’s. To me, it was definitely “Bumper”, even if Anita was claiming it otherwise. I walked over to him and extended my hand, feeling somewhat embarrassed since I didn’t know which of my wife’s three brothers this was supposed to be. [reminiscent of references in previous dreams: “three directions”, “three doors”, “three paintings”]. I guess that I apologized for not recognizing him and then extended my hand to Leonard to greet him as well. Only he seemed reluctant (and somewhat annoyed) to shake my hand, as though it wasn’t necessary for the fact that we were brothers. Nevertheless, I insisted on shaking it and this is all that I remember concerning this episode.

I believe that the dream ended with the feeling that there “really wasn’t a King”. I recall that the Queen was only slightly aggravated by my holding to this expectation, but in a kindly, considerate, and patient way, was prepared to grant me my illusion. I remember her occasional glances at me (when I was standing alone, apart from everyone); that there was a kind of puzzled, if not saddened, expression upon her face. I recognized it as a look of pity and mild disbelief that I could be so unaware of the actual circumstances surrounding me. Incredibly, here I was demeaning the “Queen of England”, and there she was, graciously allowing what could only have been an embarrassment to herself!

My second dream (which occurred last night) took place at a sort of resort hotel which was located in Disney-like surroundings. I remember seeing fake, though beautiful mountain landscapes, and that there was a tram that somehow allowed us to view the grounds. [“Tram”! Why do I seem to be using English rather than American terms and expressions?] I don’t remember much of this setting except that I was having a great deal of difficulty locating my room. As a result of this, I was walking corridors, climbing steps, seeing different parts of this “city” and “hotel”, all the while losing track of the fact that I needed to find my room in order to get dressed. (As it was, I was walking around dressed in bath robe). I remember that I would often get side-tracked by excursions and other highlights, losing sight of the fact that I needed to “concentrate” on finding my room. I was aware of this problem and occasionally would mention it to other persons (I believe, family members) who were also visiting this place. I remember taking this skyway “tram” around the place and then telling others about how great it had been; it provided a broad view of the entire place. I don’t remember much else about this portion of dream.

I’m not certain if this next episode belonged to the first or second portion of this dream which I am about to relate, only that it almost seems to me now to be a kind of “in-between” or “transitional” phase. In any event, it consisted of me traveling around this park by auto, still lost, and still trying to find my way back (to the hotel itself). I was driving down dead ends, turning down streets which turned into shallow lakes with flooding water, or winding up in slummy factory districts which seemed far removed from where I had been. But, just as suddenly, I found myself (in a 2nd or 3rd episode of this dream?) to be in the same predicament, only now I was on foot. I remember being in a “maze” of houses and streets which I recall was an Hispanic section. Although it was poor, I remember that everything was neatly laid out. I was walking these streets trying to find a way out of this district and was running into all sorts of elaborate dead ends. Streets turned into driveways and into properties which stopped me. The last thing I remember was passing through someone’s property while not being certain of whether I was trespassing or not. Although it was surrounded by a fence and I was walking directly on a walkway in front of their house (or row of houses), I remember thinking that this part of the land belonged to the city and that they simply were making use of it. I thought this to be appropriate since everything was so neat, and also for the fact that they were not preventing my passage even though two individuals were standing right there as I passed by. I wondered if they were going to object to my presence, but somehow felt that they would not. I saw a steel gate at the end of the walk and wondered what I would do if it turns out to have a lock on it. Presumably, this would amount to another dead-end, or, since it was a typically low fence gate, I would be able to easily jump over it. However, I don’t know if this direction in fact freed me from my dilemma although I do sense that an open field lay just beyond the gate and that, perhaps, the city I was looking for could be seen in the far off distance. I’m not sure about this.

I do remember one other thing while driving the car in the factory district and coming to a dead end. There was a booth there (like a toll booth) and upon my turning around to leave this place, I was able to ask for directions. I believe it was a woman who told me to turn right and then make an immediate left. I can recall nothing else.

Now what am I to make of these dreams in view of my recent discoveries? To be sure, I cannot claim that things are really any clearer to me since I cannot, as yet, set aside a whole host other possibilities which could send this thinking in any number of directions. But, again, maybe I’m suppose to set thinking aside and give “feeling” a chance. Admittedly, what I have experienced of late appears to me to be rather “sophisticated” and “revealing”, although my most recent dreams are suggesting otherwise. Take the first one just elaborated as an example. Think of it! I gave “used oil” to a member of royalty; then falsely accused her of not paying for it; then, with the full expectancy that I was about to meet “the King of England” who was coming to settle the difference, slighted the Queen, instead. She, in turn, was not only gracious enough to take part in this matter, but was gracious enough to put up with my “buffoonery” and the entire charade in light of it.

If the queen represents my feminine unconscious, it is certainly one which is more gracious than I deserve. [In some ways, the expression on the Queen’s face was very much like one I have often observed on Jane’s–an unbelievable quality concerning my actions or beliefs. Could the Queen’s personage be a stand-in for Jane?–an attempt to elevate her in my eyes? or demean myself in her presence as a queen?]

I feel as though I want to come down to earth–want more than anything to know and be able to face the truth about myself; only a part of me wants to believe that I really do possess a worthwhile store of knowledge, while another part seems bent on demeaning this notion, as though it were sheer illusion. But if my knowledge (or the knowledge given me) is not worthy of the acclaim I seem to attach to it, and that my means for justifying such a notion was derived primarily by comparing my understanding with various thinkers and writers, then might “they too” be presenting a charade? Could it be that my unconscious does not consider me unworthy in comparison to them, but unworthy in the sense that I am behaving just like them! Or is my considering such a possibility merely another elaborate means for both justifying and hanging onto my illusions? I would like to believe that the former is the case; that the Queen is not so much trying to lower my expectations as she is trying to elevate them! But it’s kind of “heady” stuff, even for me.

But what about this dream scenario which was presented to me? What is it trying to get over to me? One possibility is that I am showing a definite preference for the “male side” or “objective side” of my personality (thinking?) while it is the “feminine side” that is always present, forever patient it seems, with trying to get something over to me. In my “Journey’s End” I told myself that my “want of love” is my “true strength” and also “the source of my travail”; so why can’t I accept this fact as well as the source to which it is owing? Why can’t I see “feeling” as being the most potent force in my personality?–or for the world? Or might this latter remark be one of my major problems; that is, the fact that I want to make a difference to the world and not merely to myself! While the pain of love (or, more accurately, its absence) is only too apparent to me, is it any wonder why I have sought in earnest to avoid it? Perhaps I felt and feared that love could only be based upon what “I am”, and that I would have to be accepted or rejected on this account alone. Perhaps the pursuit of knowledge, and the attention or respect which it might earn for me, seemed a less risky, though “honorable” substitute for love. Perhaps, perhaps…

At any rate, I thought that I was beginning to recognize the importance and sincerity of these facts, and that I had already set myself to doing something about it. [I am finding that I need to resist sounding “English”(?); that I need to change English-sounding terms and expressions to American-sounding ones as I type. It’s strange.] I thought that I was making progress on my “feeling” side and that my recent writing shows this to be the case. And yet, these dream episodes show me as devious, deluded, confused, and still struggling to free myself. Am I not getting closer?

Most of the elements in this first dream remain a mystery. I don’t know who this young girl was I both deceived and accused [although I recall thinking how much she resembled a girl from my hometown, Sheila McHardy]; what the significance of Bob Grant standing in for one of my brother-in-law’s was; or why my brother Leonard seemed irritated with me and somewhat reluctant to shake my hand. I don’t know why my seemingly insignificant offense was challenged in the first place, or why it warranted the presence of the Queen. [I suddenly thought of a dream I had in which I was pinning down a homosexual who I knew could overpower me if he wanted (and have his way with me), but did not. Could he, like the “Queen” have represented my feminine unconscious?]

I believe that this dream just now alluded to hits the nail on the head. I remember this same person referring to himself as a “Queen” on one occasion when visiting home. As a homosexual man, I guess it would be fair to think of him as a man and woman, or bolder perhaps, as a feminine personality in a man’s physique. But what does this hold for someone like myself? [“I shudder to make this so”]. This just popped into mind and alludes to an “Autowriting” (October 27, 1992) where I had just received a message and was remarking that I couldn’t be sure of its meaning or just who it was (myself, unconscious, Mammon?) that was delivering it. I wrote: “If you are another (brother) complex within my soul, only more knowledgeable than I, then reveal this to me that I may join with you in serving our destiny.” Then I proceeded with a second session of “Autowriting”, just letting myself go at the keyboard. The first lines read: “I shudder to make this so.” and this sentence has puzzled me ever since. I didn’t know whether the reference was to my wanting him to reveal himself to me, or to my wanting to join with him. And now, this same sentence pops into my head, just at the moment I am wondering about what this “homosexual thing” may portend for myself. I’m still not sure of what the connection is, but I know that it’s here; and I suspect that it has to do with “joining” rather than “revealing”. But what? The very next sentence was: “Raymond, you are truly myself; this much I know”, but if this is so, then it would seem that we are already joined. So what is there to “shudder about”? Could we be “one and the same” and still have two different destinies?

The above digression resulted from my considering why it was necessary to have the Queen herself come to defend this young lady I accused, or whether she had come to see me. If her arrival was meant to show me how ridiculous my current state may be, well, it probably worked. I do feel somewhat ridiculous, but only if I hold to the belief that these dreams “truly” depict the dynamics of a reality going on within me, and only if I consider her to be noble, just, and above all, honorable. I find it extremely difficult to believe it possible that she could represent a “deceiving” element within me. She could not be one of the “false prophets” alluded to in this same Autowriting. So does she represent my feminine unconscious? or be depicting the relationship I share with my wife? or, again, be depicting a relationship I shared with my mother? God was a substitute in my father’s case. Could an “earthly queen” be a substitute for my mother? And could this earthly queen have anything to do with “Mammon” [August 4, 1991], who I felt was a masculine earthly presence?

It seems sad that my second dream showed me to be in the same quandary as so many other dreams have depicted. I’m certainly disappointed in this, but maybe, now that I’ve gotten into the first dream somewhat, future dreams may depict a more positive outlook. I only hope that what they depict are not coming certainties–but probable consequences which can in fact be altered.

November 6, 1993

Why must it be left up to me to figure out my own mind? If I were integral to begin with, there would be no question of this kind; but, as it were, there is much that goes on within and without ourselves which we have not yet begun to understand. A week ago, while standing in the shower with my eyes closed, a circular image appeared which grew increasingly brighter by the moment. This is what most fascinated me since it is not usual for images to be so bright when one’s eyes are shut. It resembled a flower, or the central portion of a flower. It consisted of a bright violet center, a thin outer ring of a different color surrounding this (I can’t remember which); and, finally, had bristly “rays” surrounding it like a child might have drawn to depict the sun. It seems that these bristles or rays were black, but I can’t see how this could be since it was all against a black background to begin with. I vaguely remember that the thin ring surrounding the violet center may have been yellow or green. [I just now tried to repeat this experience; to ask or allow my unconscious an opportunity to communicate this information to me–but to no avail.]

November 12, 1993

I had several dreams over the past several days, all of which contained feelings of entrapment, or of not being able to find my way out of one situation or another. I have almost reached the point of no longer caring about these dreams since they all appear to be pointing in the same direction. On the other hand, there were a couple of significant things which are worthy of attention.

In one dream, I was attending some sort of theatre which had a sophisticated side (live actors I believe) and a comparatively unsophisticated “movie” side. I don’t remember what my situation was, but I recall having a conversation with an individual who I believe was serving as an entry guard. I recall having had an argument with him although I don’t remember the particulars. What I do remember is that I had entered some sort of maze leading into the movie side of the theatre. I was opening door after door (these were heavy steel swinging and sliding doors like you might see on a ship or submarine), squeezing through very tight compartments where there was hardly enough room for me to open the next door. Someplace along the line I met up with this same fellow and remember challenging him in some way (suggesting that I had every right to be here). He said nothing to me and I proceeded on my way. (I have a faint recollection of dragging a cardboard box behind me but I can’t be sure of this). I continued going through more and more doors until, finally, an arm reached out to grab me around one of my wrists. I was surprised by this (though not overly surprised) and asked if he wanted to come out in my direction, or wanted me to proceed with him in the direction he had come from. I believe that it was the latter. [Although I do not remember seeing this person’s face, I felt that it was not the guard, but only that he had been sent by him]

I feel that this scenario was a second episode in the dream, although I am unable to recall what it followed. (I recall bits and pieces of being in a department store). At any rate, what especially impacted me about this dream is the following: I recall standing out in front of this theatre looking at the entry guard and thinking to myself that I ought to return with a sophisticated “man” who might serve to show this individual that I’m no slouch. While in the dream, I felt this individual to be a spouse. It was only upon waking that I realized the implications of what I had said. Only then did it occur to me that I was wishing for a husband rather than a wife to support me in my dream. This, of course, suggests that while I was dreaming (at least in this part of my dream), I was speaking as a “female”. I find this very interesting, especially in consideration of other dreams which preceded this one. In particular, it brought to mind a dream which I had last week involving the king and queen of England. This dream left me with an image of the Queen (who appeared as Margaret Thatcher) looking at me with an expression which seemed to combine mild sympathy, disgust, pity, and incredulity, all at the same time. You see, her presence had pretty much gone unnoticed by me since I was waiting for the “King’s” arrival rather than hers. As it turned out, however, he never arrived because there isn’t a King of England.

It is becoming clearer and clearer from such dreams that there is a feminine personality within me that is trying to get my attention. Whether this personality is my “anima”, properly speaking, or the whole of my “unconscious”, is not clear to me. What is clear, however, is that this feminine presence has been patiently calling upon me, time and time again. She is either looking for me to acknowledge her, or else has a message for me which I have (in other dreams) consistently refused to hear. Perhaps the message is simply for me to make such an acknowledgement; but, perhaps it is something more.

Another thing which is becoming clearer is that, far from my dreams being the fulfillment of wish fantasies, or blatant compensations to exaggerated attitudes in consciousness (in an oppositional sense), they are, rather, more like extensions of the same. I fully suspect that my “royalty dream” was compensating for my pompous attitude which regards “thinking” as superior to “feeling”, but it did so by showing me the absurdity of my standpoint, and not by countering it with some “feeling-laden” standpoint. In fact, I was put into the position of being a sort of “buffoon”, too preoccupied with my own illusions to recognize what was really going on around me. The truth is, this dream portrayed my current attitude and situation for what it is, and it did so brilliant fashion, even if I have yet to realize its full significance, or the meaning of other elements existing in it.

My personal experience, then, has demonstrated quite clearly that dreams do in fact compensate consciousness, but they do so by elaborating it, rather than opposing it. For me, at least, they offer various scenarios which (I cannot help but feel) reflect (in form) real or “potentially real” outcomes of my current situation. They provide, in other words, a “safe” means for “experiencing” truths concerning my behavior and attitudes which I have not been able to acknowledge. It is always a relief to wake up knowing that these potential acts have not really taken place. Only, this said, I am not so naive as to suppose that they do not, therefore, represent a real danger to me. Like Scrooge, I have been given numerous accounts of my psychological state, including even previews of pending danger.

Of course, it is also a fact that the playing out of real life circumstances (via dream scenarios) is not always clear to the dreamer. Not only are many of its elements confusing, but very many are forgotten, if indeed, the dream is remembered at all. And so we are prone to ask: If dreams are supposed to compensate consciousness (our so-called normal waking state), then why aren’t all such elements remembered? But here is where thinking goes astray. As soon as we begin to “question” what is only given to be acknowledged and “understood”, we begin our journey into that highly confusing world of imaginative possibilities. Let’s see how this works.

I personally consider it “safest” to suppose that consciousness works in sleep no differently than it works in waking life; that in either case, it notices those things which have the greatest affect or relevance to one’s self, and doesn’t notice (or notices to a lesser degree) those things which have little or no relevance. To do otherwise (that is, suppose that things “might” work differently than what appears to be the case) is to open the door to a veritable Pandoras box of possibilities, much more than we can possibly handle. For example, to even begin to talk about “consciousness” or “experience” is already to acknowledge that we are working out of a number of conceptual foundations which are bound to determine the direction our thought will take. The mere fact that I am able to distinguish a subject from a variety of objects (myself from the things of the world), implies already that I am in some way separate from nature, even while I remain a part. Now to accept this state of affairs would be one thing, and probably would be the smarter approach to take. Unfortunately, however, we seem to believe that to do is to block the formation of quite a number of other ideas which we are prone to entertain. To such thinkers, questions like the following represent “possibilities” which should not be circumvented or ignored.

How should we regard our consciousness standpoints?–as thinker?, creator?, tool?, receptacle?, process? Is it really autonomous, or does it just “think” that it is? Might it be a “tool” in the hands of an unconscious of which we know little or nothing? Does it divide the inner and outer worlds? Is it to be considered a part of the unconscious in the same way as we consider it a part of the world at large? Might it be a partial awareness of “ourselves” in the same way as its contents might represent a partial awareness of the outer world? Again, is consciousness in the waking state different from consciousness in the dreaming state? Is it simply a matter of the presence or absence of outer sensations? Is consciousness really no more than sensation? Can it really be separated from the so-called objects of perception–from the “things” which we experience? or are we in fact integral parts of these same things? Could it be the case that our eyes, for example, did not develop in order to “see” objects, but developed in conjunction with the objects or processes themselves–that they are, in fact, part and parcel of the same–that is, not a separate “thing” from “light” for example? Are the elements which come into consciousness instantly created in the moment they are presented to us? or do they stem from a single (or several forms of) unconscious receptacles where such things are stored or thought about? Does consciousness constitute our personality? or is it a faint or partial image of a greater entity to which it belongs?

Again, all of the above questions appear to have relevance to some issue or another. All of them attempt to reach beyond present knowledge, trying to bridge one discrepancy or another, while, at the same time, suggesting alternative views as potential advances or solutions to such problems. Regardless, no matter how enticing some of these questions may appear to be, in my opinion, they represent very weak attempts at trying to “create” knowledge through imitation. The effort, in fact, does nothing to advance knowledge since, at most, it can only replicate reality, or what has already been given us. Rather than continue to engage in a struggle which only feigns an ability to “picture reality” (and, of course, opens the door to an unending stream of associations), what I am suggesting is that we would all be better off by letting go of this illusion, and paying closer attention to what is given us in experience. In fact, unlike the imagined case that can be made for “thinking”, it is precisely because of the unhampered immediacy of dreams that we must acknowledge their relevance. And it is precisely because of the warped and twisted notion we have made of the “thinking process” that we are reluctant to follow this advice. In other words, an admittedly ignorant part of nature (a part which has for thousands of years struggled with trying to understand the greater complexity of its own being), nonetheless, has feels itself superior to nature. This abhorrently contradictory attitude states in effect: “that it is possible that we are superior to ourselves!”

UNPUBLISHED THOUGHTS

1994

January 16, 1994

WHAT SKILLS DO I MOST ENJOY USING?

Intuiting, analyzing, synthesizing and applying “ideas,” “concepts,” “plans,” “systems” to people and things. Serving people remains the overriding goal while I consider “self-understanding” to be a means to the same. I want people to be happy, intrigued by the world surrounding us, comforted by one another, and satisfied with whatever conditions they find themselves to be in. But so far in my life, my preoccupation has been with the mere potential of ideas and not with their application (as yet) to others. What I have learned thus far seems to me to be insufficient and only conducive to furthering confusion. The “key” has not yet been found (or recognized by me) which could serve as a useful foundation for each of us. [Perhaps there is no such universal key, but that each of us must find and accept his own.]

I want to learn from the humanities and social sciences; to discover their “essences” and be able to “synthesize” and “reveal” the various “meanings” resulting from “intuitive abstractions” taken from them or in light of them. Only I am exceedingly impatient. I don’t want to waste time following the meandering of another’s thought; I want to know the concepts, ideas, or theories being expressed; their essences, in other words–and in short order.

I WANT THE UNFETTERED FREEDOM TO EXPLORE MYSELF, OTHERS AND WORLD PARTICULARLY FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF PERCEIVED IDEAS & PATTERNS

I want the freedom to develop and process my personal ideas (as well as interesting ideas belonging to others); the freedom to sense, intuit, think and feel; the freedom to attempt an understanding of the relationship(s) existing between my personal psychology and the “things” of the world. Such “things” include the formulation (or revelation) of concepts, visions, understanding, or the impetus to act. I want the freedom to perceive, express, structure, judge, and improve whatever appears to be the proper, moral, or justified choice. I want the freedom to explore the very nature of “freedom” in action, revelation and thought.

Morality appears to underlay (and, perhaps, most interferes with) all of what I am seeking. It seems to stand between me and my acceptance of the world. It interferes inasmuch as it prevents me from seeking self-gratification or indulgence, and yet, it makes me “appear” (to others) to be acting in these very ways. It is extremely difficult to understand this personally, and the outside world appears to be no position to understand it at all. How can I claim to “be” so opposite of what I “am”? My feelings about myself are one thing, my actions another. So which am I? Can my apparently self-centered character or actions be the direct result of my refusal to be self-centered? Does this mean that the corollary is true; that I could better show my humanity toward others by being more self-centered? We seem incapable of understanding how this oppositional state of affairs could exist, and yet I know that it does. It’s been the persistent problem of my life.

And yet, it is exactly this sort of “conception” or “awareness” that intrigues me. It is like discovering a secret door which has yet to be opened–whose contents have yet to be revealed. The thought of what possibilities this notion may have for myself and for others–what problems may be alleviated by new understanding–is extremely compelling to me, and I want to concentrate all of my energy upon it to see what it will yield. I also want to develop such ideas, and be able to establish a record of my findings through writing so that others might make use of them in their own explorations. I would also like to join with others who share my “ideas,” or are of like mind in other respects.

In brief, I want to improve the status of life for people through the development and application of ideas which would prove beneficial to themselves (or to their personal psychologies, situations, frames of reference, etc.), or through the design and development of systems and things which may prove extremely intriguing, enjoyable, and pleasing as well.

However, this said, it is probably inevitable that I will be seen by others to be just the opposite of what I believe myself to be. Personal frustration (perhaps owing mostly to the fact that I am not recognized for what I am) leads me to be overly critical concerning others, and unfairly negative in my reaction to their own attempts to make the world a better place to live. (I am almost too ashamed to admit that criticism comes all to easy because I generally find my perceptions superior to most.) I recognize, of course, that my refusal or reluctance to be (that is, to reveal my “true self,” as well as my unabashed “superiority of ideas” appears to be of my own making and, perhaps, results from a fear of discovering that I may be embarrassingly wrong about myself. It is also possible that I “imagine” that I am revealing myself to others more often than I really am. What is revealed is generally what lies at the outer edge of my thought (my best and, therefore, “safest” stuff), and, of course, its “potential application” to the person or issue at hand is rarely understood or accepted for what it is. Far from seeing the impetus which drives me to it, I am more often perceived to be off-track, if not crude and insensitive to the feelings of others. It goes without saying that I am generally “dumbfounded” by such reactions since I consider myself to be the very opposite.

So the possibility which is presenting itself at this moment is that I may not be so much frustrated from not being recognized for what I am, but by the fact that I am “sabotaging myself” by setting up this very situation. There is something in me (fear of rejection I suspect) that will not risk exposure, and will go to nearly any length to circumvent the possibility. On the other hand, there is also the possibility that my difficulty is not so much owing to fear as it may be the result of my continuing dissatisfaction with the “status-quo,” or my incessant want of “improvement” in any and all spheres of life. There are always other possibilities presenting themselves in every circumstance. I can’t help but reveal them as soon as they are received since they always appear to be forward-looking or, at least, appear as a potential improvement upon whatever is being presented at the moment. Thus, it follows from this line of thinking that intuition may be my greatest gift and obstacle to living life as I wish it. The very thing I wish to put in the service of others may be the very thing standing in my way.

There is still another view which may cut even closer to the core of my being. It deals with such factors as my overall propensity to engage too much, or my general reluctance or inability to focus upon a particular thing. What results is a strong tendency to procrastinate rather than act. This interference with life can take many forms. It prevents me from finishing home projects that I started but left undone. It has prevented me from pursuing a vocation, friendships, or knowledge revolving around a particular area of interest or personal goal. It has prevented me from making and sticking by decisions and actions which are necessary to life and child-rearing in particular. It continues to interfere with my finding satisfaction in what I already have, and constantly looks elsewhere for something which is felt to be lacking. It denies contentment to sameness and insists upon imagining and dwelling upon changing scenes, differing circumstances, or “ideal” settings. Most important of all, it prevents me from cultivating what I may already have–relationships, vocation, knowledge, and, perhaps, heart. In short, it leads me to deny life as it presents itself because it chooses avoidance over decision and action. What is it that compels me to such ends? It would appear that “it” is “me” or some part thereof. What is the “viewpoint” or idea which I feel is underlying such action? It is this:

I sense that it is absolutely necessary for human beings to have a firm foundation to serve as an anchor (as well as a platform) from which to spring into action. I further sense that when such a foundation is lacking, there is not merely a reluctance to act, but, indeed, a virtual inability to do so. Whatever decision-making or actions do take place are generally illusory and short-lived. I further believe that each of us is able to feel this truth deep within. What we sense and fail to face is the very fact that we are not being true to our foundation, which is saying that we are not willing to live out of the same. And so long as we seek to avoid such issues of character, belief, feeling, want and desire, we avoid ourselves by simply failing to “be” what we in fact “are.” In my own case, I may not wish to “cultivate” my marriage, my home, my children, my friends, etc., simply because I am out of balance with my fundamental self. This, of course, is a sure indication that something is wrong in my life which is not being dealt with for whatever reason. Cultivating plants without roots would be foolhardy and could serve little more than procrastination or illusion. Avoiding the real issues can only serve to further complicate and confuse us while the baggage which must be borne gets heavier and more depressing with each passing day. As for the way I am viewed by others, I suspect that I am either perceived as a fool or a coward for not acting on my own behalf; or, perhaps, as a self-centered, irresponsible scoundrel for wanting to avoid what life metes out. This, of course, will depend upon my critic’s particular frame of reference. Aside from this, it must be noted that while acting in one way precludes acting in another, a failure to act in either direction always results in a no-win situation.

If what I am saying is true, then procrastination may not be so much a failure to act without as it is a failure to “act within”–or a failure to “set one’s house in order” so to speak. But is clear vision always possible? While one may feel that something is amiss in one’s life, is it always clear enough to put one’s finger on it? I think that the answer is clearly “no” for the so-called “passive” or “perceiving types” (those who appear to us to be natural procrastinators), and “yes” for the so-called “active” or “judging types” (who have a natural pre-disposition for closure or certitude, oftentimes at any cost). While the former type generally prefers to allow or await life’s dictations as to what action “ought” to be undertaken, the latter seems bent on defining life to suit his or her own inclinations. In the moral sphere, if one conceives of the supremacy of nature or God in terms of fate (presenting a guiding light), then one is likely to await that light whether or not it is forthcoming or recognized. On the other hand, if one believes that he ought (for whatever reason) to act on his own behalf, his actions will reveal a controlling standpoint, or the “free agent” belief which holds that one is capable of deciding one’s own destiny. While the former’s actions or inaction suffers fate, the latter defies it.

I am suggesting that these two fundamental attitudes do in fact play a significant part in determining how each of us approaches life, but, like all concepts and beliefs, they inevitably spring leaks. For example, is it my fundamental belief in the supremacy of nature that keeps me from acting on my own behalf, or is it my general reluctance to cause another pain through my actions, even though this outcome has nothing whatever to do with my intent? If nature is compelling me to action, and I am resisting because of the refusal to cause another pain, then in what sense can I be said to be passive? Indeed, it would seem that I am actively engaged in resisting this guiding, compulsive nature. On the other hand, when the so-called “free agent” (who presumably dares to oppose nature) obeys the flow of his inner compulsions, what is this if it is not a “passive” acceptance of nature–of going with the flow, if you will. So you see, things are never what they seem and, in fact, a case can generally be made for their being just the opposite.

Returning now to my own case; what do I believe is interfering with my pursuit of happiness and well-being? I can’t be certain, of course, but I do know that I have always been predisposed to wanting to establish an anchor–that is, have always been in want of a center or foundation to serve a felt need for integration. Now I don’t particularly care how small my stature happens to be in this universe, so long as I have a firm and integrated foundation upon which to stand–from which to continue. Only in saying this, I fully recognize that such a quest may forever be outside my reach, or the reach of any other for that matter; that fragmentation and imbalance may well be the force which fires our engines–the essence of our being–the very force compelling and propelling us into the future. Nevertheless, I cannot help but feel that even fragmentation and imbalance can be put into some kind of satisfying framework, and I will most probably continue to reach for such a structure until some better notion takes its place.

Now there does happen to be something new standing in the wings of my thought at present; elements of it have been showing up in my writing over the past year. There have also been several “machine-controlled” dreams which I suspect have also had a great deal to do with the development of this thought. It goes something like this:

Our ability to act outside of nature (our notion of “free will”) is as illusory as it is true. I dreamt one night that I was in a flight simulator and, knowing that I was, decided to let go of the controls. Needless to say–I crashed to the ground. Now I originally interpreted this dream as a means for showing me where my current attitude toward life was heading (that is, demonstrating a reluctance to act as a free agent while clinging to the notion of a controlling nature); only more recently, have come to view this dream more as a universal description of our state of existence. In this regard, the assimilator may stand in as an appropriate analogy for world or life; that is, something which can be used or refused; learned from, or ignored. Just as the flight assimilator is designed to teach us to fly real airplanes in real flight, so too might this dream be informing us that the world is designed to prepare us for real life–that only life can prepare us for living it. We might imagine, then, that the better skilled we become in living, the easier (and more meaningful) life becomes for having lived it. In other words, the “program” is there to support us, but not without a proper attitude regarding it! The message seems clear. Unless we engage life, it becomes useless, and so do we. But to engage life on these terms is tantamount to accepting it on faith. It is “faith,” in other words, that will determine the extent to which one is willing to engage life and, therefore, learn to use it. Put another way, we cannot gain first-hand knowledge prior to experience, simply because knowledge derives from no source other than experience. While we remain in the flight assimilator (or within this world), it can be said that we are truly in the hands of fate. But if we are inclined to make use of the controls at our disposal; that is, are inclined to show a willingness to “submit to,” and thereby make use of life, then, and only then, can we consider ourselves free agents. In his essay on Fate, Emerson said: “Intellect annuls Fate. So far as a man thinks, he is free.” In our own context, we might say with Emerson, that so long as an individual chooses (on faith) to live his or her life–rather than simply react to circumstances and events–then a transformation of faith into real power results. And it will be recognized.

January 26, 1994

Values are the starting point of virtue–shared values the advent of culture.

If this is true, then the way to virtue and culture is through values. Only what are values? and what makes them worthy of the name?

Since one person’s values may not be valued by another, then it follows that values need not be held in common; that neither values nor culture can be said to have intrinsic worth; that their worth, therefore, must be relative.

If the worth of shared values is culture, what would be the worth of personal values standing alone or only shared by a few individuals?

If one seeks virtue through values, then are one’s values virtuous on that account? Perhaps, but I suspect that only one’s attitude can be so imbued.

Then is our starting point to virtue already to have a virtuous “attitude” or a virtuous “state of mind”? Is this what is in need of values? The will to good or righteousness?

It would seem that the “will to seek and be good” (regardless of one’s not knowing what good is) might be the greatest “virtue” of all since it is evident that not everyone seeks or is of “good will.” But why believe this? So long as there are those who are not of good will, this may not be a universally held value. So why believe that it ought to be?

I think it safe to say that those of good will undoubtedly exhibit a disposition toward the same. Their actions will reveal their desire to understand and want to live out of virtue. Even though they will undoubtedly fail to live up to their own expectations, I think it fair to say that virtuous individuals can be recognized as such, but so too might they be mistakenly recognized as such. Appearances can indeed be deceiving; especially when they are meant to be!

But how much “real” virtue must one exhibit in order to be considered virtuous? If we looked at it in quantifiable terms, would virtuous actions representing 50% of someone’s behavior constitute a virtuous person? Then would 25% mean that one is not virtuous at all? or that one is merely weak in virtue? But couldn’t we equally claim that such an individual is virtuous 25% of the time rather than bad or non-virtuous 75% of the time? Or is it all the same either way?

Again, would having no virtue whatever be an “absolute evil” in the same way as “absolute cold” is the absence of any heat whatever? If we cling to such analogies in thought (and we most surely do), then logic compels us to entertain a number of unsettling possibilities, all of which seem to lead us into greater confusion. Does the world exhibit different proportions of good and evil at different times? I mean, are we (as a whole) sometimes better and sometimes worse than what we were? When we are better, is it because we are turning evil practices into good? Or are we simply acting better more often? Again, how do we assess the amount of good and evil in the world when we can’t lay hold of what constitutes a “proper attitude”? While one may exhibit an attitude or preference for one type of behavior over the other, the plain and simple fact is that we are at a loss to say anything more than how it has affected us.

If, as we have already suggested, the fact that one person’s values may not be valued by another and, thus, would seem to point in the direction of relativity rather than to intrinsic worth, we are forced into the “personal” sphere rather than the social. While shared values may in fact lead to culture, it would seem that their origins may prove to have little, if anything, to do with it. On the other hand, what seems abundantly clear is that, like so many other things of this world, what we “discover” ourselves to have and share has as little to do with our own making as do the facts of our own selves which we are continuously groping to understand. If we were in fact responsible for any of it–and I include values–we simply wouldn’t be in such a muddle! Thus, the first step to righting the confusion we feel is to admit this very point–and to admit it openly.

January 27, 1994

What does it mean to be unfocused?

In my own case, it seems to point to a reluctance to ordering my life within reasonable limitations based upon time and interest considerations; a reluctance to prioritize and set future goals, making it possible to take the necessary “steps” toward meeting them. It is a refusal to let go of certain things in order to make it possible to partake of certain others. It is to forego the joy of in-depth experience and knowledge in favor of a much broader, though relatively transparent and extremely cursory pattern. It is an apparent willingness to suffer the consequences emanating from distraction, procrastination, incompleteness and diffusion; that is, a willingness to suffer emotional, physical, and financial poverty; a piece-meal existence comprising only starts and, rarely, completions. It is to live with the frustration of feeling hamstrung and not knowing what to do about it. It is to make the struggle with structure a daily requirement; a seemingly perpetual, incessantly on-going fight within oneself.

“The state of the “dis-union” is not good!”

I am 53 years of age, $35,000 in debt, no vocation, no savings, no retirement, and going from bad to worse.

Whatever force I may possess apparently remains in pieces, or has been scattered in a hundred directions. There seems to be no unity in thought or action except whatever that unity is that continues to hold me together in spite of my suffering. And the accumulation continues without ever leaving anything behind: uncompleted books, projects, and thoughts too numerous now to mention. Without a defining and supporting presence–an anchor–I remain lost in my own confusion.

And yet I have not come apart as yet, nor do I feel that I am likely to–at least, not on the emotional level. [The physical is quite another matter] While I feel stressed, I continue to feel mentally strong. While I remain confused, I still feel that I am making progress. While I feel lost, I still feel that I am in some way being guided. While I am without purpose, I still feel that I am a part of some other purpose. In short, no matter how fatigued and drawn out I become, I cannot help but feel that the load I carry is in some way meant to be carried (although I do have my doubts from time to time). Nevertheless, above and beyond such doubts there is a clinging certainty which I cannot rid myself of; an incessant refusal to deny my personal value as a worthwhile human being. No matter how many facts may accrue to the contrary, I cannot let go of this belief, no matter how difficult the going gets. This comforting belief, which always seems to surface when I need it most, never ceases to remind me of a purpose which transcends myself.

Beyond this, there is always a feeling of a unifying presence at work within me. I can’t say that it’s a feeling of a “presence” in the sense of experiencing some comforting personage within me; no, it’s more of a “knowing feeling” in the sense of experiencing the power and promise of a source of intuition residing within me. It’s an intuition that reminds me that the various pieces of my life are gravitating and synthesizing into higher forms. Each elevation brings with it a depth and breadth of understanding which is difficult to describe. I call these intuitive gifts “conceptual” because this is what they immediately translate into. Since there doesn’t seem to be an adequate way to describe an “awareness experience,” it seems easiest to point to what results from the same. Speaking for myself, such experience’s come to me as composites received from (or derived by means of) a variety of sources including sensation, intuition, thinking, feeling, dreams, other persons and things, and much more besides. It seems useless to try to distinguish “sources” for such contributions since they seem to be everywhere, pointing to all things, conscious or unconscious, visible or hidden. The more we try to make of such distinctions, the more they appear to make clear vision impossible. No, my experience has shown me the futility of pressing concepts beyond their purpose.

While it remains true that second and third order experience’s can yield many useful results (in the same way as the printed word), they can never have the same value as the first hand experience. For the fact is that life (or nature, if you prefer) is greater than the illusory distinction we refer to as our “conscious selves,” and cling to as though it really had a reality of its own. [Doesn’t it?] Why nature has evolved the means to oppose herself through consciousness, I cannot answer. But if I were to hazard a guess, I would say that it has something to do with the dualistic or double edged manner in which nature works. I would say that our ability to make distinctions is both a source which can take us into and through nature, as well as a potential source for digressing away from her (and thus, ourselves).

January 28, 1994

Jung’s View of Introversion & the Effects of the Unconscious

Jung tells us that there is a “factor” in perception and cognition which responds to a sense stimulus in accordance with the individual’s subjective disposition. This is to say that perception and cognition are not purely objective, but are also subjectively conditioned. In responding to the prevalent bias of the extraverted attitude over the introverted, Jung put it in much stronger terms: “Only a sick mind could forget that cognition must have a subject… This applies to all the psychic functions: they have a subject which is just as indispensable as the object.” [PJ-230, 231] He tells us that this subject is nothing other than ourselves and then goes on to define what he means by the subjective factor: “By the subjective factor I understand that psychological action or reaction which merges with the effect produced by the object and so gives rise to a new psychic datum.” [PJ-231]. There are, then, the immediate effects of perceived objects and also the assimilation of such effects by our “conditioning subjective selves.” And, although the psychic assimilation of perceptual images must be said to take place within each one of us, it is especially embraced by the orientation of the introverted attitude. In other words, it is characteristic of the introvert to regard these subjective determinants (that is, the newly merged impressions) as being the most important and decisive factors in perception and cognition. With this apparent reliance upon the sense impressions “constellating” within, the introvert also exhibits a tendency to then interpose these between the perception of the object and his own action. Unfortunately, says Jung, this often stands in the way of his actions assuming a character befitting the objective situation.

Thus, by the “subjective factor,” Jung means the psychic assimilation (by the subject) of the effects of objects gained through perception. By “psychic assimilation,” he means the process by which these effects merge with those contents already present in the subject. The overall effect of this relationship or process is the production of new psychic data in the form of impressions which the introvert is characteristically drawn to. Now it is important to realize at the onset that when Jung uses the term “subject” to describe us, or what is going on within us, he means “all” of what we constitute. It is particularly important to realize that his definition extends beyond our notion of a “conscious self” which, for many of us, is the only subject–or the only one we can make sense of. Yet, if we insist on restricting the meaning of “subject” in this limited sense, we will have great difficulty following Jung’s thought. In point of fact, we will think that he is talking about two subjects–maybe three–when all such distinctions must be regarded as belonging to one and the same thing. So, whether we are talking from the perspective of the introvert, the subject’s ego, self or unconscious, we are talking about differing characteristics (perspectives or standpoints) belonging to one and the same subject–ourselves. When Jung says that the introvert is oriented to the effects of the subjective factor, he means that “consciousness” has such an orientation.

In saying this, however, it follows that portions of the “greater subject” are able to enter consciousness, or else are capable of “unconsciously” affecting consciousness without our knowing. In point of fact, Jung would hold to both these views. Still another point of possible contention has to do with Jung’s speaking of the introvert as “having” or “choosing” a subjective orientation. This not only raises important issues as to the accuracy of his descriptions in my mind, but may also cause us to wonder just who is orienting whom, or just what is being oriented by what. But let us hold these questions in reserve for the moment while we look at the rest of the picture being presented.

It is obvious that Jung wishes to elevate the subjective factor to its rightful place when he suggests that it be considered an appropriate “co-determinate” of the world we live in. He informs us that this factor can provide us with as strong a foundation as can the objective view, although he also warns that excessive development or reliance upon either can have hazardous consequences. On the subjective side, what can result from a too one-sided nature is what Jung calls an “artificial subjectivization of consciousness,” something to which the introvert is especially prone. Instead of a normal orientation toward the subjective or true subject “self,” the introvert begins to confuse his ego with the self, and eventually (though unwittingly) may even exalt it as the “sole subject” of the psychic processes. This process further alienates himself from the object, or from the outside world, and eventually leads him into an untenable neurotic state.

Again, if we do not grasp Jung’s comprehensive meaning of the term “subject,” we will be inclined to think that he is speaking of two–perhaps three–individual subjects or differing standpoints: introvert, ego and self. From this perspective, the introvert would appear to represent the “conscious standpoint” opposing both ego and subject contents coming into consciousness from within. We would then be justified in asking whether it is the “introvert” who is confusing his ego with the subject?, or whether the introvert, as ego, is confusing “itself” with the subject? Such muddles can best be avoided by understanding that our conscious standpoint is only a representative portion (a mere distinction, if you like) of our subject selves. The realization of “unconscious” processes going on within us serves to extend, as well as limit, our view of self on both planes. In effect, the notion has served to split us in a significant way, which, in point of fact, may have made it possible for Jung and others to present us with newly synthesized formulations which have all the appearance of rejoining the former distinctions. But this is quite another matter and outside of the current discussion.

It should be apparent that this whole matter of categorical distinctions can become “conceptually confusing,” to say the very least. If the introvert is overly dependent upon the subject contents, or the impressions formed therein, why wouldn’t he show a greater affinity and awareness of his total subject self? Why further distance himself from what he is only too familiar with given his already introverted orientation? What is it about his ego standpoint, or the “psychic structure” in its entirety, that leads to such consequences?

Jung next introduces us to a new way of looking at the psychic structure. He asks us to think of it in terms of a kind of “collective unconscious.” He tells us that, in one way or another, the individual “self” is a “portion” or “segment” or “representative” of the same, which, in itself, may serve to show that Jung himself was struggling with conceptualizing the matter. Nevertheless, he asks us to look at it in the following way: Just as instincts can be considered an inborn mode of acting, so too might we regard the collective unconscious as representing something inherited and present in all living creatures. So, rather than refer to our inborn mode of psychic apprehension as just another form of “instinct,” Jung offers the term “archetype” to be used in its stead.

“The archetype is a symbolic formula which always begins to function when there are no conscious ideas present, or when conscious ideas are inhibited for internal or external reasons. The contents of the collective unconscious are represented in consciousness in the form of pronounced preferences and definite ways of looking at things. These subjective tendencies and views are generally regarded by the individual as being determined by the object–incorrectly, since they have their source in the unconscious structure of the psyche and are merely released by the effect of the object.” [PJ-233]

With these remarks, Jung introduces us to a new and very profound way of looking at ourselves. In essence, he is asking us to regard the collective unconscious as a “living history” or museum which is filled with personal artifacts taken from “each” of our long histories. Not “each” in the sense of your personal history or mine, but each in the sense of all those individual members comprising our respective lineages! Somehow, some way, individual “psychic” contents (“archetypal forms” based upon previous lives and experience within our ancestral lines) get passed along genetically (like instincts) from one generation to the next. Because of this, we should and must regard ourselves as “living ancestral composites,” yes, even down to “the fishes in the deep blue sea.” No, Jung is not saying that ancestral memories taken from former experience’s are what is passed along. What he does say is that we carry remnants of such experience’s and characteristics in the form of pronounced preferences and definite ways of looking at things. Thus, it is not the case that we only inherit physical traits from our lineage, but so-called “mental” traits, characteristics, or dispositions as well. It is obvious that Jung wishes to reopen a door which has been closed to the Western mind for a very long time.

Another important point to note is that it is altogether “natural” for us to be in the dark about such notions, given our steadfast belief in the extroverted or “objective” point of view. This view (the empirical point of view) holds that whatever we find to exist or occur “within” ourselves, is the direct result of outside factors. Jung, of course, claims that such a viewpoint is only “half-baked” inasmuch as it represents but half the picture. There is also the “subjective” half to be considered. Nevertheless, this overwhelmingly Western viewpoint has so saturated our thinking that even the introvert is prone to believing it!

“In the fashion of the times he [the introvert] looks outside for an answer, instead of seeking it behind his own consciousness. Should he become neurotic, it is the sign of an almost complete identity of the ego with the self; the importance of the self is reduced to nil, while the ego is inflated beyond measure. The whole world-creating force of the subjective factor becomes concentrated in the ego, producing a boundless power-complex and a fatuous egocentricity.” [PJ-234]

Again, we might wish to question just why the introvert’s ego portion of self is prone to moving away from its fuller self? Prior to the exaggerated effects of strong ego development, did the “ego” recognize that there was a greater, more comprehensive “self” standing over and apart from it? Or does consciousness comprise an indistinguishable blending of the two perceived as a unity? Furthermore, is the greater subject self being felt in consciousness as “observing subject” or as a “content”? Or are we to assume that a predominantly unconscious self is perceiving and acting upon consciousness from behind the scenes? These are important questions which must be answered if we are to properly understand Jung’s psychology. Or, yet again, is it the case that what self presents to consciousness (from the vast storehouse of the “world-creating collective unconscious”) is taken by consciousness as merely being something belonging to itself. In other words, while consciousness may in fact recognize the unconscious as a source, it simply refuses to recognize it as a “personality” or “self-directed” force in its own right. Thus, consciousness considers unconscious contents coming into awareness as belonging to one’s “bodily” self. consciousness are considered to belong to consciousness. It is obvious that Jung considers ego and self as two kinds of subjects which are seemingly battling for supremacy; that consciousness wants to claim ownership of the contents of the collective unconscious, while the unconscious appears only to want to be recognized. But this is overly simplistic and makes the unconscious appear as something relatively weak, if not, insignificant–which it is surely not. This said, it is also an insufficient view of the matter if for no other reason than that Jung considered consciousness as belonging (part and parcel) to the unconscious–that is, ego to self–and not the other way around. Thus, what emerges is the age-old problem of understanding just how a part of a whole can reflexively look upon, and even oppose, itself–the problem of “freedom vs. determinism.”

I suspect that the problem we are having in understanding these relationships stem from the tautological truism that we can only be aware of what we are conscious of. And, assuming that we are not schizophrenic, we are always going to be left with a single awareness or standpoint which we will insist is the only subject that can be recognized within us. Yes, there is a great deal we can say about the different and changing contents of consciousness; things which come and go both from within and without ourselves. But, this said, we cannot also be aware of another presence in consciousness unless that presence appears as a separate unity. Were this otherwise, we would have made the necessary distinctions which would have served to earmark these other “entities.” For even multiple personalities are considered to be other person entities (or contents, in other words) to the person in which they reside. But let’s see if we can resolve this issue of “subject” by reviewing what Jung has already said.

What needs to be admitted first and foremost is that viewing the unconscious as a thinking, conscious entity in its own right, is something very new for us. We seem to forget that it’s altogether natural (and has been for nearly two thousand years) to regard our conscious identities as being the sole subject existing within us. Anything remaining outside of this has been regarded as pure material. The notion that there could be a greater “Self” to which our conscious identities belong, is something which remains strange and very difficult to comprehend. Outside forces, such as God, affect us by coming within; that is, by entering us as contents. Such forces may speak to, and direct consciousness, but they do not, so far as we know, direct some “other self” which we know little or nothing of. As I said, I think it important to remind ourselves of our current thinking or manner of conceptualizing this matter. This said, we can now proceed with Jung’s viewpoints.

From the descriptions already given us, we see that the introvert’s problem is his potential “tendency” to develop an egocentric posture in consciousness out of a normally adapted situation. He does this by mistakenly setting himself up as the sole subject of the psychic process when it is only the self, Jung tells us, that can truly represent or express the unity of the personality as a whole. Considering that there is abundant evidence of there being much more to ourselves than what lies in consciousness, what can possibly foster this attitude in the introvert, of all people? How could he lose sight of, or choose to ignore this greater source, all the while he readily accepts its many treasures? Let’s suppose that we were able to convince him of the general bias of the extroverted point of view; that he has been wrong to attribute internal phenomena to external sources. Would it really make a difference? Wouldn’t he in fact continue to hold on to the only unity he knows–consciousness? What sense could he possibly make of our saying to him that there is a larger subject that is steering him from within? He might respond: “So what?” or “Welcome aboard!”–the point being that even if this other presence makes itself known, even so, everything can be expected to go on as usual. Indeed, everything must have gone on as usual prior to Jung’s making us aware of this additional presence. So the problem persists: How can consciousness deny or ignore the greater part of itself if the greater part is really in control? Obviously, it must be the case that consciousness (or the ego complex) can exert control, or the whole argument falls apart. If the individual is “free” to admit unconscious contents into his own domain, then he must also be free to restrict the same. It seems that we are forced to view the contents of the unconscious in the same way as we view the contents of the outside world; that is, as things which exist alongside ourselves, though belonging in the same world. In this vein, nothing has changed. Jung has simply broadened our view of the outside world to include “inside contents” as well. Insofar as our conscious standpoints are concerned, I don’t see that anything has changed. We are merely being asked to allow that there are “other” conscious entities residing inside our bodily selves co-existing alongside of consciousness. In the same way that we view the possibility that other things can come into perception besides what we are conscious of, so too can other things enter consciousness (from within) from sources which we are not conscious of. But it makes no sense whatever to say that there can be unconscious elements in consciousness! If we insist on this, then consciousness must be capable of wearing two hats: “an act of awareness” and a “location” for unconscious contents. In point of fact, Jung may have tried to do this very thing through his distinguishing a “personal” and “collective” unconscious. The former serves as a reservoir for formerly (and easily accessible) conscious contents, while the latter serves as a reservoir for relatively inaccessible unconscious contents.

Getting back to our determined “egoist,” perhaps we should simply say to him that he is right to hang on to his conscious identity, but that there are many more things which must now be considered–namely, a whole host of inner “personalities” (or “complexes”) which must be considered as integral parts of himself in the same way has one regards one’s arms and legs. Furthermore, these complexes or personalities account for the very uncertainties felt by his conscious standpoint. They act upon him in the same way as do differing personalities existing in the so-called “outer world.” In the same way as we continually learn about the effects upon us of previously hidden, extenuating outer world circumstances, so too are we continuing to learn about previously hidden inner world circumstances which have all along affected us, even without our having known it. Again, the conscious standpoint has not really changed one iota from our acknowledging such phenomena; it is only that the “psychical” nature of the phenomena appears somewhat different from what we are used to. Thus, we should not expect the ego-centered standpoint to be able to differentiate some sort of competing or sharing subject or personality within consciousness–but from outside it. It is not that the “ego subject” is wrong, or that it should not represent consciousness, it is simply that it is terribly naive if it assumes that what it knows or is aware of, is all that is belonging to it. But even this sounds unduly egocentric, for, as Jung says, it is the ego that belongs to the greater self (regardless of what this contains) and not the other way around. Besides this, the ego cannot escape the one undeniable fact concerning its own existence; and that is: that it only knows what it consciously experiences, but since everything it experiences derives from some source other than itself, it cannot help but to acknowledge the existence of something greater than itself. And herein lies our problem. In order to retain our felt supremacy, we will simultaneously receive from and discredit such sources, be they inner world or outer. All of us are aware of the distinctions we make regarding animate and inanimate forms; thinking and instinctual behaviors, etc. All such distinctions serve to safeguard our own standpoint. Thus, our primary mistake has been to think that what lies in consciousness is all that is within us, or what might properly belong to mind, and further believing that all such contents have derived from, and are shaped by external sources alone. We need to remind both the extrovert and introvert that whatever is experienced in consciousness, is and must always be subjectively conditioned; that is conditioned by thoughts, images and feelings which enter, rather than emanate from, consciousness.

Jung’s view of the introvert’s psychology should be much clearer by now. Because the introvert is prone to attributing his impressions to outside objects, he generally ignores the fact of their source within. Since he fails to acknowledge a greater source within, he tends to view himself as standing alone, together with the objects of the outside world. But, of course, he does not stand alone! There is the “whole world-creating force of the subjective factor” which must be acknowledged and contended with. Whether we regard this force as something animate (having a personality or representing a composite of personalities) is not nearly as important as our need to simply acknowledge its existence and the necessary influence it exerts upon our lives. Thus, consciousness does not stand alone opposed to an external world. Indeed, Jung informs us that it would be more accurate to speak of the unconscious as capable of filling this role. For only this kind of power (nature opposed to nature) could be equal to the task. Consciousness, as we undoubtedly know (though, perhaps, still too reluctant to admit), is a rather flimsy thing in comparison. But the idea of a “proportionate consciousness”–one acting from and between two forces acknowledged to be superior to itself–now that, it seems to me, would be a healthy situation.

Jung now brings us to a discussion of the “attitude” of the unconscious, the final piece of the psychic struggle which we see unfolding. As Jung admits, it may seem strange to speak of the unconscious having an “attitude,” but he believes that it has just as much right to one as does consciousness. Again, Jung’s “animated” usage of terms cannot help but leave us with the idea of a struggle being undergone by differing personalities, but all such remarks could be construed in purely biological terms as well. Jung would not deny that psychic struggles, like their physical counterparts, represent the very same struggle which all organisms undergo in their efforts to adapt to the surrounding world. This said, we are, nonetheless, forced to admit that there is an ability which we exercise (which, perhaps, all creatures share) that enables us (or appears to enable us) to interfere with the process of adaptation. Whether we choose to animate such distinctions (as Jung is inclined to do), or reduce them to strictly behavioral or causal relationships belonging to a “determined,” machine-like world, they will still be here to confound us.

Jung draws us to the view that the unconscious is (and acts) in a “compensatory relationship” to consciousness; that it will, if necessary, make definite moves to ensure our own welfare. “Our” welfare, of course, includes at least all of what we comprise and, perhaps, the world in total. In this sense, we should regard the unconscious as belonging just as much to the “outer world” as anything else, and the outer world as belonging just as much to the inner world as anything else. They are only distinctions, after all. This being the case, we might expect that a predominance of the subjective factor in consciousness (which, of course, is the problem of the introvert) will cause a devaluation of the object, or a devaluation of the outside world in order to compensate for the one-sidedness. The increasing egocentricity of the introvert leads him to a position whereby he is no longer able to give the outside world its proper due. It comes to have too little meaning for him, says Jung, so enticed and preoccupied is he with what is going on inside him. To the extent that the introvert regards himself as a “powerhouse” standing alone over and against the outside world, free to choose it or ignore it, his “unadapted” relationship soon becomes untenable. For the unconscious, moving now to compensate for this situation, does so by producing an “unconscious” reinforcement of the influence of the object. This causes the introvert to take more powerful steps yet in order to dominate and free himself from the outside influences which seem to be getting ever stronger. But the more he struggles, Jung continues, the more tied to the object he becomes. And, because all of this is taking place beneath consciousness, the introvert is not fully aware of just what is going on in him. If the struggle is allowed to continue, there will come a time when the full power of the unconscious will push him aside and simply “take over” his relations to the outside world. Jung offers a very vivid two page description of the introvert’s demise. [PJ-234,35]

In such a way, we are presented with a picture of a very powerful entity which is capable of influencing or even controlling consciousness, if necessary. It is not, however, the image of separate competing complexes acting upon consciousness from within, but one more akin to a “central authority” which has taken charge–the Self. The introvert’s sin, the source of his suffering, was his failure to acknowledge the true source of his perceived powers. Believing that all of what he experiences originates in the so-called outside world, he mistakenly assumed that his conscious self was the only personality present within him. His “empirical” outlook clouded his vision to such an extent that he was prone to overlook the obvious–that there is obviously more to us than will ever “meet the eye.”

I would like to make a few final remarks regarding distinctions and concepts in a somewhat philosophical vein.

I think that we too easily overlook the distinctions which we have made between ourselves and both the outer and inner worlds; namely, that we have forgotten that they are distinctions. As such, we tend to forget the undeniable fact that it is all world–all a single unity–insofar as we are capable of ascertaining, and that our distinctions, for all their value, oftentimes lead us to forget this very fact. I feel that what the introvert, and most of us, continue to overlook, is the simple fact that each of us must be said to constitute some part of the world, no matter that we don’t understand what it is. It is sufficient that, as sentient beings, we are at least one part of each and every relationship or experience we encounter. Since we do not appear and reappear subsequently for each and every relationship we encounter, then we must regard ourselves as something relatively substantial and continuing. If we have form (even if approximate), and continue to exist while maintaining this form; and, furthermore, are able to observe that our approximate forms continue (as well as get added to) from one generation to another, then it is preposterous to assume that there could only be one side to our relationships. In other words, it is we, ourselves–our very structures–that shape who and what we are. Now it is easy to see how the structure of our eyes determines how and what we are able to see, and so on down the line of sensations. It could even be said that it is these very same structural limitations that allow us such possibilities. Just as we see the things of the world coming into and going out of existence (although we understand this to be a process of transformation rather than one of existence and death), so too ought we to see ourselves as obeying the same principles. The acorn does not merely contain an oak tree within it, but generation upon generation of oak trees, and surely there must be some semblance in it of simple “grasses” as well. If we allow such a continuity to oak trees, why not to ourselves?

Of course, what we find most difficult to believe is the passing on of “mental” or “emotional” or “attitudinal” traits and preferences as Jung seems to imply. Yet, none of us would wish to deny that we have such attitudes and traits here and now. Neither would we wish to deny that our offspring has them. Why, then, do we want to create an impasse between the generations by holding that all such things derive from, or develop solely from the experience of each generation? Why believe that such phenomena is discontinuous while believing that so-called “physical traits” do in fact get passed on? Surely we must assume some kind of storage or retrieval system which is capable of producing memories and images in consciousness. Surely we must suppose some means for bringing the same to the light of consciousness, as well as some other means for removing them. What, then, is so difficult about believing that such a production process (organ, facility, storage and retrieval system, whatever) can be passed on genetically? Such shortsightedness on our parts, be it stemming from arrogance, ego inflation, or a felt need for a manageable order, may in fact be necessary to us given our limitations. But over time, at a proper length or perspective, such viewpoints will come to be seen as stultifying. While we cannot be expected to grasp what is beyond our grasp, until such a time as we are ready, when that time does come, it behooves all of us to at least try to throw away whatever prejudices we see to be standing in our way. Jung’s view of the collective unconscious, together with his notion of a compensatory relationship, may be just such a prejudice-shattering view. And, no matter how coarse his road proves to be, I am certain that it will be a road well worth traveling.

February 8, 1994

Why am I overwhelmed with perceptions and thoughts which have not been put into some useful form in order to meet external contingencies? Why aren’t I focused upon the external when it is the external that is causing my grief? Who or what am I waiting for? An idea from within? A message from God?

The confusion I see without drives me deeper within and leads me to search here for relevant answers to my problems. The outside world is not to be trusted. I know, prima facie, that my perceptions are enlightening, even if they are not sufficiently broad enough to show me the way out of my dilemma. I simply hold out for more and more of the same, hoping against all hope that it will all come together at some point; that I just haven’t reached it as yet. And so I wait and persist in waiting.

What is clear is that I want knowledge prior to acting. It seems silly to act without knowing why I am beforehand. Only, no matter how much I think, it never seems to be sufficient for action since I am not wholly integrated as yet. I can’t seem to bring myself to act as a part. Rather, I am in a search of a certain foundation as a starting point. I want an “certain” anchor from which to judge or decide future actions.

While I can’t seem to live without certainty, I am anything but certain. I require structure and yet I am anything but structured. The very things I feel that I need most are the very things which most elude me.

If I can feel and write about my feelings and thoughts, why then am I unable to sense what is their essence. Why do I feel that it is necessary to review all of the same and that I will have to note what is there? Why don’t I simply know? Why do I think that I must take an outward, objective approach to what is inside and subjective? How can I come to such knowledge from within?

April 6, 1994

The almost unspeakable notion that “words” may not be a primary means to thinking is beginning to have greater meaning for me. We are so accustomed to thinking with words that we easily mistaken the thoughts for the words. In fact, the words usurp thought and relegate it to an inferior position. As such, we come to view thought (like feeling) as “accompaniments” of language rather than the other way around. But, perhaps, we are at long last reaching a point in our development of realizing that words may no longer be “becoming us”; that they may, in fact, be considered “lost art and of little consequence,” as my own unconscious seems to be informing me. Perhaps, we are coming to a new realization which will serve to compensate for our misguided notions.

Words have a funny way of functioning within us. If our attention is upon the words rather than the thoughts (intuitions, impressions, feelings, etc.) underlying them, we are prone to confusion of varying sorts. In my own case, my problem is that I sense myself as being too much in the hands of “fate” (or perception), with far too little exercise of “will” (or judgment). Not knowing how to keep from being swallowed up by perceptions, which have not been acted upon, has my major dilemma to date. One of the effects of this dilemma has been a scattering of whatever force or energy might be contained in me such that my attention or focus upon things becomes altogether superficial. Since there is only so much force present in me, it becomes for the most part wasted on short-term chasing of particulars. Be they external sensing things or internal intuitions or impressions or feelings, it is always the same; there is never enough time to stay with any one thing without having to pull away from it to tend to others. These other interfering particulars are not merely compulsions to do this or that–they are absolute necessities of life. I need to pay the bills, mow the lawn, and take care of any number of things which run against my inclinations. The point is, I have become a “slave” to my perceptions in the strongest sense of the word, for I am forced and somewhat compelled to do what others expect me to do. But others do not force me to this. I merely accept their words and, upon accepting them, obligate myself. As usual, before long, I forget the true source of the words and obligations accompanying them, and began to consider them my own.

But there is still another consideration which must be mentioned. A major part of my personal dilemma has also to do with my wanting security. I am here referring to my strong desire for wanting to have the “big picture” in mind before deciding upon a given action. I want knowledge to precede action or experience, in other words, and unless I have it, I am reluctant to act; that is, unless I am forced to by external factors. This leads to an impossible state of affairs which begins by my focusing upon things in succession (with increasing superficiality) until stagnation finally sets in. The soup simply thickens with inaction for whatever reason.

Again, my problem is wanting to know; wanting faith and confidence that the particular I choose to act upon will be the right choice. I want each act to constitute a rung in a ladder which will be built from subsequent actions. Unfortunately, however, life does not operate in this fashion. Life flows and is constantly changing. The present vanishes into the future and simply cannot be predicted from the present moment. What good is my knowing the second or third rung in a ladder when I know that circumstances surrounding my first action will be different at the very next moment. As Emerson put it: “The one fact that the world hates to admit is that life is becoming.” Why pretend that this is not so.

Obligations, be they imposed from without or within, compel,–and because they do, they must be dealt with. Obligations equal distractions when they are neither wanted nor accepted. To be free of obligation, one must willfully embrace them, and not merely accept them because circumstances have “dictated” it. We should ask ourselves which are the compelling circumstances and which have we merely bought into?

There are hundreds of worthwhile ideas and projects which I have not had the freedom to act upon. As I see it, freedom is “will”; the willingness to act on one’s own behalf, be it for one’s own benefit or for the benefit of others. Freedom is not a blatant disregard for the elevation of nature or God, but a faith and trust that all goes well in the grand scheme of things, which, of course, remains outside our comprehension. Only this said, we must remind ourselves that a true source of freedom–a true act of will–will not be found in any other voice but that belonging to ourselves. All else invites confusion. And, unless we are already capable of speaking from ourselves with words, it is not likely that our voice will reveal itself in words. Rather, it will be found in the impressions and feelings which accompany perception. What is right will feel right, and what is wrong or uncertain or confusing, will feel wrong or uncertain or confusing.

I suspect that given our current state of being, most of us will find this to be very confusing. We have allowed ownership of so much debris not belonging to us, that it seems altogether impossible to make clear vision possible at this late stage. Which voice do we heed?–Nature’s? Society’s? Self? What is clearly belonging to the one and not to the others? How can we be expected to “recognize” an appropriate voice without our being able to make the necessary distinctions? The trap is set!

April 20, 1994

I feel a certain logic within me compelling me to think in hard terms. Nature, it tells me, is everything that it appears to be (and much more), but is not about to change one iota for our collective or personal benefit. Our reluctance to acknowledge this fact–that is, to acknowledge and accept nature on its own terms–has led to outer world confusion and inner world illusion, which is the price we are suffering for this defection.

I am at once reminded that this inner compulsion had previously informed me that consciousness should neither be regarded as a “goal” nor as a “seemly source to soul.” Rather, we only need to acknowledge what is given us within our proper domain or individual frame of reference.

April 23, 1994

At the end of this year, it will have been a full ten years since I quit my last job and begin working out of my home. I wish that I could say that these were successful years in terms of meeting family obligations, or even in meeting the dictates of my own mind, but neither, it seems, has met with satisfactory results as yet.

My writing continues to be as sporadic and piecemeal, as always, only now I can no longer claim that it is simply because I lack freedom from outside obligations, or because of the imposition of structure which obligation demands, but simply because it has entered a different stage. After writing “Journey’s End” in March of 1990, my writing took a definite turn in direction. Up to this time, my thoughts were divided between thinking about myself and what I considered were philosophical or epistemological concerns relating to knowledge, the process of education, or the world at large. But “Journey’s End” seemed to suggest otherwise; or, at least, that something more than a desire to “save the world” was at stake. For it was out of sheer frustration (approaching despair) that I suddenly felt this strongest of urges to “sum up” my situation or predicament for what it was–a question of feeling or mental remorse. I cried as I wrote.

Prior to this experience, I had only written a few lines of prose or poetry, but had never really been comfortable with it. Why I chose to rhyme “Journey’s End” rather than to write straight prose, I don’t know. Maybe I was mocking the world, or my own pathetic state, as a one person suggested to me; but all I know is that I just wanted to express the “essence” of my thinking in as concise a way as was possible for me to do. As it turned out, however, the poem was more of an expression of sheer “feeling” and “frustration,” although I don’t believe that I fully realized this at the time. I simply considered it a different form of thought.

As it was, I grew to expect that my thinking would continue to lead me to dead ends–crossroads inviting too many possibilities to handle or pursue, or thoughts which simply knotted-up and began choking upon its own elements. I felt that “Journey’s End” would by-pass the poverty of thought, or the poverty of my own thinking, if such was the case. I wrote its fifty stanzas during a period of five or six hours one evening, and during the same number of hours on the afternoon of the following day. I mention this only to reinforce the idea that this poem (if it can be called a poem) was more the product of my unconscious mind than it was of my consciousness. It was in fact, a felt psychological–perhaps even “spiritual”–experience which compelled me to express my intuitions and the feeling which appeared to be driving them, into words. Since this time, I have read its passages hundreds upon hundreds of times, still trying to “understand” its fullest meaning. Ironically, I can only remember one or two occasions when I felt like substituting one word for another, but subsequent reading always made me realize that it is right just as it is.

Of course, it never occurred to me at that time that, perhaps, an expression or outpouring of emotion needn’t be properly “understood” at all; leastwise, not by a “thinking process” which is “opposed to feeling,” according to the psychologist Carl Jung. It also never occurred to me that my thinking up to this point may not have been thinking at all, properly speaking, but something more akin to trying to express my intuitions by relating them, rather than subjecting them to thought. No, it was something even more than this; it was an attempt to pry into–an attempt to further reveal–the inexpressible character of intuition and feeling themselves. If doing this can be called thinking, it is probably thinking of an inferior kind. In any regard, after writing “Journey’s End”, I didn’t write for a period of six months, but, instead, felt the need to reflect and recuperate from the experience. I remember that I felt both exhausted and relieved at the same time. I had gotten something off my chest, I felt, but rather than put an end to my journey, it suggested that an even greater effort, as well as courage, would be demanded of me. Although I did not realize it at the time, I now understand many of the psychological ramifications relating to my condition.

For at least two years prior to this time, I had begun utilizing various vocational and psychological survey instruments in my counseling and resume service business. One of the two psychological instruments I began using (Personal Profile System) dealt with “behavioral styles,” while the other (The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator) dealt with “personality types.” Partly because of my natural proclivity toward “foundations”, but also because I was expanding my personal usage of these instruments into non-clinical counseling efforts, as well as marketing uses (which included written “personal profiles” in the resume itself), I felt a strong need for a more accurate and fundamental understanding of what was at issue. For these reasons, I began reading the original sources underlying these instruments.

Unfortunately (or fortunately, I should say), there was no single source to be found for understanding the psychology underlying the MBTI. Instead, Upon my initial reading of Jung’s “Psychological Types” , I found that I had to go well beyond what was expressed in this work. Unlike Wittgenstein’s “Philosophical Investigations,” which represented rudimentary or elementary excursions through thought (that is, his own thinking processes), Jung’s “Psychological Types” (or, more accurately, his chapter dealing with the general description of the types) is a final, though rudimentary representation of his ideas and concepts. In other words, his final chapter presents us with a model “in the raw”! Although Jung went into great depth in discussing the problem of types (or opposites) throughout the history of thought, we are still left with the obvious difficulty of having to understand his own culmination of thought in its final expression. I have spent literally hundreds of hours over the past few years, pouring over these same seventy-five or so pages dealing with the descriptions and dynamics of the types themselves. I have, of course, gone on to read other works by Jung, as well as numerous secondary sources, but I always return to these same pages in order to make sense of it all. I hope someday to be able to write a short “layman’s primer” on this subject, so strong is my belief in its applicability not only to personal well-being, but to general world peace as well.

May 10, 1994

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF UNDERSTANDING ONE’S PERSONALITY TYPE

What makes us distinctly human, or distinctly individual? How can we ascertain which characteristics we share in common with others and which we do not? How can we know what is unique and not unique about ourselves?

You might be surprised if I were to say to you that all human beings exhibit the same human characteristics; that were we to look at our lives “in total,” each of us would find that, under differing circumstances and times, all of us have pretty much exhibited the same forms of human behavior; that is, have exhibited the same human characteristics over time. Put another way, if we were to simply list all of the “specific” behaviors we have exhibited or engaged in over each of our lifetimes, chances are that each of our lists would be identical! Now if we were interested in explaining our “commonality” rather than our “differences,” this approach might prove quite useful. But if our interest were in the latter, this exercise would have taught us next to nothing. Rather than uncover sources of “difference,” “individuality,” or “uniqueness,” this methodology would only show that each of us behaves as a human being.

But what about the distinctions we make between differing behaviors? What are these based upon if not difference? While we may be alike in “form” from a sufficient distance or perspective, looking at it in this way already precludes any sense of individuality. And while it seems to be a perfectly legitimate perspective for a given purpose, it does not suffice for our purpose. For we are not in search of evidence to prove that there are differences between us (this is self-evident), but are in search of an appropriate explanation for the same.

Aside: Characteristics presuppose an ability to perceive a form of behavior at a given intensity level over time. Human behavior is on a continuum whose parameters are circumscribed by the facts of our being or simply existing. We generally know what a sad person looks and behaves like, but not always. Our concepts…

Further Aside: I find this talk aggravating and dull. Ego more often shows itself as a reluctance to allow; a damming up of spirit in order to stave off wholeness. But why? Why stave off what we desire?

Selection of criterion entails that one already has a fixed concept of that criteria–that one already knows what it is that one is looking for–a template

We want to know what is characteristic of individuals, preferred, desired, or actual behaviors.

The more specific our criterion, the more unwieldy in terms of organizing it into an explanatory model. We would have 500 instead of 8 type classifications. Specific instruments needn’t have powerfully dynamic concepts.

More general our criteria, the easier it is to use but the less explanatory value it has. Thus, the PPS and MBTI must utilize highly powerful concepts if they are going to net anything of value. “We are all human” says very little
BUT GENERAL CONCEPTS CAN BE EXTREMELY POWERFUL. e.g. the conceptual differences between “actual” and “desired” behavior. Knowing whether one’s behavior is satisfying to oneself is extremely important to emotional health and happiness. Skill acquisition is not always the result of interest. Often parental or societal impetus. Big difference between “felt” values and “learned” values.

Afterthought: Difference between belief and behavior is phenomenal! Two interpretations–objective and subjective–with former usually winning out. We seem to be able to evaluate everyone else’s actions correctly–except our own. Why is this?

Does life (nature, society) impose a “leveling” conformity upon each of us? Does nature move us toward assimilation or away from it? Probably both!

We must go with the ebb and flow of equilibrium and disequilibrium and attempt to see the “balance” from an appropriate perspective. This “perspective of balance” is very important to gain. We need to be whole at any given time. We need this grasp. We need to dare to act in order to gain this perspective. Inaction leads to confusion, sometimes so great and muddled that one canany longer see the “exit” signs.

We must expect that we will forever have to contend with disequilibrium wherever it appears. Everything will not be in equilibrium at the same time. We must learn to accept life as it comes to us; that is, accept the challenges it presents us with on a daily basis. The garden will always need tending. But if the weeds are allowed to get too tall in any one portion, this will exact a disproportionate toll upon us. It will gnaw at us, haunt us, until it is taken care of. Too many dislocations like this will lead to utter despair and psychological dizziness or neuroses.

How are we different is the larger question? Why?
Which human characteristics are most explanatory? Those which are most specific have lesser applicability than those more general.

Need to separate “preferred” behavior from “actual.” Preferred most closely associated with natural health and well-being, maintaining a sound psychological equilibrium, while actual behavior is more closely associated with skills or conforming behavior to outside influences. These two dimensions are extremely important to separate and make note of.

NOTE. Ask someone to do PPS straight way “Job focus” and then have them do the “least column” by itself, thinking of themselves. This will net least preferred behavior based upon feelings and not job related. Any differences?

We try to organize our concepts, perceptions, ideas

Most and least, general preferences

The model which led to the muddle may well be the only avenue necessary to understanding the problem! For what it shows us is that a comparative analysis between lumping together of

As I said, we shouldn’t be surprised to know that human beings share characteristics “common” to the species. But what about “uncommon” characteristics? Don’t we need to distinguish these. How is it that we are able to account for differences as well as similarities between ourselves–within the species?

–were never abstracted, in other words, from the backdrop of our total life’s experience.

Why is this the case? Simply because

And yet we most certainly are aware of similarities and differences between ourselves. –in values, interests, attitudes, preferences, etc.? Simply by noting these characteristics

It is not sufficient to point to family or environment for an answer to this question, for we see too many differences within families who share almost everything in common. The psychologist Carl Jung thought a great deal about this topic and concluded that the source of differences is much deeper than most of us realize. While nurture and environmental considerations play a part, we are, in fact, born with “preferences” to behave in certain ways.

While all of us like to think of ourselves as “unique,” the fact is that our behavior is really quite orderly and consistent, and that there are many other individuals who exhibit very similar characteristics and preferences to our own. We could say that such individuals are of the same “type” as we. This is not to say that we are all alike, however, but only that different people share certain “typical” patterns of behavior with certain others. We can refer to these differing forms of behavior as “psychological types” since this is what their author called them. According to Jung, they result from differences in the way individuals prefer to use their perception and judgment. Perception involves all the ways of becoming aware of things, people, happenings, or ideas. Judgment involves all the ways of coming to conclusions about what has been perceived. If people differ systematically in what they perceive, and in how they reach conclusions, then it is only reasonable for us to expect that they will differ correspondingly in their reactions, interests, values, motivations, and skills.

Understanding characteristics and preferences belonging to differing personality “types” not only serves as a strong foundation for self-understanding, but serves as a means for understanding, communicating, and cooperating with others.

June 25, 1994

NOTES from Jung’s “Man and His Symbols”

A symbol implies something vague or unknown. An image is a symbol when it implies something more than its obvious and immediate meaning. We use symbolic terms to represent concepts that we cannot define or fully comprehend. Man also produces symbols unconsciously and spontaneously in the form of dreams.

Man never perceives anything fully or comprehends anything completely. His perceptions are limited. All perceptions of reality become psychic events whose ultimate nature is as unknown to consciousness as it is unknown to the psyche itself. Thus every experience contains unknown factors.

Certain events remain below the threshold of consciousness and are received subliminally. A momentary intuition or a dream may bring it to us, although in the latter case, it will be in the form of a symbolic image. Dreams are the most frequent and universally accessible source for the investigation of man’s symbolizing faculty.

The possibility of two or more personalities within us is not a pathological symptom but a psychic fact. Consciousness is relatively new and not completely synthesized.

Like primitives, we too can feel other identities, become dissociated or become possessed and altered by moods. All of us are still vulnerable and liable to fragmentation.

While the ability to isolate part of one’s mind enables us to focus upon a portion of reality, or one thing, there is a large difference between a conscious decision of this sort and a condition when this happens spontaneously. This could be regarded as a primitive “loss of soul” or the pathological cause of a neurosis.

Like dreams, neurotic symptoms are symbolically meaningful and are one way in which the unconscious mind symbolically expresses itself. But dream symbols have much greater variety over physical symptoms. Dream images and the thoughts which they prompt can reveal the unconscious background of ailments. But unconscious complexes can also be reached through simple talk itself. Nevertheless, dreams often have an underlying idea or intention and their actual form and content (and not simply the associations stemming from them) needs to be looked at. Dreams can help us to understand the psychic life-process of an individual’s whole personality.

The dream has its own limitation. Only the material that is clearly and visibly a part of it should be used in interpreting it. We need to hold the dreamer to the dream to avoid escaping its message. Dreamers tend to ignore and even deny the message of their dreams since consciousness naturally resists anything unconscious and unknown.

The dream should be treated as a fact without holding to prior assumptions, and the dream should be regarded as a specific expression of the unconscious.

Part of the unconscious consists of a multitude of temporarily obscured thoughts, impressions, and images which continue to influence our conscious minds. We seem able to perform many actions without being conscious.

Neurotic phenomena are no more than pathological exaggerations of normal occurrences.

Everyday perceptions can touch off subliminal associations and vice versa. Perceptions must be repressed if for no other reason than that there is not sufficient room in consciousness to hold it all.

Just as conscious contents can vanish into the unconscious, new contents, which have never been conscious, can arise from it. The unconscious is no mere repository of the past but also full of germs of future psychic situations and ideas which have never been thought before–inspirations, revelations, etc.

While dreams appear to be ridiculous and contradictory at times, we must remember that conscious ideas are not all that precise. Each word that we use means something slightly different to each person because it is received by individuals and their respective psychic associations. This difference can especially be noticed when an exact definition is looked for. Even the most carefully defined concepts are uncertain.

These subliminal aspects of everyday life are the almost invisible roots of our conscious thoughts. Dream images are much more vivid than concepts in the waking state–restricted to the limits of rational statements. The metaphorical imagery in dreams are not deliberate disguises, they merely point to our own deficiencies in understanding pictorial language. We have lost our mystical identity with things, but the primitive phenomenon of obsession has not vanished; it is the same as ever. It is only interpreted in a different and more obnoxious way.

Many dreams present images and associations that are analogous to primitive ideas, myths, and rites. These are not merely “archaic remnants” but an integral part of the unconscious. They function as a living and meaningful part of ourselves which bridges the ways in which we consciously express our thoughts and the more pictorial form of the unconscious. They link the rational world of consciousness and the world of instinct. Dream language is so forceful that we must pay attention to it.

The general function of dreams is to try to restore our psychological balance by producing dream material that reestablishes (in a subtle way) the total psychic equilibrium. The more that consciousness is influenced by prejudices, errors, fantasies, and infantile wishes, the more the already existing gap will widen into a neurotic dissociation, or artificial life far removed from healthy instincts, nature, and truth.

Dreams may sometimes announce certain situations long before they actually happen. Many accumulative things which have gone unnoticed by ourselves have been noted by the unconscious and brought to our attention through dreams. This does not mean that dreams result from some benevolent agency. They originate in a spirit which is not quite human–from a nature which is beautiful, generous and also cruel. Ancient mythologies will get us closer to understanding this spirit than will modern consciousness. Primitive man was much more governed by his instincts than are his rational descendants who have learned to control themselves.

July 1, 1994

Classifications of human traits, preferences or tendencies are presumably undertaken to assist in self-understanding.

Do we understand through general terms?

Are we undertaking such classifications because we are in search of others like ourselves–others to understand us–companionship to fight off loneliness, or better yet,–out of a need to understand ourselves through others? In other words, are we attempting to circumscribe ourselves in order to provide others with a representative sampling for their use in either noticing or defining us?

Might “self-understanding” be an illusion? Because understanding always seems (at bottom) to be a collective endeavor, might this be the source of our problem in trying to understand ourselves? Might it be the same thing as trying to envision a private language, or the ability to lift oneself into the air by pulling up on one’s own legs. Perhaps self-understanding requires other forces outside of each respective individual.

Perception appears to be little more than reception; a passive undertaking if it can be called an undertaking at all. But even this is misleading. We are always sensing simply by being. Differences between sensations result from capacity and limitation. We can smell only so much, see only so far, attend to only so much at a given time, etc. Having a beginning and end, a coming and going, allows us to identify, express, and, finally describe our “having” or “receiving” sensations themselves. Of course, we must already have a sense of “self-identity” in order for us to do so.

But what is it that we understand by our sensations–personal perceptions, memories, control, suffering, etc.? Yes, all of these things help to constitute our identities. But what else? What else will a search for self-understanding consist in? Surely our perceptions are our own and cannot be disputed for at least being whatever they are taken to be. But what of meaning? What do our perceptions mean?

Well what do they mean? Surely we must hold that meaning is inherent in any given perception or situation, even if it consists in surprise, fear, or no understanding whatever. In this regard, inner “impressions” (or outer “expression”) would seem to be the best candidate for meaning. And yet it is not sufficient for many other usages of this term.

There are levels and extension to meaning. What might a given occurrence mean from a different perspective?–another time, to another person, within a different situation? If I were to express my current state of being to another, I might begin by admitting to a strong degree of loneliness and confusion in my life. But why, we would be sure to ask, am I lonely and confused? What does my loneliness and confusion mean? Even if loneliness and confusion are considered to be two aspects (or reciprocals) of one and the same thing, what do they mean in combination?

Oh “language,” why has thou forsaken me? Because thou art lost art?

July 12, 1994

The manner in which we view consciousness may be our Promethean sin; the reason for, or a depiction of, our fall from the garden. It is not that consciousness hasn’t the right to exist; it’s that we haven’t the right to elevate it as we do.

A standard argument brought against this view goes as follows: If consciousness is part and parcel of something larger and greater than itself (the unconscious, nature, or God), then one of these, rather than consciousness, must be responsible for this one-sided inflation. Who’s in control anyway? Surely it must be one or all of the greater powers surrounding us.

And so we remain in stalemated confusion at best and cling steadfastly to what seems nearer and dearer to ourselves–namely consciousness. For no matter how reasonable it appears to believe in something greater than ourselves, such powers, regardless of how we might view them, seem pale in comparison with the central position which consciousness (or Ego, if you prefer) holds. While reason may dictate that this is anything but our “center,” judging from the vast complexity of what surrounds us, and the relatively ignorant standpoint from which we remain well inside, most of us still cannot help but retain this attitude.

August 17, 1994

Typical behavioral traits appear to us at birth, already present. And because they do, we currently want to say that such behavior is quite “natural” or “proper” and ought to be allowed to continue on this account alone. For us, birth suggests a beginning which was given us–a sort of “birthright” which we feel we have no business challenging since we had nothing whatever to do with the outcome. Only we haven’t always thought in such terms, and I think it fair to say that the vast majority of our members continue to think otherwise. For them, a child is born with a “blank slate” for a mind (while the fact of a fully formed baby goes practically unnoticed, as though it were nothing more than a hollow shell), and consider it their right to mold their offspring into whatever shape they consider proper. The same, of course, applies to other special interests, or to the society at large. Each considers it their right to mold our offspring into a shape which they feel is either befitting the child, or befitting themselves. Far too many of us have bought into this (half pictured) fallacy and continue to believe in it in spite of what is plainly to the contrary. Even the impact of genetic theory and experimentation has not altered this feeling. No, science has successfully sidestepped the issue with a material view of the “instincts.” Somehow, presumably by gene transference, certain “non-experientially learned” behaviors (like birds knowing how to build a nest) gets passed along from one generation to another. But these are “only” instincts, we are reminded, and should not be made too much of; only useful to the “lower animals” and not, strictly speaking, a part of humanity. The fact is that we “think.” they tell us, and they presumably don’t!

Jung, perhaps more than any other thinker, has all but ripped this idea to shreds. This is not to say that he intended it, since he always sought to adhere to scientific methodology and logical explanation whenever possible (although his thinking did require a broader view of what science could permit on purely “empirical” grounds.) On the contrary, it was the evidence of ordinary, plain to see facts, that drove him to positing his view of extroversion and introversion. In trying to explain why Freud and he differed so much in attitude, he noted the character of their differences and went on to note how these same characteristics have abounded in literature and philosophy for thousands of years. In addition to noting these attitudes, his many years of research and clinical work as a practicing psychiatrist, led him to see still other typical behaviors existing in life. Strictly speaking, the typical behaviors themselves were noted to function in an extroverted or introverted manner and, furthermore, could be noted to exist at a very early stage of life. And, upon a still closer examination of the facts, he discovered that experience alone could not account for such attitudes (noted at birth) and, therefore, could not sufficiently explain them. Rather, he found that the effects which similar attitudes, environment, opportunities, etc., could have on two individuals during the normal course of life (such as baby twins sharing the same identical environments), neither produced similar attitudes, nor could any of the above circumstances account for individual differences. Indeed, Jung considered it sometimes possible to distinguish introverted and extroverted “types” at their mother’s breast.

Wishing to maintain a somewhat scientific outlook, Jung’s attention was also drawn to the “instincts” for answers. Only, in order to maintain the integrity of his viewpoint, the instincts would have to become a proper part of the human element, and not merely resigned to so-called lower animal forms. For example, he considered that the attitudes of extroversion and introversion might be fundamental processes of adaptation for dealing with one’s environment. In biological terms, he tried to link such differences to differences existing between life forms with high and low fertility rates and their subsequent low and high powers of defense. He pointed to the fact that some creatures are very fertile in producing numerous offspring, but are unable to protect them from predators. Other species have only one or two offspring, but possess powerful means for ensuring their survival. Here, Jung considered, was the actual biological foundations for the attitudes of introversion and extroversion. Unfortunately, he didn’t think it necessary to point out the fact that both attitudes already exist within the human species, and that all of us, extroverts and introverts alike, could be said to have a low fertility rate and high means of defense; that is, all of us could be said to remain well within the definition of the introverted standpoint. So if Jung meant his analogy in a literal, rather than figurative sense, it is obviously untenable.

However, since Jung was anything but shallow, I think that we need to give him the benefit of faith and trust that the untenability of his logic did not go unnoticed by him. So did he intend his analogy in a figurative sense? Perhaps, but perhaps not. The answer to this question might possibly be found in Jung’s acceptance of a plurality existing in nature, or, specifically, existing to the conscious mind. He spoke of our need to accept the fact of differences in human beings, despite our tendency for wanting to reduce everything to a simple commonality. Yes, Jung believed in the uniformity of the psyche (and claimed to have summed this viewpoint up in his concept of the collective unconscious), but “this fundamental homogeneity,” he tells us, “is offset by an equally great heterogeneity of the conscious psyche.” So rather than look to an unconscious commonality which exists somewhere down the line, we might be better off accepting the facts of our differences as we see them. Thus, we should hold out the possibility that what we see as characteristic of one species or another, may, in fact, have come to be two differing aspects existing within our own. So rather than ask why we aren’t all introverts, (since, again, all of us (including extroverts) can be said to share a low fertility rate and high powers of defense, perhaps we need to look at the new picture as a higher level construct. Within the human species, then, the same playing out of the introverted and extroverted orientation continues as it does with the rest of nature, only the meanings of the terms “fertility” and “powers of defense” must be considered in a new light–on a different plane–although grounded in, and emanating from, the very same source which Jung depicted in his analogy.

What is important to understand is that the attitudes of extroversion and introversion are considered by Jung to be fundamental and basic to personality. They loom large in his psychology and account for fundamental differences in behavior, as well as serve to explain the dynamics existing between the world and the psyche. He offers a model for ascertaining and explaining the occurrence of both normal and abnormal behavior within the context of life, and does so in a way befitting us all.

August 31, 1994

I

Had two dreams last night, neither of which are very vivid in my memory today. The first dream featured three woman. The first was my teacher who I believe was conducting some sort of lesson or another. The second was a woman I had met earlier and had built up a nice rapport with. The third came onto me like a love-starved animal, smothering me with deep kisses while pressing and rubbing her body against mine–all within full view of everyone in the room. I remember responding to her “affections” although I was not aroused sexually. I remember feeling bad for the second woman whose interest in me was seemingly being usurped by this third woman. I also remember thinking it possible that I just might lose both “opportunities” if I wasn’t careful in handling this situation. My teacher showed the least interest in me, romantically speaking, but did show a personal interest in my overall welfare. I remember her calling me to her and asking if I had gotten the lesson. I remember nothing of the lesson, and don’t recall what my response to her was.

While I obviously enjoyed the attention I received from the first two woman, I confess that I felt more affection for the second rather than the third, although I was prepared (I think) to desert her for this other woman, or else felt that I lost her anyway due to my behavior in full view of everyone. I feel that I was taking a very passive stance in letting circumstances dictate my behavior rather than follow my truer inclinations. If sex was most important to me, the third woman seemed the best choice (judging by the passion of the moment or by the belief that “one bird in the hand is better than…”), only, again, I was not aroused by her, although I wasn’t prepared to walk away. As I said, I was more concerned about losing both women; that is, more concerned about not being able to salvage at least one of these relationships. As for my teacher, whenever she appears in my dreams, she generally remains romantically aloof from me, and, perhaps, for this reason, I don’t dare approach her from this angle.

Now if I concentrate solely on my own character in this dream, as I play it, and not as the three women may symbolically represent me, I see a man so desperate for affection, that he is prepared to settle for the illusion of the same, rather than risk failure to gain real affection. I see a man who, for whatever reason (lack of confidence, fear of success or failure, etc.), is either reluctant to develop a meaningful relationship with the type of woman he is truly interested in, or is too cowardly or self-indulgent to protect such a relationship from outside influences. I was drawn to, and truly enjoyed the second woman’s company. She was sweet, gentle, wholesome and caring, all qualities which I greatly admire and apparently need in a woman. And yet, I threw them out the window for the illusion of greater intimacy and satisfaction, which was not really forthcoming from my contact with the third woman. And then I found myself in a (moral?) quandary. Namely, how could I partake of the shallower (though immediate) pleasure which the third woman promised, while hanging on to the expectancy of a deeper and much more satisfying relationship which I felt that the second woman could offer? And rather than choose between the two, I, instead, did nothing more than respond to the third woman’s affections while worrying about the potential of my losing both opportunities. I should have either carried the second woman out of the room and enjoyed whatever passion was forthcoming, or simply pushed her away. I did neither. The lesson here is obvious. Those who aren’t prepared to choose one thing over another, will most likely lose both. I can’t expect allegiances from either side if I remain sitting on the fence. I can’t expect others to understand who I am unless I am prepared to reveal myself.

Now if I concentrate on what (if anything) these three female types reflect (or symbolize) in my own present behavior or circumstances, what will I find? How might I (or different parts or personalities within me) be acting just like these three women; that is, like the “teacher”–the “wholesome one”–and the “hungry one”? I want to immediately and wholeheartedly point to the first two types as being obvious traits existing within myself. I can’t help feeling that I am, myself, a teacher, even if I have nothing to teach, and that I most certainly have a loving and nurturing presence within me, even if it does not always show up on the outside. But what of this last one? Wow! In my wildest imagination, I doubt that I would ever have depicted myself as a love-starved sort of whore! And yet, this appears to be the message I’m getting. [Afterthought: I have never in my life sought the kind of woman I am truly attracted to. I either never dared, or else had some romantic notion that fate would bring her to me–that fate would intercede appropriately on my behalf–at the proper time. And so I am forced to admit that this exactly depicts the attitude I have held throughout my life.]

The second dream had something to do with my building a fire (which I remember was somewhat difficult to start) and then being admonished for building it so far from the water. I remember saying to this individual that I could push it closer to the water with my feet and actually began doing so. Then this male figure appeared (I can’t be sure if it was the same individual) and handed me a pole with a loop on the end. I took it and slid it under the fire and lifted the entire thing up. I began walking with the fire and, I don’t know whether I showed signs of possibly dropping it or not, but this gentleman grabbed hold of the front end and held it up for me as I continued walking. Just as suddenly his feet were no longer on the ground and I was literally carrying both the fire and him with ease. In addition to this feature, I also vaguely remember coiling up what appeared to be a long cord or rope which I believe had been stretched out behind me. I then remember telling a young female to walk ahead and stretch out the front portion of the rope. Only she was afraid to do so since this portion of the rope was a snake. I told her not to worry about this situation and to take a pole with her if she was that frightened. She would be able to prod the snake to stretch out without getting too close to it.

This dream seems to have definite motifs which I am not familiar enough to comment on. I only know that fire often symbolizes knowledge. I am not certain as to the significance of the male figure, water, female figure or snake. Perhaps the dream is pointing to my doing something in a ridiculous fashion (building or presenting knowledge) too far removed from its desired destination; too far removed from anyone’s understanding or, perhaps, from the unconscious (which the water might represent). Perhaps in real life, whoever the male figure represents, is going to help me to correct this situation; is going to show me that I can, in effect, appropriately carry the fire (that is, knowledge) to those whom I wish to give it to. Perhaps the dream is pointing to a lack of confidence in my willingness to put the fire where it belongs for fear that it will be rejected. Perhaps the snake represents this fear, or else my fear of approaching the unconscious. The latter end of the coil did not appear as a snake. The snake only arose at the front end leading to where the fire had to go. But now I may be reading too much into this dream and adding elements which may not have been part of it. I can only say that I feel that the fire was the most central aspect of the dream and that I was uncertain as to whether I would be able to start it at all. It was a close call at first, but then it took, and I very quickly added logs and made it into a solid blaze.

II

Last but not least, I lay in bed this morning not only thinking about these dreams, but also coming to the conclusion that my greatest downfall in life–that which has had the most crippling effect upon me–has been my inability to come to closure regarding anything whatever. I milled over the hundreds of examples of this behavior in my mind, beginning with my father always reminding me that “I could never finish what I started,” and this beginning at a very early age. I went over all of the projects that lay unfinished in and around my house; overwhelming reminders of something which has always been outside my ability to control. I lay there recalling how very difficult it is for me to finish the simplest of things: painting a room, fixing a faucet, finishing a book, completing a goal, meeting obligations, etc. etc. Without a doubt, this single feature of personality can account for nearly all of the havoc and confusion suffered in my fifty-three years of life to date. And it grows bolder and more menacing with each passing day.

This tendency can be viewed from any number of perspectives: procrastination; fear of failure; an inability to accept life on its own terms, a battle between fate and self; a suffered “standoff” between life-affirming and nihilistic tendencies; or something more akin to a “fear of success” rather than failure. Success could put me into a situation where I may be confronted by choices which I may not wish to make, or else will want to make because of the potential to do away with certain unwanted circumstances (that is, bad choices made previously) which I have had to suffer throughout my life. Only to do so from a successful standpoint might invite criticism of me as a “user” or coward who is now selfishly wishes to take advantage of his recent enlightenment. But if all of these factors are real possibilities, why then did this same attitude commence and persist at a very early age in life? There must be more to it than these surface effects can account for. What then?

Could a highly critical father (with solid intelligence, low self-esteem and a strong compensating power drive) have had something to do with the cause of this behavior? Or was my father merely describing a “natural trait” already existing within me? In any case, criticism and constant reminders of this “defect” certainly did nothing to correct it. But why look into the past for answers when this same behavior continues in the present? Why not simply examine it from my present standpoint?

Since some of these unfinished projects are, in reality, quite simple and easy to accomplish, I must look to the “compulsion to refrain” from completing them. Why don’t I want to complete what must and ought to be completed? Well, to do one thing certainly entails not doing another, and one of the most important things I would not be doing, would be trying to discover the source of my reluctance. In other words, I may feel so strongly about answering this dilemma that I refuse to be preoccupied by anything else; that is, unless I am forced to it. Again, my poor financial situation is causing a great deal of pain (and debt) and cannot be corrected unless I do something about it. Only I can’t bring myself to do anything about it unless I can first make a definite move in the right direction. But, then, this is the problem–I can’t get off the mark! Why not?

Why can’t I, for instance, resolve the issue of money in any way that I can just to be able to peacefully continue to explore myself and these other possibilities? Why can’t I complete the simple tasks which are surrounding me and weighing heavily upon my conscience. Why, in fact, didn’t I complete them at the time I was doing them? Why must I always stop part-way? Sometimes it’s because of the sheer drudgery of doing the same; sometimes it’s because I am aware that there are a hundred other projects waiting in the wings; sometimes I am side-tracked by another of these projects, especially emergency situations such as a broken dehumidifier, dryer, bread machine, leaking pool liner, dried-up decking (which is crying for stain or sealer), or the fact that two patio doors have broken insulation seals and need to be replaced. Even the “emergency” situations come to be prioritized into bigger and smaller emergencies while the non-emergencies continue to pile up. When taken together, they represent a tremendous burden which I carry around with me on a daily basis–even while I am trying to resolve the very issues causing it.

It seems easy enough to say: “Just tend to the things that need tending to and the burden will be removed!” But, assuming that I can muster up the energy to tackle these things, what will I do for money in the meantime? If money weren’t an issue, I could simply pay to have most of these things done! “Then why not go for the money!” Because I don’t know exactly how to go about it, or, more honestly, can’t bring myself to complete whatever it is I feel I can do to earn more money. You see, it even takes money to prepare to make money. But what is it that I am prepared to do? What interests me? How can I tie such interests into an occupation? And what must I do to prepare for it? [It almost embarrasses me to being thinking in such terms at age 53 while, presumably, also acting as a “vocational counselor” in my rather feeble self-employment enterprise.]

Needless to say, I can think of numerous possibilities which interest me–teaching, writing, offering personal growth seminars–but what do I really have to offer outside of embroiling others in my own confusion. If I don’t feel that I have anything to offer, then I will never be in a position to settle upon any one of these ideas, much less, follow-through on one. Sometimes it feels as though everything–that is, the entire burden–needs to be tackled in one fell swoop, if it is ever to be managed at all. Anything resembling a piece-meal approach seems definitely out of the question. Besides, time seems to have run out. Inaction has led to what seems to me now to be an impossible burden to manage. It reminds me of a dream I had several years ago. In the dream, my personality characteristics were being assessed for a management position with Wickes Lumber Company (a former employer in real life). A former philosophy professor of mine was doing the evaluation and the results were that I was not ready for “management,” even though other factors were commendable. No doubt, the dream was exactly right, and there is little or nothing which has transpired since to make me think that I might now be ready. If anything, matters are worse.

While all of these factors may appear to account for, if not answer, my personal dilemma, I still can’t help but feel that they are more the results of the real issue, and not the cause. True, my reluctance to complete something may in fact be owing to competing matters which are compelling my attention, but I can’t help but feel that there is something more which is not being said. For example, if I were truly happy in my marriage and were able to derive a certain amount of energy from it, wouldn’t this tend to lighten my burden and, perhaps, provide the necessary drive and motivation to get the job done? But, again, perhaps an underdeveloped, unfulfilled marriage is more the result of my trait rather than the cause of it. After all, I exhibited this trait long before I was married, and shallow or inferior relationships happen to be one of its characteristic outcomes. Perhaps my first dream (involving my relationship with the three female types) was attempting to depict this very trait. But what exactly is it?

I believe that it is first and foremost a reluctance to follow my own interests; a reluctance to reach for what I want most in life. Only, why refuse the most direct and obvious means to gaining satisfaction? And if another should somehow “guess” at what it is I desire, why do I then deny that it is so, even when my intention all along had been to get that person to recognize what I was after? This reminds me of the game I used to play with my mother as a young boy. I moped around the house nearly driving her crazy by forcing her to guess what it was that was troubling me. Only when she finally hit upon the right answer–I simply denied it. But why feel guilty about asking for money, if that was all that was bothering me? But, of course, it wasn’t really money that I was after. Thus, the denial could be said to be appropriate on a deeper level. Consciously speaking, even I may have believed it was the money. It occurs to me now that being the ninth of ten children, my mother may not have had the time or the energy to spend on me. Perhaps my younger sister received most of the attention, along with my two immediately older twin brothers. Maybe I was lost in between them, I don’t know. But, regardless, I only remember my mother as being a kind, sympathetic and loving woman. It would be impossible for me to regard her otherwise.

September 1, 1994

Astounding dream last night; a dream which served to reinforce something which I have suspected from time to time; that is, the notion that consciousness and the unconscious may be interactive in dreams in the same (or very similar) way that they interact during the so-called normal waking state.

I dreamt that I was walking in the countryside with some others, who may have been members of my wife’s family, I’m not certain. While walking, I remember reading messages which were written on photographs belonging to someone who was walking with me. One “postcard” featured scenes of Canandaigua Lake on both sides and also had writing on both sides. I believe the purpose of the writing and post card was to applaud the beauty of California while, at the same time, extolling the beauty of our own natural surroundings. [It was only yesterday that my daughter Monica informed me of the likelihood that she would be going to San Francisco to attend Massage Therapy School] The next thing I remember was my looking through folder files (while still walking) and noting that the files contained “permission slips” which authorized sending such pictures to other people. They were rather formal statements: “I, Sally Jones, give permission to [whomever–I can’t recall the actual names]… to mail any contents of my file…,” and I thought to myself that I would never take the time to get anyone’s formal permission to do the same. Then I noticed a note in another file which simply recorded someone’s having given their permission by telephone, though still formally written. I considered that having to contend with this much wouldn’t be too difficult a thing, but no sooner than I said this to myself than I considered that a very simple notation reminding me of the telephone call would be even better! [Apparently, my unconscious did not sufficiently get its message across to me as the next episode in this dream will show.]

Now it seems that our walk in the countryside continued until we reached this place which looked like a picnic area where other members of my wife’s family were already located. There was water rushing down a hillside (resembling a river without banks), but in some way contained nevertheless. It simply flowed over the land surface which we were now approaching. I remember telling my daughter Monica (who appeared to be five or six years old) to avoid the strong current or “whirlpool” portions as she made her way through the onrushing water. I watched her walking ahead of me and could see that she was doing just fine, although she was literally stopped at one point by the strong current. Nevertheless, she was able to get through it and I believe began walking up this hill to where the other children had gone. [It would not be uncommon for me to allow my children to undertake some challenge while I watched nearby to ensure their safety. I can think of numerous occasions where I did this very thing–sometimes within view of them–sometimes hidden] I too proceeded to walk through the water and then began walking up this same hill. Again, I vaguely remember that this was where the other young children had gone and that it was in some way going to serve as a vantage point for viewing “California.” At any rate, upon getting to the top of the hill, I recognized that I was at my mother-in-law’s house and that I had been walking up her driveway. There was something thick (snow?) covering the driveway with fairly large (border-like) stones scattered here and there on the driveway itself. I began pushing this substance (whatever it was) aside, trying to clear the way by using my feet. I then picked up the stones wherever I found them and laid them off to the sides of the driveway and away from the house. Only now, there was grass bordering the driveway and it appeared to be summer. I continued moving stones from around the steps leading into the house and was thinking to myself that someone else should have been doing this. I thought that if I were given a lawn mower to use, I would be able to do this work in an easier fashion. My sister-in-law Mary’s husband Bill came out of the house, followed by my mother-in-law, both looking at what I was doing, but saying nothing. Nevertheless, I could see that Bill was somewhat disturbed by my presence or by what I was doing. Just then, Mary came out of the house with a very disturbed look on her face, only, like the others, she said nothing. I asked what was bothering them (two or three times) and finally Mary blurted into tears yelling: “Jesus Christ, Ray, couldn’t you have asked permission!–There are seeds planted alongside the driveway where you put those stones, and we put the stones where they were for specific reasons!” [Incidentally, Mary would never swear and would be the least likely of my wife’s family to lose her temper] I quickly apologized for my actions (although I didn’t really feel sorry and felt that she was making a big deal out of nothing), and proceeded to return the stones to their original locations. Again, I was somewhat perturbed by their attitudes and definitely felt slighted and unappreciated for my effort. Deep inside, I still felt that what I was doing to the property was more enhancing than anything she might be capable of doing. I considered just how stupid it was to have put these stones in these locations in the first place.

Upon waking from this dream and recalling its elements, this last episode was, of course, very vivid in my mind. After all, it was the very thing that awakened me from the dream. I realize that this is typical of many dreams which presumably are intended to impact the dreamer in a big way. Following this review, I then proceeded to reinforce my memory of earlier portions of the dream and, again, began reviewing the episode with the postcards. It was then that I came to the realization that what was common to both episodes was the idea of “permission.” In the first episode, I was trying to lessen the burden of properly handling the same, and in the second, simply ignored it altogether. It was then that it began to dawn on me that where the first dream episode failed to get its message across to me, at least in “sufficient” terms, the second unmistakably did not. In fact, it grew increasingly apparent that my unconscious created this second episode for the expressed purpose of getting this message over to me. In other words, it was a second try!

At the same time as I was thinking about this, I also came to the realization that my behavior in each of these dream episodes represented my “conscious attitude,” and that, perhaps, all dreams worked in this manner. I considered this a major breakthrough inasmuch as it could imply (though not necessarily) that the dreamer continues to maintain his or her conscious attitude during sleep. I don’t recall having read such an assessment in the literature I’ve read to date. Nevertheless, whether or not the dreamer’s own conscious attitude continues in sleep, or is simply a representation of the same produced by the unconscious, still, it is remarkable simply to note that the overall situation was intended as a lesson–a veritable communication between consciousness and the unconscious–while asleep! In this view, sleep simply allows the unconscious an opportunity to present us with its messages in pictorial and symbolic language, perhaps not really so different from the “outside world” of our actual waking lives–if only we could bring ourselves to acknowledge it. But, in fact, we have become so accustomed to ignoring or simply denying the unconscious that it is highly unlikely that the unconscious could have so great an impact upon us in normal waking life. If it did do so, as I suspect it is entirely capable of, it would prove too great a disturbance and would most probably be treated as such.

This said, I want to mention still another noteworthy revelation which this dream brought to mind. And this is: Not only do dreams depict our true attitudes and behaviors through use of made-up scenario’s, but the scenario’s sometimes go beyond this “first-level” purpose to portraying and delivering still deeper insights which apparently are concerned with furthering one’s intellectual growth as well. So without my even beginning to examine the meaning of these messages for my emotional growth and well-being, I have already gleaned and relished several significant “insights” which this dream (and others) have made possible. I, therefore, think it incumbent upon us to consider that such “second-level” intentions are also part and parcel of the dream’s overall purpose. We must also consider the possibility that one’s personal psychology may determine the shape of dreams. Inasmuch as I have pursued answers to personal growth issues primarily through outside and inside conceptual means (that is, by way of ideas and thinking), my unconscious has had a double task to perform in trying to shape the same while also attending to the feelings underlying them. Were I acting like a “feeling type” (which I can’t help but feel is my most “natural” disposition), I could be more easily persuaded by whatever values I happen to hold. My dreams, in other words, could depict my behavior and compel me to action by simply presenting me with value-laden actions. As it is, they seem to do both.

OTHER DREAM EPISODES
Following the above writing which occurred sometime between 1:00 and 3:00 a.m., I went back to sleep and awoke from at least two other dreams, or episodes existing within a single dream. One had to do with my being in a building which I felt was a definite fire hazard. I kept reminding the people in it that it was bound to go up in smoke given the dangerous circumstances which were seemingly tolerated by everyone present. I vaguely recall that the building might have been a fire hall, but I’m not sure. I do recall a wheelbarrow, filled with flammable materials, set against a wall. Window curtains were touching it and I vaguely remember that there was some source of fire in it which could easily have ignited the whole works. Only, again, no one seemed to care about the situation. I remember warning them over and over again about how dangerous this situation was.

Following this, I recall two puzzling things which seemed like a complete reversal of my former attitude. I recall dropping a lit cigarette on the floor and being criticized by an ex-sister-in-law (Bonnie) for having done so. Second, I recall being outside of this building thinking how I might light the building on fire and get away with it. I was thinking how I might approach the burning building from outside so as not to raise anyone’s suspicion that I could have started it.

Another episode in this dream had me sleeping in bed with an older brother (Augie) who was hogging all but one foot of space. I was angry about this situation but knew that he could beat me up if I decided to do anything about it. So I got out of bed and went into a larger bedroom which contained two beds. My brother Joe (Augie’s twin) was asleep in one bed while the other was empty. I got into the empty bed and went to sleep. Very soon after, Augie came into the bedroom and slid into bed next to me. Apparently Leonard, a still older brother, had booted Augie out of the other bed (which was his in real life) and forced him into the larger bedroom which I shared with my twin brothers. As Augie got into my bed, I got out and went back into the first bedroom, presumably to sleep with Leonard. I don’t remember anything else.

September 3, 1994

Dreamt that I was an Assistant Manager at Wickes Lumber (which I was in real life) but not in good stead. In fact, I was having difficulty getting along with my fellow employees but wasn’t certain as to why. There were several young manager trainees who were hired and were very up to date on all of the latest product knowledge. They offered excellent in-store consumer demonstrations which amazed me in terms of quality. I remember feeling that it wasn’t necessary, however, for managers to be so “modern” or up-to-date since our General Manager was a very old fashioned guy and wanted his managers to be like himself–that is, not sophisticated. (I never liked the man very much.) I suspect that his motivation also had something to do with control. At any rate, to his way of looking at things, it would be okay (even necessary) to have underlings who were in fact very knowledgeable, even if his managers were not. (In truth, it was not so much that he wanted his managers ignorant, as he wanted them to be “old fashioned” in order to better conform with himself) There were several episodes to this dream which went as follows:

I remember being called over to a table by one of our employees to look at a couple of sample pieces of Formica. Upon seeing the samples, I immediately realized that this was a new style which I hadn’t been aware of until now, but I didn’t let him know this. Instead, I simply said: “Yes, this is our new Formica.” He said: “Yes, but the two pieces aren’t a very good match.” I saw some color variation between the two which often happens from one shipment to another, but didn’t think it was anything serious. I simply said that it was pretty close and wouldn’t matter. [I always look for the simple way out and always try to avoid confrontation] I also remember a similar incident where another employee was puzzling over how two (plumbing?) fixtures went together. I didn’t recognize the pieces at all and couldn’t help him.

I remember another scene where Bob Peterman (who was a Wickes Manager in real life, although at a different store from my own) was waiting on a customer in my store and was cutting sheets of Formica into 12″ blocks. For some reason, the sheet of Formica had rough and uneven edges which had to be trimmed off. I asked him what he was going to do with this and he responded that he was going to lay it around a swimming pool. I said that I thought it would be too slippery to walk on when wet, and he said “That’s right!” and nothing more.

I was out in the warehouse and someone on a fork truck drove past me very recklessly, almost hitting me. I mumbled something and he shouted back some wise remark or vulgarity which I believe may have been in the form of a challenge. Instead of stopping and meeting his challenge, I took the cowardly way out and pretended that I didn’t hear him. I also remember walking down an aisle in the warehouse and passing two employees who refused to acknowledge me for whatever reason. It also occurred to me that perhaps upper management had hired these individuals to frighten me into quitting my job. There was definitely evidence that I was not wanted and it seemed to be getting dangerous as well.

The next thing I remember about this dream was two consumer demonstrations which were being conducted by two manager trainees. I came upon the end of the first one and noticed some fabulous drawings of dogs on a large pad of paper which seminar presenters often use for illustration purposes. I don’t know why the dogs were drawn or what the presentation had to do with, except that the drawings were of very high quality. [Recollection of a former dream of mine where an artist surprised me with three fabulous works of art which I did not think he was capable of] But there was another demonstration just then taking place and it too was very strange. There was a large plastic pool of water in the shape of a boat which sat directly on the floor. A section of the boat jutted out from one side similar to a basement stairway jutting out from the house. In order to get into the main section of the boat, you had to walk down some steps, dive under water until you cleared the opening, and then surface on the inside of the boat. Well, the trainee presenter got into his swim suit and asked what the temperature of the water was. Someone said sixty degrees and he made some wry comment in return. He then walked down a few steps, dove under water and surfaced on the inside of the boat. Now it was this dog’s turn to do the same. The presenter called to the dog to come through the opening, but the dog just stood there (under water at the foot of the stairs) without making a move. He was neither floating nor panicking (since he obviously couldn’t breathe), but just stood there for the longest time while the presenter kept calling to him. Finally, he swam through the opening and surfaced on the other side. Once inside, the presenter took out this long air-filled plastic boat which was in the shape of a canoe. Both he and the dog were seated side-by-side in it. They began leaning forward to propel the boat. When the smaller boat hit the bow of the larger, it bounced backwards until it hit what I think could have been a cabin. There was no more than two feet in which to move the smaller boat. They continued in this way until they were bouncing rather hard off the bow and cabin, all the while laughing up a storm. I vividly remember the dog sitting and laughing loudly (just as a child would), and obviously enjoying what appeared to be a rather silly activity, much less, something having to do with a do-it-yourself project. This is all I remember.

I believe that there might have been another earlier episode having to deal with my puzzling over how I might fill a rack full of pine lumber in cut lengths. There were too many sizes and lengths to deal with for the size of the rack and I couldn’t make up my mind as to which pieces (or which system or criterion) I would employ to make the necessary choices.

The last episode had me and Tony Rosone (a boyhood friend) riding on a horse side by side, or at least I felt that he was on my right side. The funny thing about this was that the horse seemed to be unusually large and it loped unusually high, so high that I felt like I was on a rocking horse. Each time that his front hoofs hit the ground, I was almost thrown off, but I kept on wanting to go faster and faster. Going faster, however, seemed to entail going higher for some reason, and this meant that we really weren’t going that fast at all. It seemed that other employees were not far behind and I wanted to outdistance them. Tony said nothing. The horse leaped higher and higher, almost in a slow motion fashion by now. And although he was working very hard, as I said, we weren’t really covering that much distance. [Not unlike the seeming senselessness of the presenter and dog pushing back and forth in the former episode]. I don’t remember anything else except that I felt sorry for the horse and thought that I would slow down in order to save him. I recall thinking about the special care cowboys give to their horses.

September 3, 1994

It would be nice if we could easily understand and make proper use of Jungian “type” classifications, but it is not so simple.

Major problem with psychological types stems from the fact that one is not always acting from one’s favorite attitude or, worse, acting from one’s superior or most differentiated function while in one’s favorite attitude. Beyond this is the difficulty of determining whether the behavior one is observing in another is conscious or relatively (or partially unconscious) behavior. This makes it exceedingly difficult to sort out one’s proper attitude, and order of functional preferences, especially when one’s behavior is introverted, troublesomely exaggerated, troublesomely neutral (that is, on the fence), or is exhibiting definite neurotic traits. Again, since there is a constant mix of unconscious contents in consciousness, it is difficult for the observer to know which traits belong to which. Generally, says Jung, a “judging” observer will seize on the conscious character while a “perceptive” observer will be more influenced by the unconscious character. As it turns out, “only a thorough analysis of the qualities of each function can help us to form a valid judgment. We must observe which function is completely under conscious control, and which functions have a haphazard and spontaneous character…” (See Portable Jung–bottom of page 191 and top of 192))

Attitude types are distinguished by their attitude to the object. The introvert’s is an abstracting one while the extrovert’s is affirming. The one tries to withdraw libido from the object, as though to prevent the object from gaining power over himself, the other affirms its importance so much that his subjective attitude is constantly related and oriented to it. The introvert tries to defend himself from outside demands and tries to conserve his energy by withdrawing it from others, while the extrovert expends his energy. The one achieves his ends by devouring or monopolizing, while the other is prolific in terms of developing a multiplicity of relationships.

TERMS:

Concepts of consciousness and unconscious; maintaining psychic equilibrium; mixture of two makes it difficult to distinguish either.

Unconscious as historical lineage; archetypes

Dynamics of unconscious compensation; falsification: See page 190

Differentiated or superior functions vs. inferior; most differentiated always employed in accordance with one’s conscious attitude (E or I) which is always an expression of one’s will, conscious aims, etc., while inferior functions take an opposite, passive stance. Unconscious comes through the inferior functions. Less differentiated functions of extrovert always show a highly subjective coloring with pronounced egocentricity while the reverse is true for the introvert; that is, that they show a highly objective coloring with little or no signs of caring about the subjective. (see page 190-91)

Neuroses: Exaggerated, one-sided, extension of formally “normal” behavior.

EXTRAVERTED TYPE

Conscious Attitude

Allows himself to be oriented by the given facts. Most differentiated function is always employed in an extraverted way, while the inferior functions are introverted. Decisions and actions determined by external, objective conditions. Although he has subjective views, these are subordinated to external necessity. Expects answers to come from outside himself and therefore values objective conditions. People and things (objective happenings) get his attention and determine his actions. His character is always adapted to the actual circumstances. Moral laws governing his behavior coincide with demands of society. He views adjustment in this regard as adaptation.

Tendency

His tendency to get sucked into, and completely lose himself, in objects. Adjustment is not adaptation, and all objective situations are not always normal. Thus, the extrovert’s ease of adjustment is also his greatest limitation should he adjust to a locally or temporarily abnormal situation. Normality also depends upon taking account of one’s own subjective needs and requirements.

Danger

Paying too little attention to one’s subjective needs can lead to “hysterical” tendencies, the most frequent neurosis of this type.

Unconscious

Primitive, infantile, egocentric, introverting character which concentrates libido on the subjective factor; that is, upon all those needs and demands stifled or repressed by the conscious attitude. Can verge on ruthlessness in its worst form.

Outer Characteristics:

Hallmark is exaggerated rapport with people and adjustment to surrounding conditions which amounts to imitation. Constant tendency to impress; suggestible, prone to other person influences; effusive.

Catastrophe

Objective form: Objective aims gradually become falsified by subjective. Consciousness usurps, rather than abides by, unconscious compensation and simply uses it to further conscious aims. (See example on page 189)

Subjective Form: Influence of unconscious finally paralyzes all conscious action causing a nervous breakdown. Unconscious forces itself on consciousness and brings about a disastrous split which shows itself in one of two ways: a) either the subject no longer knows what he wants and nothing interests him, or b) he wants too much at once and has too many interests, but in impossible things. (Bottom page 189-90)

EXTROVERTED THINKING

Oriented by object and objective data. Thinking, criteria for thinking, and direction of thinking, all are conditioned more by objective data than by subjective. To judge whether thinking is extroverted or not, ask by what criterion does it judge (outer or inner)?; what direction is the thinking taking (outwards or not)?; and where does the thinking wind up (with external facts, objective data, or generally accepted ideas–or with subjective process or the tendency to subjectify the objective data to assimilate them to the subject)? Introverted thinking starts with the subject and ends with the subject (regardless of its making use of objective data), while extroverted thinking starts and ends with an objective orientation.

INTROVERTED TYPE

Conscious Attitude: Does not allow himself to be oriented by the given facts but interposes a subjective viewpoint between himself and the object. His decisions and actions are determined by subjective viewpoint. [May not expect answers to come from within himself, but his actions show that subjective conditions prevail even if he values objective conditions.]

September 7, 1994

Vague recollection of two dream segments. The first had me flying around with a sort of small parachute apparatus which I could control with straps attached to the harness. By pulling on the straps I could go up or down, only I seemed to be having trouble with them. At one point, I had to talk to someone who was hovering below me, presumably with the same type apparatus, and was apologizing because I couldn’t get my chute to descend to where he was. At one point I did manage to get to the ground and adjust my straps, but upon rising again, they still seemed a little loose and unwieldy and I couldn’t help but think that this situation could have its dangers. I seemed to take flying in this way too much for granted, forgetting that there was such a thing as carelessness as well as the potential of a chute failure.

I recall that this other individual was a black man, and that he was asking me about whether or not I blamed society for the debt load I was carrying, or whether I expected society to do something about it. I said “certainly not” as my current situation was entirely my own fault. He seemed satisfied with this remark as I believe that he held traditional values. But then he proceeded to ask what would happen if everyone ceased to pay their debts. I said that it would probably lead to a collapse in the economy or to our way of life as we know it. The next thing I remember was seeing him on the ground driving a car (with extra large tires) over what appeared to be smoothly cultivated ground or soil. He was deliberately roughing it up and I somehow understood this to mean that he was inviting the collapse of the economy; that he was doing his part to bring about wanted change.

My second dream is also vague. I remember being in a room with three homosexual men, one of which was trying to discover my views regarding homosexuality. He was chastising me for holding generally held opinions and I defended myself by denying this. I said that while I wasn’t certain of my own feelings regarding this question, I certainly would never hold to outside opinions, but would, instead, form my own opinions based upon my own feelings. He appreciated the honesty of my answer. I remember having to leave this place and had just shaken one person’s hand to say goodbye. Upon approaching the other two, I immediately recognized, from the look on their faces, that my shaking their hands, rather than kissing each of them on the cheek, was in some way reinforcing their suspicion that I was prejudiced against homosexuals. So I gave each of them a kiss on the cheek and then proceeded to a room where my wife was located. She was laying on a bed and I believe had been drinking. There was a table in the room which had crumbs all over it, and I was disturbed by the fact that she wasn’t ready to leave. Instead, she wanted another drink. I found the whole situation embarrassing.

September 8, 1994

Two dream episodes remembered from last night. I was in a boat sailing somewhere. I remember that at one point in our travels, the boat entered the African continent, sailed down the Nile and into the Mediterranean–all in a single night. (I simply imagined that the upper Nile could be reached from the Indian ocean) Only I slept through it all and was very upset about this. I remember telling a ship officer about how much I appreciated nature, geography, anthropology and animal life; that I subscribed to several magazines on these subjects (which, beyond National Geographic, was a definite exaggeration). But I wanted this person to know just how much I missed seeing the dawn and dusk of Africa. As it was, he only mentioned seeing two gibbons in describing the journey to me. I remember asking the Captain of the boat how she was able to traverse the cataracts leading into the Mediterranean. She responded that it wasn’t all that difficult. A male officer, who I believe was second in command, was being “ribbed” for his trying his own hand at the helm. They were showing slides on a projection screen and you could see him sticking out of a half sunken boat. I chided: “I can see that he’s in over his head” to two individuals who were seated next to me. One was a female who I liked. I wasn’t sure that she got the joke and I felt it necessary to point this out. I also asked her why she hadn’t been to the club the night before, and I vaguely remember her saying something to the effect that she didn’t like places like that.

I also remember having to go to classes on this boat. I don’t know what they were about or why we had to go, but there were some occasions when I didn’t know where my classroom was, and was scurrying up and down stairs to find it. Still another episode had me urinating in a bathroom urinal when some other passenger walks up to the same urinal and began urinating right next to me. I said “Are you crazy?” He was to the left of me and pushing forward. His right hand got in direct line with my urine and got wet. I said “I told you so” and he said nothing further. Upon his leaving, I did notice that his penis was larger than mine, and recall that this was slightly bothersome to me, though not to any great degree.

There were two other recollections in this dream. One had me walking a great distance out into the countryside until I reached a point in which I felt that I had traveled too far. I now dreaded the fact that I would have to walk the whole distance back and was looking about for some other option. I felt that this was in some way typical of me.

Still another episode had me walking on a street with another individual. We came upon two young men who were crouched down and firing pistols at one another. I vaguely recall that I was disgusted with this situation and that I either found some way of handling it, or else was able to avoid it altogether. I don’t remember which.

September 9, 1994

Two dreams last night separated by an intermittent waking. The first dream may have taken place at Wickes Lumber, I’m not certain. But, unlike the other dreams at this location, now I was mainly an observer. The business was organized impeccably. Every facet had been accounted for and treated with exceptional quality. I recall walking along and seeing a series of what appeared to be “exhibits” or “panorama’s” representing each of the store’s primary functions–purchasing, sales, marketing, product knowledge, legal aspects, etc. I was amazed at how thoroughly it had been treated and organized. It seemed flawless to me–no stone had failed to be turned! [Reminiscent of stones in previous night’s dream] When I got to the end of the line, I saw a display of fifteen or twenty books which, for some reason, dealt with the legal aspects of business I felt. They were there for consumers to borrow. Next to them sat a young man who was responsible for having planned and organized the entire business. I commended him on the superb job he did. He thanked me and then pulled out a long sheet of paper which he unraveled in front of me. Each section of the sheet was organized by business function and served as an outline for him. I got the impression that he was telling me that it wasn’t all that difficult with a well-constructed design.

Upon awakening from this dream, I lay in bed thinking about its various elements and whatever meaning it may have for me. However, I recall that my thoughts trailed off in other directions, hitting upon different subjects, until I fell back asleep.

My second dream took place at my brother Leonard’s home where I was staying the night. I remember that the house was very busy with a large number of people staying there. It may be for this reason that I was unable to shower the following morning. I recall mentioning to someone that this was the third time I had put on my pants, presumably to walk to the bathroom, but to no avail. I recall saying that I would shower when I got home and left. I was crossing the street (still in LeRoy) leading to the high school. While doing so, I remember being in the way of a car which was just then turning the corner. The driver had to wait for me as I clutched my cane and hobbled along like an old man. I barely managed to get up on the opposite curb. It occurs to me now that my destination might have been the school. I remember being upset by the fact that I left my toilet bag at Leonard’s and would have to find some way or another to clean my teeth. I also recall being upset by the fact that my cane had fallen apart. Apparently, it had a metal core running through it which was now protruding from the handle. I also noticed that it was constructed in two pieces and that a metal piece holding the two sections together had become unraveled and was curled around the shaft like a broken spring.

The next thing I remember was being at home (which was, presumably, my boyhood home in this same town) and trying to use the bathroom. Only now my dream had just as suddenly substituted this home for my present home in Canandaigua, except that everything was different. Instead of my usual surroundings, I found myself in a very large room (similar to a large banquet hall) which had bathroom facilities located at one end. Only there were no walls surrounding them–everything was exposed! Apparently this single large room was to serve more than one function. And so it did. There were all sorts of family members visiting for some unknown reason. I remember asking my sister-in-law Bobbie why, after sixteen years of living here, did she pick this time to visit. I don’t recall her response but do remember that all of her grandchildren were there. My nephew Paul was taking his mother and his children on short trips around the area and the children were obviously excited.

I also recall that before entering the tub (perhaps when I first entered the house), I came upon a chair which had fallen apart. It reminded me of my wife and her “bargains,” and it infuriated me, even though I believe that I had originally purchased it. I threw the chair aside and told myself that if I couldn’t have a “quality” chair, I would rather go without. [The disgust I felt, no doubt, was felt mostly for myself for having felt compelled to buy it in the first place] As it was, there I was standing in the tub, still wearing my bathrobe. Having failed to get people to leave the room, I was trying to shower with my robe on by leaving it open in front. I remember my sister Anne walking up to me and startling me somewhat since my robe was open. I next recall trying to soap my hair with face soap as I couldn’t locate the shampoo. As I was still dry, I was finding it somewhat difficult. This is all I remember.

After waking from this last dream, I tried recalling the many elements and potential meanings of both dreams. I felt that the first depicted just how structure and organization, if used properly, could lead to highly successful, quality, results. In contrast, I felt that both episodes of the second dream depicted unsuccessful scenarios, although unsuccessful for seemingly different reasons. In my brothers house, there were a lot of people competing for a single function (namely the bathroom) within a relatively confined space. At my home, there was only one person (namely myself) who was competing against a “dual-functioned” room within a spacious interior. Obviously, with the right organization (such as making the bathroom a separate room), this latter problem could have been avoided. In the first episode, however, only a second bath, larger house, or fewer occupants could have alleviated the difficulty. Aside from this observation, I must confess that I don’t really understand the meaning of this second dream. I do remember one other element of this last dream which may have some importance. There was a male figure who was sleeping in another room of the house. I recall my disappointment with having unsuccessfully gotten out of bed for a third time because, by this time, he was awakening and I wanted to avoid seeing him. I sense that he was something of a ruffian and recall his giving me a mean look.

September 13, 1994

Failed to record several dreams over the past few days and, unfortunately, can’t recall any except one. This was a bizarre dream to say the worse, [inadvertently wrote “worse” while intending to write “least”] although it was in keeping with my recent dream involving a dog of a few days ago which included a laughing dog (who still looked like a dog, but, perhaps, had some human qualities about it other than its laughing face. I suspect now that it was a female dog. The highlight of this dream was as follows:

I remember entering a beautiful wooded landscape with this male companion who I know nothing about. Coming from this landscape into a residential section, we saw a large chained dog up ahead of us. I believe it was a large, slender, and beautifully proportioned boxer. I commented to this companion that we (or he) had better watch out for this animal. Instead of heeding my warning, however, he ran toward the dog, yelling out loud to show it that he was frightened [intended to say “not” frightened]. I remember seeing the dog side-step somewhat as he ran a little ways past it. I thought that now the dog would surely seize the opportunity to turn around and attack; but instead, he got up on its hind legs and began licking his face. Just as suddenly, the dog’s face turned into the face of a woman; not a beautiful woman, but of average looks I would say. A few minutes later, the dog walked over to me (still on its hind legs) and asked me to kiss “her.” I felt awkward at first, but did so anyone. She proceeded to tell me that she wanted to pass for a human just for a day, or even for a few hours. I vaguely recall looking her over and noticing that her two breast still looked like dog nipples, but then considered that she could cover up this portion of her body with a coat which she may have already been wearing. I surmised that the rest of her body was still in dog form. I can’t recall anything else happening except that I began to think that she might be able to pull it off, at least for a few hours time, before tiring of standing on her hind legs. Unfortunately, I just as suddenly realized that her “gait” would give her away. With her relatively short legs, her waddle would surely be noticed. The dream ended.

September 14, 1994

Moderate recall of a dream I had last night. Highlight was a male figure who had stopped his car directly in the right lane of a road while a large dead animal carcass lay in the other lane. He was sitting off to the shoulder in a chair. I came along and stopped my car to speak to him. I asked why he had to leave his car at this location knowing full well that the animal carcass in the adjacent lane would block any oncoming traffic from either direction. There were pieces of luggage strewn on the road, and it seemed as though he had some sort of mishap but simply was not moving to correct it. The next thing that I remember was a car coming from the opposite direction and stopping in front of the animal carcass. I believe that there were four individuals in it. I began moving luggage around to clear a path for them, all the while this other individual remained seated in his chair. I vaguely recall that Mike Knaus (a friend of mine) may have been standing alongside him, but can’t be sure as to whether Mike had been in my car to begin with, or in his. I sensed that he had been with me, but in some way, for whatever reason, had been seemingly won over to this other individual’s outlook. Neither seemed to care about the situation, and simply remained watching from the sidelines. The pieces of luggage I was moving around seemed to multiply as I kept trying to clear a path. I remember saying: “Can’t you guys at least walk over to that car and offer an apology?” But, of course, neither made a move to do anything of the kind. I had the definite feeling that this individual who I was chastising was in some way considered (by society) to be a “good person.” In any regard, my temper finally got the best of me and I began telling him just what kind of person he really was. I don’t remember the words I spoke, but the overall effect was one of exposing him as a phony. The dream ended.

It is not characteristic of me to “say my piece”; that is, to confront someone in so strong a manner. It would be more typical of me to have tried to circumvent the situation or to have approached the individual very cautiously with whatever message I wanted to get over to him. However, in this situation, I simply lost my temper and said what I really felt. It was kind of a release for me. It was also obvious that this individual’s feelings were not an obstacle as his actions (or lack of action) made it clear that he was intentionally causing this problem. Aside from this, he appeared as an older gentleman and I didn’t feel as though he was any kind of threat to me. So I must confess that it was relatively “safe” for me to blow up as I did.

On the other hand, I may have sensed that my actions were staving off the “real threat,” which remained in the waiting car. I seem to think that there were four young men in the car, and that their patience may have been running out. Perhaps my relative display of courage was prompted by my need to avoid this greater potential threat. If so, then the older man’s actions may have been a “set-up” whose purpose was to see (or get me to see) how I would react in such a situation. As the luggage multiplied, the danger grew, as I wasn’t making much head-way in clearing a path for them to drive through. It was then that I asked the old man to at least go over and apologize to those in the waiting car. It was only after he demonstrated his reluctance to do so that I finally blew up. Again, perhaps the blow-up was little more than a “demonstration” of my non-involvement in causing this problem. Perhaps I was not so much interested in revealing the older man’s antagonism, as I was with saving myself.

But why didn’t I merely approach the car myself and explain the situation for what it was? Why didn’t I simply find a way around this mess (by using the shoulder of the road, perhaps) and continue to wherever I was going? Why didn’t I aid the members of the other car in doing the same on their side of the road? And why was Mike siding with him?

One possibility is that the old man and Mike might both represent a catalyst to prodding me to face my worst fears. Mike has indicated to me (many times) his belief that an individual most probably will never be able to get to the heart of his psychological difficulty without help. His view has been that I have gone as far as I can go intellectually or conceptually, but now require the aid of a professional to locate the remaining blockages. Aside from this, he feels that I need to “re-live” the emotional aspects of it all and, here, again, a professional therapist might be able to assist me in covering this last piece of ground. I began coming to this same conclusion several days ago and, in fact, have begun to take steps to find a “proper” therapist. Only this said, why this dream now? Why prod me when I’m already taking steps? Why utilize a dream which obviously portrays the old man as purposefully antagonistic and in the wrong? Maybe because it was all a set-up, the waiting car as well as the old man’s evil deed. Maybe there never was a threat from the waiting car but that they were all part of the scam. But why? To get me to see that I am afraid of being harmed–that I fear the worse from humanity? But I know this already! I carry numerous memories of such “cowardly” responses. I don’t need to be reminded of this.

Could this dream scenario be depicting the manner in which I become embroiled in a situation which was not even mine to begin with. As it was, I seemed to be in the middle of it all; as though it was my luggage which was strewn all over the road; as though it was my responsibility to pick it up. As it was, “I” seemed to be in danger, if there was any danger–and not the old man! How did this turn of events come about?

Well, I initially saw something which I felt was wrong: an auto sitting in a lane blocking traffic. I felt that it could have been moved to the shoulder of the road or moved ahead ten or twenty more feet in order to make room for oncoming traffic to go around both it and the carcass. I saw, in other words, a “stupid” situation on the one hand, and a potentially “dangerous” situation on the other. By not being stupid, one could have avoided the danger. [And at this moment, while writing this last sentence, a coupling of “stupidity” with “danger” raised an intuitive corollary consisting of “intelligence” and “avoidance of danger.” Perhaps my striving for knowledge is, and has all along been fear-based! Perhaps this is what my dream intended to show me.

But it wasn’t my “stupid situation.” Why did I see fit to stop and try to correct it? Why did I risk being embroiled in someone else’s confusion or antagonistic bent? Well, it may have begun by my having been personally antagonized in the beginning. But why, after seeing what this person’s attitude was all about, did I try to correct it? Why help someone who obviously does not want to be helped? It reminds me of my “permission dream” (9/1/94) of several nights ago. I was strongly chastised for doing something to my mother-in-law’s property which I felt was right, proper, beneficial, etc., only without first asking her permission. [It suddenly occurred to me that my “wife” could also be considered my mother-in-law’s property, and I wonder if this had anything to do with that dream’s overall purpose and meaning. But “stick to the dream,” Jung said, “stick to the dream!”]

If it’s possible that my striving for knowledge could in fact be “fear-based,” then might it also be possible that my striving for “morality” or “social justice” may also be fear-based. After all, I do want the world to be a safer place: I do want individuals to love and respect one another, rather than try to gain advantage, or promote violence for any other reason. As my “Journey’s End” said of me: I want to “tame” the entire world. [I’m beginning to feel a little foolish, if not childish, at this point.]

I have a vague recollection that the old man was half apologetic at first and may have begun himself to pick some of the things off the road. Perhaps I only chipped in to help initially, but later discovered that I was well into it (in fact, overwhelmed by the multiplying effect of the luggage) while he had totally withdrawn to the side of the road. In other words, I believe that I may have been duped! But, why luggage? What significance could luggage have in this dream? I vaguely recall the possibility that some of this luggage was in fact my own, but I can’t be certain of this. It seems like some of the bags were canvass “duffel bags” of various sizes. My luggage–my burden to carry–my responsibility to get out of my own way. Did I make it “my luggage” as soon as I made it “my responsibility” to correct this situation? Is this what the dream is saying? The more responsibility I took on, the more pieces of luggage appeared. I was creating my own dilemma! I was making the situation much more intolerable (and dangerous) than it had been initially! I, and not the old man, was now serving as a catalyst. The problem had by now become my own. The dream, then, served to expose the manner in which my “unasked for” involvement serves only to make matters worse, not only for myself, but for others as well. When I realized that I was the focal point of what was fast becoming a dangerous situation, meaning that it would be me, rather than the old man, who these guys would most probably come after, I went after the old man myself! In effect, I was trying to put the blame where I felt it belonged–at its source.

But, why not? What is this dream really saying about my involvement? That I wasn’t justified in criticizing the old man?–not justified in wanting him to correct the situation? Wasn’t I, after all, acting responsibly? Perhaps, but what about me? Was I acting responsibly toward myself? When I saw what the old man was up to, why did I take it upon myself to correct the situation? But why not? Again, aren’t I right in wanting to correct a potential hazard for the benefit of others, if not for myself? So what if it became my luggage to bear; couldn’t this still have served to ameliorate the situation? Yes, but I didn’t ameliorate the situation; I made it worse. Not only did I not find a workable resolution to the situation, but, again, I sought to point a finger at the old man in order to save myself! If I was going to shoulder responsibility for his actions, why, then, didn’t I shoulder it!

So now I find myself pretending to be one of society’s hero’s “brave and strong,” but, in fact, more likely to drop my charade and run whenever the going gets tough. It seems that the message my dream is conveying is simply that it is “I,” and not the old man, who is the real “phony”; that, either I should drop the charade or pick up the gauntlet.

September 16, 1994

Burning Bridges

It seems that every time I come up against some obstacle, more often than not, representing some failed attempt at meeting a challenge, I run as quickly as I can from the situation, never to return. Last week, at a Jungian meeting, I was supposed to present an overview of Jung’s psychological type descriptions and explain the results of the Myers-Briggs Indicator to the group. (I had administered this during the previous months meeting and had peaked everyone’s interest.) I had hoped that we would be able to read directly from the text and be able to discuss it as we went. In this way, I felt, everyone would have an opportunity to clarify concepts which might prove difficult. As it was, however, we barely found time to begin our reading at the previous month’s meeting and so I suggested that we abandon my idea in favor of my simply going over the material. Well, when I arrived at the meeting, our host had arranged pillows in a circle for us to sit on instead of our customary table and chairs. She explained that there was new “energy” in the group and that she wanted to celebrate it. So she poured us each a glass of water out of a pitcher and passed the cups around to the membership. Next, each of us was asked to explain what we wanted to get out of the club, and then poured our water back into the pitcher. After the last person was through, each of us poured our own glass of water (from the symbolically mixed pitcher of water) and drank it.

While this was going on, I couldn’t help but feel that what I was witnessing was an attempt by our hostess (whose business location the club was allowed to use) to control the direction of the group. In fact, the new “energy” she was talking about was mainly due to my entry into the group and the fact that my criticisms and challenges to member interpretations of Jung, or to Jung’s thoughts themselves, were found to be upsetting to several members, although it did generate some lively discussions. Be that as it may, I tried to bring home the point that many of our differences were differences in personality types, and that it would be very worthwhile if we would explore these issues. It was a hard sell, to say the least, and I got the definite impression that the membership was not really there to explore personal differences, or to come closer to one another, but only there to present their own learning of Jung to others, or simply to share a couple of hours on a given topic once a month. It also occurred to me that our hostess may be using the club to find new clients for her “Healing Concepts” business. For this reason, she may not want the club to act as a self-exploratory, support, or therapeutic means for dealing with Jungian concepts. After all, this was her business, and some of us were in fact seeing her.

I told the group that I was going to cover the material in a very informal fashion, and began by explaining some background information about type theory and in particular, some factors regarding the limitations of the Myers-Briggs Indicator. I had written some comments on each of their assessments regarding potential explanations of their individual scoring, and proceeded to explain (in general terms) what they meant. However, my credibility to have done so was immediately attacked (or so it seemed to me) by one of the main “controllers” of the group, who had previously professed to be our hostess’s “alter ego” (which she undoubtedly was) and who also referred to herself as a “spiritual counselor.” Nonetheless, I found her controlling nature to be very antagonistic since I always had to be on my guard around her. It seemed obvious to me that her intent was to disrupt, rather than aid me in accomplishing my task. Perhaps she felt that she was doing no more and no less than what I had done to other members of the group at different times, and that this was my payback. But I suspect that it was more than this, since I observed her need to “be on top” with others as well.

To make a long story short, I was not able to present the material in an informal fashion, and was not organized enough to present it in a highly structured fashion (which, admittedly, is always a difficult thing for me to do anyway). But I never told the group that I “understood” Jung’s model regarding type theory and classifications–only that I had spent a lot of time studying it and considered it important enough to want to explore it with others. Well, my presentation proved to be a disaster, and my antagonist appeared altogether happy that it was. She had undoubtedly accomplished her goal.

What is most important about this situation is not what I did, but what I failed to do. I could have focused on meeting my attacker’s challenge, but, instead, I tried to remain some semblance of decorum. After all, I had previously been criticized for being “too strong,” and also for being a “pushover” whenever I fail to defend myself from an attack. It appears that I can “dish it out”–but “can’t take it”; that when I’m on the receiving end, I simply want to fold my cards and go home. Maybe it’s the case that so long as my criticism is valid and I am winning the point, everything is okay; but as soon as someone proves able to “invalidate” them, I tend to give up the struggle and wimp. Let’s face it, I’m brazen when I think I’m going to win, but “thin-skinned,” when I see that I am losing my point. No wonder I hate aggression and confrontation when it comes to me, rather than the other way round. I’m forced to defend myself.

When I left the meeting, it was obvious that I was disturbed over what had happened. Feeling humiliated, all that I wanted to do was to get out of there and never go back. I felt terrible on the way home; cowardly, in fact. What took place? What always takes place? Why do I always get into these humiliating situation and wind up running from them, burning more bridges behind me. Needless, to say, these situations are too numerous to mention. In any regard, I tried to rationalize this circumstance by re-thinking all of the above considerations which I have already mentioned. But, while each seemed rational and possibly true, still, I knew that there was something more to it. And it was that “something more” that I was trying to get at–am now trying to get at.

About a year ago, I attended an informational meeting at the Unitarian church in Rochester. I wanted to know more about it and considered that I might find some fellowship there. I recall offering some “opinions” at my first meeting, and maybe even having made a few disconcerting “philosophical” remarks. It seemed like it was a totally unstructured organization which attracted every type individual or special interest group to its doors simply because it was. At a second informational meeting on the following week, I sat in a circle with both new and existing members and proceeded to talk about our concerns. Again, my remarks must have appeared as a challenge, because one of the members proceeded to outline the type of member the church would not welcome, and did so in a very logical, consistent, and highly forceful manner. When he finished, it was obvious that he was set to do battle with me and was waiting for my response. I said nothing, and he immediately relaxed his posture. No one else said a word and I gathered from this that the others were either in agreement with what he had said, or else were to scared to respond. After the meeting was over, I got up from my chair, and noticing that no one was any too eager to talk to me, milled around the back of the room looking at materials on the back board, and finally making an exit out of there. Again, I had been humiliated and had refused to defend whatever points I had tried to make.

I can’t help but wonder if there might not be a parallel with my inability to come to closure or to complete something. For example, had I been better prepared to offer the Jungian members a well-organized presentation, I might have been able to avoid a great deal of the criticism I was forced to suffer. It was the lulls and gaps in my totally unstructured presentation that allowed different individuals to look to other members for clarification. There was a point where the bantering back and forth got so bad (and I felt, confusing) that I nearly shouted out an explanation of what Jung’s theory was all about. This they liked. I was forceful, precise, and structured–only it didn’t last very long. It couldn’t, because I was essentially expressing a single intuition and nothing more. Real thinking is for me an internal activity and I simply cannot think “on the fly” as with intuition. Coherence, sequence, organization, etc., must result from reflected thought, and it was obvious that I had not come to this meeting prepared. But, then, I had envisioned a general discussion with myself acting as a resource person. What I discovered, however, was that very few, if any, of the group, knew very much about this topic. There was a great amount of confusion which I had not expected to find. But, here again, am I rationalizing my lack of preparation or my inability to put my best foot forward and present something in as clear and precise a manner as I am capable of? Is this simply another example of cowardice? I suspect that it is.

So the question remains: Why do I feel the compulsion to want to criticize someone, or some situation, without also having the gumption or wherewithal to defend the same? Why, in fact, do I seem to sabotage myself in this way. My dream of several nights ago (the auto blocking traffic dream) demonstrated this very thing. I first criticized the old man for blocking traffic; then I took it upon myself to correct the situation when he apparently was not willing; but then failed to follow through when I saw that I was in danger. Instead, I tried to pass the blame for the situation back to its source. In a similar way, then, I might be criticizing others (which would be tantamount to taking responsibility for “correcting” their views), only to drop the responsibility should the going get rough; that is, should I be in danger of losing my point. Of course, this is not to say that I should insist on arguing a point which has no substance in fact. Rather, it suggests that I am not presenting my point in its best or most favorable light. It suggests that I often shoot almost aimlessly when a more thorough-going presentation would have been possible.

This last remark reminds me of still another dream of several years ago. In this dream, I chose not to pitch my tent within the midst of other tents, but, instead, chose to place it at the very edge of the campground. I felt that this location could better serve me should I wish to be promiscuous, but knew that I was risking some danger of attack from the rear. A bear, for example, might come into my tent. As it was, I heard noises outside, got frightened, and began shooting a shotgun through the tent while rotating myself in a circle. I next found myself being chased by a tribe of primitive natives and considered that if I dropped my gun, they would probably stop chasing me. Needless to say, I sought an advantage in this dream, but failed to bear the responsibility for choosing it. Instead, I chose the cowardly way out and simply began shooting at something which frightened me, even though I couldn’t be certain as to what or whom I was shooting! As it was, I lacked the nerve to venture outside the tent–to face the problem in an appropriate and responsible manner. More bridges burned.

September 19, 1994

Honoring the Father

I visited my 92 year old father yesterday with my wife Jane and daughter Monica. When we arrived (at about 11:00 a.m.), we found him sunken in his usual chair, only looking very frail. It was obvious that his cancer is wearing him out. The TV was blaring, which told us that he hadn’t put in his hearing aid. We said our hello’s and Jane immediately went about mending the situation as only she can do. She lowered the TV, got him his hearing aid, and then proceeded to the kitchen to get him a breakfast of coffee and peeled grapefruit. He told us that he had just gotten out of bed shortly before we arrived, which was his usual time. His routine is generally to sleep on and off during the day, and then lay awake half the night. At least, this is what he claimed. When we entered the house, I noticed some new pictures (actually remakes of old ones) laying on the dining room table. Jane brought these out to me at the same time as she served my father his breakfast on a tray. While I helped him to get better situated in his chair, Jane placed his tray on a larger TV tray and put this in front of him. With pictures in hand, I pulled up a cassock to sit on, and began inquiring as to “who was who?” We had talked earlier of the need to get clear on such information before my father dies, and, as was expected, not only did he gladly indulge us, but he offered some pretty interesting anecdotes along the way. One, in particular, he said, had never been mentioned before. Of course, this was precisely the kind of information I was looking for.

While he “interpreted” the pictures, I could hear Monica busying herself in the kitchen. Since her return from France several weeks ago, my “feminist” has been showing definite signs of domestication. She had spent the better part of a year at the home of her boyfriend’s “parents,” and, apparently, his mother must have made an impression on her. At any rate, since her return home, she’s been busy straightening and organizing cabinets and closets, while researching and deciding upon a Massage Therapy school to attend. She’s been tying up loose ends in general, and is definitely on top of her life, and proud of the fact. And now she was doing dishes and setting the table at her grandfather’s house–all without being asked.

After about an hour’s time, my father indicated that he was tired and wanted to nap. Jane and Monica decided to walk to my brother Leonard’s house, and I decided to continue reading a book I had brought from home. When my father awoke a couple of hours later, I remembered Jane’s reminder to me that I was supposed to encourage and help him to take a bath–sister Mary’s orders. As it was, he had been avoiding this situation for the past two weeks out of a fear of falling. You could sense the anxiety and sheer helplessness in his voice the first time we reminded him of what he had to do; as if to say to us: “What can I do if I can’t do it!” As it was, he kept saying “I don’t know if I can do it,” and then proceeded to change the subject. Although his mind is as sharp as ever, his frailty has by this time made it almost impossible to stand for more than a few minutes. And even though he now has a walker to supplement his cane, as well as a plastic chair set inside the tub, still, the sheer energy requirement of getting into and out of a tub, soaping oneself, bending, turning, and rinsing–all while trying to keep ones balance–seemed all but impossible in his condition. While the severity of this situation was beginning to take hold of me, I knew that he wasn’t about to suffer the humiliation of having to be bathed by his youngest son; perhaps his least favorite at that.

It was Jane that finally convinced him to go ahead with the shower, just as she continually prodded me to assist him. And so I agreed to help him as far as he would permit, and set about making the necessary preparations. Upon entering the bathroom, he instructed me to move the hamper near to his point of entry into the tub, and to put a double-folded towel on floor to serve as a bath mat. (A bath towel was already hung on the outside of the shower door.) Next, I was instructed to go into the kitchen and return with two linen towels. One, I was told, had to be placed on the back of the white plastic chair in the tub, and the other on its seat. After accomplishing this, I was then told to get two wash cloths out of a vanity drawer and to hang them on the inside of the glass shower door, within reach of the chair. I noticed a plastic basin already in the tub which I surmised he used this for washing his feet. Finally, he went for a soap tray, containing three small pieces of soap, and instructed me to place the tray on the front ledge of the tub where it could also be reached by leaning forward. Beginning now to assess the necessity for all of this preparation, my father’s worse fears were beginning to take shape in my own mind. How would he be able to manage all of this when he could hardly move?

When he was ready to meet the challenge, he removed the top of his pajama’s and instructed me to leave the room, but to remain close by. I left the bathroom door open about six inches and remained outside the room. After a time, he managed to drop his pajama bottoms and step out of them. I could see him leaning over the tub trying to prepare the water temperature before entering and turning on the shower head. I considered how easily a “slip up” in the shower could cost him a potential burn. When he had gotten the temperature right, he proceeded to get into the tub while holding tightly to the sliding shower doors. Sliding shower doors aren’t all that stable and I considered the possibility of their sliding away from him. As he was making these moves, I kept talking to him through the door, trying to encourage him, while offering him assistance if he wanted it. Only now he was trying to sit down in his chair, and I could see that he was going to have trouble. Since he had the shower doors closed by this time, I considered that it wouldn’t be too embarrassing if I were to open the rear shower door and assist him from behind. I did so. While he accepted my help, he was obviously embarrassed and frustrated over the situation.

Without going into the details, suffice it to say that one step led to another, and it wasn’t long before I went from soaping up wash cloths for his use, to scrubbing him myself; that is, all but his most private parts. He took care of his rear and his “center” as he put it. By this time, I was at the foot of the tub washing his swollen feet and scrubbing between his toes. I would never have believed that I would ever be in such a position, but here I was, and it seemed as natural as it was necessary. It took about an hour before he was finally satisfied that he was clean enough. He kept decrying the fact that he could still rub his arms and legs and “feel” tiny granules which he considered to be dirt or, perhaps, balled-up flaky skin as well. It was pathetic to see him rubbing and scrubbing so hard, as though he were trying to rub his skin entirely off his body. I felt, instinctively, that it was the humiliation of it all that he was trying to rub off; not just the current situation, but the humiliation of old age itself.

When he was finally convinced that he was clean enough, I helped him out of the tub, and dried and dressed him back into pajama’s and robe. We then went into the kitchen and sat down to eat dinner. My sister Mary had left us with sauce, pork, and meatballs for us to re-heat, and Jane had made a nice salad. We poured ourselves a glass of wine and proceeded to enjoy our meal. Pa was obviously feeling much better and had started to talk about Galileo recanting his theories to the church fathers, and how one of his contemporaries had not been so fortunate. Neither of us could remember this other individual’s name although it remained on the tip of my tongue throughout dinner.

Following dinner, I sneaked into the living room to watch “60 Minutes” while my father remained in the kitchen. Before long, I could hear him playing some sort of game with both Jane and Monica. They were amazed and couldn’t figure out how he could always win. I told them that it wasn’t a game–but a trick. My father was notorious for knowing “formula tricks,” as I prefer to call them, in which the participant believes he is playing a game of skill, when there is no chance whatever of his winning. At any rate, they had a good time. It wasn’t long before it was nine o’clock, however, and we felt that we should go. Knowing this, my father began making stalling moves of one kind or another. These, of course, were intended to keep us there longer. It is always difficult to leave him alone for the night, even though my brother Augie lives in an apartment up stairs. The problem is that he doesn’t get home until one o’clock in the morning, and I don’t know if he checks in on Pa or not. Be that as it may, we finally said our good-byes, but, before leaving the room, my father looked up at me and simply said “thank you.” It was a sincere and heartfelt “thank you” and it was enough.

Later that night, I awoke from a dream which depicted my situation as one in which I was being taken advantage of by a restaurant. Apparently, Jane had made two dinner reservations which we couldn’t keep, only the restaurant was still charging us for the dinners. I was trying to get our money back and was being side-stepped by one person or another every step of the way. I remember laying there thinking about this dream and wondering why, with all that had gone on yesterday, I had to dream this. Why wasn’t my unconscious dealing with my father? Anyway, one thought led to another while I continued to think about my father’s precarious situation until, finally, I found myself thinking in terms of it being an “honor” or “sacred duty” that I care for my father until his death. It seemed more and more appropriate that I, as his youngest son, be charged with this responsibility, and I could almost feel my mother’s presence encouraging me to do so. The more I thought, the more symbolic my thinking became. Who else ought to end the cycle of birth and death if not the youngest son?

I continued thinking in this vein, considering just how far this “sacred duty” would have to extend, and what its sacred purpose was all about. It seemed necessary that I should bear the humility which old age had forced upon him–that I should shield and protect his dignity in a manner befitting himself. It would not be my place to “correct” his visions, standpoints, or sins of omission. No, not even those which were seemingly committed against me. Of course, there were no such sins in reality, painful though some of the consequences of his behavior have been. No, such consequences must also be carried as my own burden. For as I have come to realize, every criticism my father directed against me, or against one or the other of my brothers and sisters, was a criticism directed against himself. Neither is it my place to remind him of this.

September 27, 1994

The Night Before My First Therapy Session

Vague elements of a dream remembered only. I remember something about covering four items with someone (perhaps a therapist since this is what was on my mind prior to going to sleep). I remember having to fix something and finding that a very young child was interfering by entering the room. I recall picking the child up and throwing it across the room. I recall feeling concern for the child’s welfare, however, but noticed that he landed safely on his back. I recall hearing a voice yelling “foul play!”, (or some other like term used in football) although I can’t be certain that it occurred in this same sequence. It may have preceded the incident with the child. I recall being in a building with a boyhood friend (I believe it was Tony Rosone) and noticing (for the first time) that there was a restaurant and bar in this same building. I asked Tony if he would like to stop in for a drink, but he declined saying that he had to get (home?) or back to someplace or another. I vaguely remember that he was caring for children. When we walked outdoors, we found that it had snowed and that my car (along with a whole row of others) had been hauled away. I was angry for the fact that there were no signs prohibiting parking.

October 8, 1994

Well, I’ve finally decided to enter therapy and have had two sessions to date. Unfortunately, thus far, I am not very optimistic about any of it. My therapist is 62 years of age and looks like Pat Paulson. I pulled his name out of the telephone book based upon his declared association with Jungian analysis and humanistic psychology, and also for the fact that he advertised his skill as a dream analyst. Upon calling to make an appointment, he asked if I was calling because of his association with Jungian psychology, and thinking that he was concerned that I might be more interested in the current popularity of Jungian topics than in the therapy itself, I answered “No.” As it turns out, my intuition erred since I discovered at our first session that it was his wife, rather than himself, who was the “Jungian.” Nevertheless, I considered that it might not be a loss if I were to allow a more conservative, University of Chicago graduate (a hotbed of conservative thinking I felt, and one of the seats of “logical positivism” in the earlier part of this century) to have a go at it. No doubt, he is probably a Freudian through and through, and this will probably mean a “doctor-patient” relationship rather than an analytical one in the Jungian sense. At any rate, since I was able to give him a 100 page manuscript containing personal writing and thirty or forty dream episodes written over the last five years, I feel that any psychologist, worthy of the name, should be able to easily identify my complexes from such a wealth of material. I would have thought that it would have taken thirty or more sessions simply to get to the same point I felt I was beginning with. But maybe I’m mistaken about this.

As it was, we spent the first session trying to get comfortable with one another. To begin with, I was bothered by the fact that no one was there to answer the door at ten minutes before my appointment, and that there obviously wasn’t a waiting room open to me. I resisted the urge to leave on that account alone, but decided to sit in the car until exactly 11:00. (It occurs to me that this might be a technique to discover just how badly a client wants therapy, but then, maybe it’s no more than a stringent way of holding to a one hour time limit.) Nevertheless, I told myself that since his office was in his home, he needed to safeguard the privacy of other clients and, for that reason, couldn’t have anyone sitting outside the door of the room where he practiced therapy. (But I still could not help but feel that this was a rather rude way of beginning a “therapeutic” relationship.) And when he finally did answer the door, I discovered that there wasn’t another client who was leaving, and, again, couldn’t help but feel that I was being “trained” or “tested,” rather than apprised of his unspoken rule: namely, that I ought not arrive until the exact time of my appointment. But why not simply explain this? Why play these silly games?

As I said, the first session was rather cumbersome. His figure struck me as fragile, while the room we were in seemed old and somewhat worn. My imagination began to soar as I tried to fit the various pieces together. I felt that I might be placing myself in the hands of someone “feeble”–perhaps a “has-been” in psychological circles, someone who might be “bluffing” as a therapist, “in over his head” or lacking sufficient “intelligence” to really get into therapy. Worse, maybe he is suffering from “alcoholism” or “depression” since his mood and overall demeanor seemed so somber and nondescript. In short, I sensed “weakness”!

Although I was very uncomfortable, I tried to relate some of these feelings to him and tried to find out more about his own background, which he seemed willing to elaborate upon. I also made note of the fact that he reminded me of someone that I couldn’t quite place. He probed around a bit, allowing me time to remember who this person was, but I couldn’t. When I said: “Surely someone must have told you this at one time or another.” He then suggested that it might be Pat Paulson. Yes, Pat Paulson it was. And why would this bother me?, he asked. Well, I said: “Would you want to place yourself in the hands of Pat Paulson?” He then suggested that I was “projecting” Pat Paulson (or something about Pat Paulson) upon him and that I needed to look for the same within myself. I felt that he was using the concept of projection unfairly and simply avoiding the fact of his resemblance. On the other hand, since I must confess that it is only a resemblance, and a resemblance that does in fact bother me, then I guess that I might in fact be projecting something upon him–my attitude regarding a Pat Paulson type in the role of a therapist.

But, then, who wouldn’t feel uncomfortable having Pat Paulson for a therapist? Thinking about this now, it occurs to me that Pat Paulson, although a successful comedian, made his living by “feigning seriousness.” He made his living by being a “fake,” in other words. Perhaps this was the source and nature of the projection. From a resemblance to Pat Paulson, I was seeing in my therapist the figure of an unqualified “faker” who might be preparing to take me for a ten to twenty session “ride” and simply spit me out at the other end more confused than when I began. I have been working too long and too hard trying to understand myself to allow this to happen. And it was only because I seem unable to bring myself the “rest of the way home” that I decided upon therapy in the first place. Since I’m financially strapped, and having to borrow money in order to pay for my share of the cost, I damn well want every session to count! I want someone who will not merely work with me, but work through me toward definite ends. Not that I expect my life’s problems to disappear–only those roadblocks which have prevented me from moving on. Now I already mentioned to him that I felt it was my passive nature; that is, my overall inability to decide and act, that appears to be my most damaging characteristic. It is this persistent failure to decide and act that has pretty much “subjected” me to the hands of fate. Surely he would see this for himself in my writing. What better place to start?

At our first session, I told him about a dream I had from the night before. (He asked me to try to remember my dream from the night preceding therapy. He felt that it would indicate how I was going to react in therapy). However, I only remembered a few elements of the dream, but the gist of it was that I was in a room doing my work. A small child (infant) crawled into the room and I felt that it was disturbing me. I picked it up and tossed it across the room. It landed on its back but was okay. I remember feeling somewhat concerned about whether it was hurt or not. In any regard, I believe it was during our second session that my therapist mentioned that the child might represent new knowledge coming to me (his idea or did he get this from his wife?) and that I was going to resist it–that is, resist therapy. I’m somewhat disappointed by this observation since I feel adamant about wanting to face myself and my situation for whatever it may turn out to be. I have a lifetime of relative suffering and self-denial propelling me on, and I feel strong enough to want to proceed. But I must first trust, have confidence in, and be absolutely comfortable with the person I’ll be working with, and this is still an open question. As it was, I went against all of the rules describing how to go about interviewing and finding an appropriate therapist, and simply chose one and settled in for the ride–and this despite my many reservations. Again, this may be a primary example of my passive (let nature take its course) disposition. Rather than act on my present feelings (face the facts), I would rather imagine and hope for the best. It is easiest in the short-term and may prove to be right.

Although he acknowledged my writing and said that he had read some of it, he more or less laid it aside, suggesting that there were similar themes running through the whole of it which, of course, is true. Nevertheless, we began by focusing upon a first (and I felt, major) dream which followed a long poem I had written six months earlier. This poem, “Journey’s End” pretty much summed up my personal psychology and dilemma up to that point. Thus, I felt that this first dream was of major importance since a whole series of them followed from that point on. He must have felt the same way since we proceeded to analyze this dream as a starting point for therapy. Again, even though I felt that this dream was highly significant, I still could not help but feel that if he had really read my material, he would have had a much larger and more in-depth perspective which could offer any number of entry points upon which to embark. As it was, however, he only provided me with two or three “potential” meanings regarding two or three elements of this single dream.

While I found one observation to be interesting, I felt the others to be rather flimsy. With all of the richness of this dream’s many elements, I couldn’t help but think that he was overlooking the obvious in favor of concentrating on what I felt were rather nebulous possibilities. In any regard, he must have found my attitude upsetting since he made a point of telling me that he knew more about therapy than I did, and that I should think more about his observations in this dream in preparation for our third session. I, on the other hand, left his office feeling that it was taking far too much time to get so few insights. In any regard, I felt that I would wait to see what might be forthcoming in our third session and honestly hoped that my fears and suspicions would prove to be false. So in response to his request for my thinking and writing further on this dream, I will present the dream elements in its entirety as well as my personal thoughts regarding it.

Went to a baseball game to be with other family members (brothers and sisters) in a section reserved for my family. [This is an unusual setting since I never attend baseball games and am not especially interested in doing so]

1. Suggests going against my feelings out of an obligation felt for family. Going to the game for their (or something else’s) benefit. Felt compelled to be there.

Man in the ticket booth refused to sell me a ticket and, instead, directed me to purchase my ticket from a lady who was standing inside (just as an usher would ready to collect tickets). She tried to cheat me out of money.

1. Feeling that I don’t really belong or have the right to be here. I’m not a baseball fan and feel somewhat uncomfortable being here. I’m not one of the “collective” baseball fans–“one of the guys”–and feel somewhat uncomfortable by this. On the other hand, I feel somewhat like a phony for maintaining this attitude; that the attitude itself may be phony. I may be “feigning” disinterest in being there (in being a part of the “collective”) because I simply want to be set apart from everyone else. Thus, I may need some excuse or another to protect me from the fact that I don’t, or can’t easily fit into the “collective,” even though I may wish it. The response to this attitude is that I am being punished. Might this be an “anti-male” attitude? Resulting from too strong a preoccupation with the feminine side of myself? Do I find “male attitudes” to be childish? Am I seeing the male world through the eyes of a female? (mother and sisters?). I am shocked that the female ticket-taker tries to cheat me. That is not what women are supposed to do. Women are supposed to be loving and honest. They have been unfairly subjected to the stupid and generally childish whims of men. Men are wrong and must be made to atone for their sins against women. I will be their champion! But why, then, would a woman cheat someone who has championed women’s causes all his life?

I proceeded to find my way through the maze of rooms underneath the grandstand while refusing help from several “males” who wanted to assist me in finding my seat. I told them that I could find my own seat and that I only needed help in locating the door leading to the field. After a great deal of frustration from one male figure after another, someone finally pointed to the door.

1. I generally feel it demeaning to have to accept help for something I am capable of handling myself. I find it demeaning to be told something which I feel I already know. (I want such persons to know that I know–that I’m not stupid!). I don’t need help. I can see my seat and where I need to go through the windows of these rooms. I only need to be shown the “door”! Do this for me and I’ll find the rest of the way myself. But why the obstacles? Why isn’t the door leading to the field easily accessible to me? Why subject me to this maze of rooms and the subsequent harassment of men who are willing to show me to my seat, but reluctant to show me the door? Why are they giving me a hard time? I remember one of them “cockily” laying across a window sill. I could also see (through this same window) my sister Mary sitting across the field and knew exactly where I needed to go. Is my hidden or suppressed masculine standpoint trying to warn me that I must accept its help?

Upon exiting the underneath of the stadium I was still on the opposite side of the field. Again, I could see across the field to where I needed to go. My sister Mary was the only family member seated in our reserved section which was the upper right corner of the bleachers. She looked solemn and alone.

1. Why was Mary the only one there? Where were the other members of my family? Mary is my next to oldest sister and through sheer brashness and intimidation, has pretty much ruled the roost in our family. She claims to love the idea of family, but her sharp tongue and insatiable need to be central to it, alienated everyone around her. On the other hand, her intelligence and sheer force of character is most often relied upon by all members of the family. Does Mary represent an (inferior feeling) feminine type? Or does she represent that feminine strength to which I have succumbed over the years? Is my wishing to cross the field representative of my crossing over to my “inferior feeling” side in the Jungian sense? Does Mary represent inferior feeling at its worse? Or might she represent a powerful, controlling force within my personality which I do not especially wish to reach? A suppressed, highly structured side of myself? Again, am I being warned that I must accept and carry the masculine viewpoint if I am going to succeed in crossing over?

Instead of walking around the field on the track which encompassed it (it reminded me of a high school field with permanent goal posts for football games) I, instead found myself two or three hundred yards outside of the park (still on the same side as I was when I exited from the stadium) but out in a field full of trees and brush. I could see the ball field off in the distance. There was a small bridge crossing a creek and an old boat (my boat) which was tossing in a violent storm, although this storm was within the confines of a mere puddle or small pond of water. I felt that my boat would be an absolute wreck by the end of the game if I didn’t take care of it now.

1. Is my boat (my personality, being, etc.) too weak to allow my crossing over to my inferior feminine side? Must I prepare myself for this undertaking by first securing my personality? Am I being told that I must first do “work” prior to crossing over? That unless I do, I will meet with disastrous consequences?–that I may, in fact, come apart! I am out of the ball park and in the brush (in the “wild” so to speak). I am away from everyone (the “collective”) and am being made aware of a task which I must tend to. My boat (myself) is riding on turbulent waters and must be made safe. As it is, it is an old boat and may not be able to withstand the turbulence no matter what I do to secure it. But what is the nature of this “work” I must do?

The boat was located at the end of a small dock. It was shaped like an old tug boat (with a slightly longer cabin). It was very gray and extremely rickety. It was made of old wood and even had sticks (with bark still on them) holding up various parts of it. I remember a sort of canopy at the rear of the cabin being held up by forked sticks of this sort. It also had sails on it, and I felt that I needed to take these down in order for it to withstand the storm. On the wharf, seated on a small stool or tree trunk, sat a boyhood friend who was nicknamed “Bulldog” for his sheer size and strength. He was a star football player and generally a pretty nice guy liked by all. Joe was whistling and whittling on a stick with a knife. He neither looked up to see me, nor noticed anything whatever outside of what he was doing.

1. Why isn’t “Bulldog” paying any heed to what is going on? Why is my boat so rickety and old? Surely I can’t be in such a dilapidated condition, or can I? In taking down the sails, am I in a sense lowering “ego” expectations or the conscious standpoint? Or is my dream pointing out that this type boat ought not have sails at all! That raising sails on this rickety boat can only invite collapse. My therapist suggested to me that “Bulldog” may represent a “collective” image and that, perhaps, I will not be able to rely on the collective for assistance. I like this viewpoint and believe that it may be right on target. But might not “Bulldog” also stand in for my superior “thinking function” or, perhaps, the “unconscious Self”? Might this also be a warning that it will not come to my defense, or to the defense of my ego should it dare to elevate itself on so shabby a foundation?

Now I am standing in the doorway of the cabin looking out. I can see “Bulldog” still sitting there on the dock paying no heed to anything except what he is doing. Suddenly two men walk up the short gangplank leading from the dock to the boat and simply “walk over me” entering the boat. I held onto both sides of the doorway trying to hold them off. But, again, they simply, and quite effortlessly, walked over me without looking at me or uttering a word. It was as though I wasn’t there; as though I accounted for nothing whatever. I yelled to “Bulldog” for help (and he could have easily handled this situation) but he continued to whistle and whittle without so much as even looking in my direction. Like the two men, he was treating me as though I wasn’t there. I vaguely remember that the two men were slender types and approximately sixty years of age. I believe that they were dressed in casual shirts and pants and, if I could describe their overall appearance, looked like “rural types” or, more fairly perhaps, like men who were not above taking advantage of a situation. They had rather nondescript faces, or faces which looked a little haggard, if like anything at all.

1. The two men struck me as being two types who couldn’t ordinarily have gotten away with this forceful entry. They weren’t young and strong, but seemed like “cheap types” who were only able to take advantage of this situation because it was easy. Since “Bulldog” wasn’t coming to my rescue, and I seemed to be without any force of my own (why not?), it was a snap. Who could they represent? (Secondary and tertiary functions?) And why were they entering my boat or invading my mind or life? If “Bulldog” represents a “collective” image, couldn’t we say the same for the man in the ticket booth, the men under the stadium, and the men boarding my boat as well? Might they be representatives of the “male collective” which I may be said to have shunned throughout my life? Why, then, should they not retaliate or take advantage of me, much less come to my rescue? But maybe these men stand for something entirely different. One thing seems certain, however, and that is that I am being portrayed as weak, defenseless, and highly vulnerable. And because I am, I can expect to be invaded. But why should the two invaders interfere with my stabilizing the boat? What’s in it for them? How might they benefit from my failing to do so?

The two men walked through the S-shaped cabin and disappeared out of sight. I walked around the first corner in pursuit of them, only to see an arm brandishing an ax sticking out from around the next turn. I felt that my life was in danger and turned and ran from the boat. As I ran down the gangplank yelling once again to “Bulldog” for help, I turned my head and could see three very beautifully carved red mahogany doors standing on the rear deck of the boat. They simply stood there without support and were configured so that I could see a good portion of the face of each one of them. Kind of like a display. Again, “Bulldog” never looked up. I awoke from the dream.

1. In my dream, I definitely felt that the two men were thieves and that they were bent on stealing my things, whatever they might be. I could see no other reason for their coming on board. But what if they belonged on board; that is, are proper parts of my total personality which I have shunted or previously ignored? What if they are simply boarding to take their rightful place within the family of personalities that comprises me? What if brandishing the ax was only intended to scare me, rather than harm me? What if their intention was simply to point me in another direction. The three doors obviously made the largest impact upon me aside from the boat itself, and I felt, upon waking from the dream, that they either represented three “doors” (or paths) that I will have to follow, or else stood for my wife and two daughters. I sensed that I was being told not to worry myself about the garbage being stolen. These weren’t real treasures. Rather I needed to pay attention to what was really important–what I have pretty much ignored. I was also left with the definite impression that the thieves would not find these doors, or else would not be interested in them should they in fact see them. At any rate, I only slightly felt that the doors themselves might have been in danger of being stolen. But, then, it seemed that the thieves were either not interested or would never see them. I simply assumed that they were placed there for my benefit, and, so could be removed just as easily as they had appeared. As I said, they were meant for me! They were meant to inform me of something very important. They were meant to distract me from the attention I was wasting upon the two men, and also from my quest to get to the other side. But what did they mean?–do they mean for me now? What do the doors have to do with my stabilizing my personality?

Needless to say, I neither succeeded in securing the boat, nor succeeded in crossing the stream to take “my place” beside my sister Mary. Again, “crossing over” to get to the other side is significant in Jungian psychology. If Mary represents the “inferior feeling” side of my personality; that is, my third or fourth function, then I am being told that I am not ready to meet it. If the three doors represent the remaining three functions, then my dream is suggesting that I have a good deal of work to do; namely, that I may have to proceed sequentially from my superior function through my auxiliary and tertiary functions before I can expect to face the forth. But maybe this is simply “holistic” mumble-jumble which I may only wish to be the case.

I think that there are other elements worthy of exploration. In particular, I can’t help but be impacted by my feeling of “helplessness” on the one hand, and by the feeling that I “didn’t account for anything”; that I wasn’t even noticed at all in the later part of the dream. And, while I was noticed in the earlier part of the dream, I wasn’t treated with any degree of respect. In fact, I was made to feel like I “didn’t belong”–like I was in some way in foreign territory. And even though it might be fair to say that the ball park was foreign territory for me, still, I wanted to act out of my own self; that is, wanted to ignore the consequences (whatever they might be) of being a stranger in strange territory. I felt that I didn’t need to speak their language–attend to their customs–I could make do with my own preferences or standpoint.

Thus, going to a baseball game is tantamount to entering foreign territory–perhaps, the collective from the standpoint of an introvert–perhaps the masculine standpoint from the standpoint of a female. As a foreigner, I wasn’t allowed to purchase my ticket in the usual way, but was sent to a woman. This is significant as I believe that only a woman would want to admit me given my standpoint. If I have been acting from the feminine perspective–from the feminine standpoint–then no member of the “male collective” is going to admit me. If I want to get into the ball park, I am going to have to be admitted by someone who cares about my own perspective. But the woman tried to cheat me! Why? I get the feeling that I’m an easy target–a sort of pawn in the hands of women; perhaps not appreciated as much for my overall attitude toward life (that is, from the feminine perspective) as I am for being easily taken advantage of. I am angered by this notion and feel used. Instead of their appreciating my docility, my humanness and respect shown toward women, I am instead being treated like a weak, slobbering fool. It occurs to me how easily a love-starved male who has been trained to view the world from his mother and sister’s perspectives–that is, without a strong fatherly figure to stand in their stead–can be “used and despised” by those whom he presumably champions.

And when my male counterparts saw me struggling in the maze of stadium rooms and offered their assistance, I refused it! But I don’t think that my refusal had anything to do with feminine–masculine issues; it seemed to me to have more to do with ego. As I said, I simply don’t like being helped when I don’t need help–or being told something which I already know. But, then, what if these persons were female? Would I have responded in the same way? Not hardly! I would have welcomed their assistance (needed or not) and thoroughly enjoyed their company on the walk over. So it is a “male thing” after all! But what kind of thing is this? Why have I turned my back on the male perspective–on the “male collective”?

Obviously this comes from having grown up in a very maternal family. My father lost his father at age thirteen and my mother often mentioned how he used to hang on to his mother’s apron strings. They were both born in a small village in central Sicily and their marriage had been arranged. My mother was three years older than my father and was “sent for” to come to U.S. to marry him. Obviously she wasn’t all that happy with the situation. And, although every member of the family vied for my mother’s attention and respect (each one of us believing that he or she was “mama’s favorite,” and that she was something akin to the “virgin Mary”), my mother was no doubt making inroads shaping each of our attitudes. To make matters worse, my two oldest siblings are both female and had a great deal of influence in making family decisions. In short, both my father and mother (as well as the rest of us) relied heavily upon the maternal leadership offered by my two oldest sisters.

But why is my sister Mary seated alone in a section reserved for the whole family? Why a ball game? Why a “family” reservation? And what is it exactly that I am refusing help to find? What does my “seat” or “place” stand for? Am I looking for a place within my family? Or am I reluctantly being told to “take” my place? To join Mary? or to fight her?–usurp her?–rescue her? Why are there no other members of my family seated with her? Is this a personal or collective family issue? Does Mary stand in for a personal part of me (inferior feeling function?) or simply as a sister? Is she dreading my coming or wishing it? Do I hate the prospect of joining her? It reminds me of a subsequent dream I had (1/23/93). I had entered a land which several citizens told me was extremely regimented. I entered a building and found a German officer sitting at a desk. Upon seeing me enter the room, he rose from the desk, angry, nervous and shaking, and stormed across the room. I couldn’t help but think that he had known of my coming or was dreading it for some apparent reason. I found the whole episode slightly comical. The reason, of course, is that I am a sort of enemy of “regimentation” or “structure,” and am quick to point out its many failings; in other words, its definite lack of certainty. I pray for such certainty, and struggle to gain it, but always to no avail. And I can’t quite stand it when others “pretend” as though they have it–pretend to have knowledge! Again, is there such a regimented person inside of me? Or is this dream depicting the “inner dissatisfaction” felt as a result of my outer attitude?

I can’t help but believe that Mary is in some way waiting for me; that she is hopeful of something which I can bring to her; or which I can learn from her, I don’t know. I also can’t be certain as to whether her apparent remorse is the result of something she is suffering on her own account, or suffering for my own sake! Again, she appears sad and lonely, and it is apparent, perhaps, that no one wants to be near her. Is this the reason why no other family members are present? Is this the reason why I am not all that eager to be at the ball game myself? Am I being compelled to reach out to my sister (for her benefit as a sister) or to my inferior feeling for the benefit of my own personal growth? Is “family,” in other words, really referring to my family of “personality functions”? Or is Mary’s sadness (or the sadness of my inferior function) owing to the fact that it has been ignored, or falsified by a wrongfully-placed “thinking” function? Is this why she appears lonely and solemn? Does she represent my most neglected function?

I recall a somewhat similar look from another feminine character (no less than the Queen of England) appearing in still another dream subsequent to this one (11/5/93). I dreamt that the King of England was coming to visit me in order to resolve a problem I was having with a young girl who I felt had not paid me for some “olive oil” which I had sold to her. To make a long story short, while I stood there (in full dress uniform, including saber at my side) awaiting the King’s arrival, the Queen of England (in the person of Maggie Thatcher) had already arrived and was looking at me solemnly in disbelief. I guess that I was pretty much ignoring her presence while awaiting a King who doesn’t even exist! She had pity in her eyes, and I can’t help but feel a sense shame or embarrassment simply in recalling the dream. What are these women trying to tell me? There have been numerous other dreams in which a female (usually a “teacher”) is trying to get something or another over to me. Only I keep blocking it out, and know that I am doing so! It is also worth noting that Maggie Thatcher was known as the “Iron Lady” due to her tough, conservative stance. The notion that there may be something compelling within me which is conservative, tough, structured, openly limited, forceful, etc., must obviously be looked at as a central issue with me. It is the counterpart of my outwardly passive nature.

Again, the woman in this current dream tried to cheat me, and I can allude to the definite impression I have that I am often taken for granted (or not treated seriously) by females in general. So why suppose (as I do) that these other females are trying to assist me? They want my attention–want me to know something which I feel will be beneficial to myself–and yet I refuse to acknowledge it. Why? What can I be so afraid to hear? But I don’t get the impression that Mary has something to say to me. Rather, she seems somewhat pathetic and in need of comfort herself. [Freudian slip? Am I in need of comfort? Is this what I need and am not willing to partake of?–feminine comfort?] But what about this? I thought that I was already on the female side. Or am I suffering because I am so. Does being on the female side in some way prevent me from gaining the satisfaction I long for? Does it preclude my acting (or gaining satisfaction) from an instinctual male standpoint? Again, I am reminded of one of my so-called “homosexual” dreams (8/5/91) where I was pinning down someone who I know to be a homosexual in real life. I knew that he could overpower me if he wanted, but he didn’t. I remember saying to him that I did not blame him for being attracted to some person or another, and his replying: “Do you think that this is the only thing I care about,” or something to that effect. I was embarrassed. Now it suddenly occurs to me that he said this because the fact of his homosexuality was beside the point. Rather, this dream may have been utilizing a homosexual male to symbolize my holding down my own male perspective!

Might there also be an indication from this current dream that I am not altogether satisfied with the female perspective? Could I in fact feel that female’s are intellectually inferior to males; that I find their standpoint to be bothersome as well as unacceptable. Might this be my struggle–that I am trying to maintain the female standpoint against my inner judgment–or judging standpoint? I sense that this is true. Try as I might, I find it difficult to regard “feeling judgment” as equal to “thinking judgment,” and these differences appear to “typify” male and female behavior. Not that females can’t think or don’t–but that their higher God is generally with values rather than with logic and reason. Is this what I have to face in myself? Is this what these women in my dreams have been trying to tell me? Then why use strong female types to deliver the message? Is it because only strong females stand a chance of gaining my attention? [How, in fact, could such a message be depicted in pictorial form? By a teacher instructing me to “do my homework”? By a “Queen” who might signify the strength and worthiness of the feminine standpoint? Or by pointing to my behavior as being like that of a “whore” as still another dream suggested? (8/31/94)] Mary, in fact, does not typify the so-called female disposition toward feeling values. She appears to be a “sensing-thinking” type and can be very factual and logical in her arguments. But, again, maybe Mary is a “falsified” thinking type since this side too has a terrible sting to it. Thus, as may be the case with me, her “explosive feeling” side may represent an inferior feeling function, or her sometimes mean-spirited thinking side may point to an inferior thinking side. So why do I feel both compelled and reluctant to join her across the field? And why is she alone? How might the “feminine standpoint” of a male “thinking type” interfere with his life? Might it be because the feminine standpoint is confused with the feeling function?; that I am, and have been, confused by this very thing? I have often felt that I am a natural “feeling type” who somehow got off track and into a “falsified” thinking pattern. But maybe my confusion has little to do with a deep (though hidden) respect for feeling values, and a lot to do with trying to maintain the feminine standpoint.

I think it’s clear that my dream is informing me that it may have been a mistake to have entered the ball park; that I neither belong nor have the right to be there judging from the perspective I continue to insist upon; that I need to take the treatment I received from all parties concerned seriously and reflect still further on the final outcome of the dream. As it was, I am left asking what it is about me or my personality that remains so vulnerable–so easily invaded? What is it about me that remains so indefensible that I can literally be treated as a “non-entity”! As a matter of fact, I am becoming a literal non-entity since my children, family members, and friends of my wife, are increasingly treating me as if I’m not even present!

I recall another dream (1/20/93) I had in which I was entrusting my boat to someone else. I knew that the “parts” of the boat had value, but didn’t want it to be sold separately. I entrusted it to someone who I felt would safeguard its integrity by keeping it together. Again, could the “parts” of my boat in this dream have referred to the differing functions of personality? or simply be referring to the personality as a whole. Each function has value, but not to the absolute dismissal of the others. One-sided preferences or standpoints are a detriment rather than aid to the personality overall, and perhaps are needed to keep this boat in tact as well. Perhaps the “possessions” which are being stolen in the current dream represent an insignificant function, which I am hanging on to, to the detriment of the other three–as represented by the three doors. Perhaps I am in the grip of my forth function (compelled by Mary or by respect for the feminine point of view, obligation to family, etc.), when it should be the other three that I need to be concerned with. Perhaps this is what my dream is telling me; that the “family of functions” is not there waiting for me, but only my most inferior one; and, worse, that I may be going to it totally unprepared and incomplete; that is, without my other three functions together and standing firm. Perhaps the two thieves represent such a rejoining, even if against my will. Or, again, perhaps my dream is telling me that my sister Mary has already crossed over to her inferior side and is presently living it; that I may be inviting this very same fate should I proceed without having made appropriate preparations. No wonder she appears so saddened and lonely, yet seemingly fearful for my fate as well. Since she did not wave me away in my dream, warning me of the dire consequences which awaits me, I must assume that she may very well stand in for a part of my subjective self. In what sense, then, might Mary represent my own situation.

My therapist tried to draw my attention to a possible correlation existing between the three doors and the three men. (He included myself and the two who were boarding, while leaving out “Bulldog” as possibly irrelevant in this regard.) If the doors and men stand in for functions, I suppose there might be something to it, although any other correlation that I can think of seems to break down. It occurs to me that “Bulldog” may also represent my unconscious standpoint seeking to balance my situation; that is, may represent my strong “inner self” who refuses to come to the aid of a misguided ego. Rather, it is going to ignore my conscious standpoint while still enabling me to re-think the situation. In other words, I am not being abandoned, as yet, nor does my unconscious seem bent on bringing me down. I suspect that I am being shown options to my mistaken notions; and that I need to pay attention to the three doors which are being presented for my benefit. Perhaps the dream is prophetic in the sense of showing me what is yet to come; that the meaning of these three doors will become apparent to me over time. But, if this is true, I would have thought that my subsequent dreams and thinking would have made this apparent to me by now. But, then, I really haven’t looked for such signs. I think a search for “doors” is in order.

In summary, I believe that “Journey’s End” reminded me that my coming battle is to be with “fate” and not society, and that in order to prepare for the coming battle, I will have to first face the facts of my own existence, no matter how difficult or distasteful this may prove to be. I must dare to “receive the dress of truthfulness.” As such, my current dream may represent the beginning of the many revelations which must come to me in this regard. Also, since my fight is with fate and not with society, perhaps I cannot count on society helping me. Or might the figure of “Bulldog” be depicting the stance of “fate” rather than “society”? Perhaps it is fate that stands by awaiting the final outcome of my personal battle. Am I going to have to face “Bulldog”?

October 19, 1994

Just awoke from a dream whose many elements I cannot remember. The gist of it, however, was that some member of my family killed my son and I was tormented by not being able to take revenge. I believe that the dream substituted the killer (at different points in the dream) between my brother Joe (a twin), nephew Jerry (also a twin), and I believe my nephew Dale at one point, although I am not certain of this.

I recall other elements of the dream involving a classroom in which a teacher was writing geometric problems on the blackboard and a scene in my own home (that is, the house I grew up in) where I was writing on a small blackboard as well. I recall at one point trying to find an erasure and was looking all over the house for one. I even went to a store and looked over many types of all sizes and configurations, but decided not to buy one of these expensive erasures since I was certain that my daughter Monica had one at home and that I only needed a small piece at most. I recall once again searching my bedroom in the old house. Following the murder, I recall approaching my brother (or one of my nephews) and grabbing him around the collar trying to vent my anger, but to no avail. I simply threatened him but somehow felt helpless to do anything about it. I don’t know whether this was because of his size or that I wasn’t sufficiently satisfied as to what really happened. I do remember, however, that toward the end of the dream, when my nephew was playing the part of the “villain,” I had a vague sense of his feeling remorse about what he had done, and yet was trying to go about his life as best he could; as though there were nothing more to say about it. I even felt that other family members may have been trying to console him. Nevertheless, my conscience (originally wrote “conscious”) could take no more and I decided to confront him once again. I was planning to kill him, but had to know what happened. I approached him and demanded that he tell me. He simply said that my son “was no good.” [Afterthought upon rereading this 10/19: Could my nephew be my therapist having to inform me of this?] I was stunned by this since I never expected such an answer might be forthcoming; never expected for a moment that my son would have been anything but decent. Without hearing more, I immediately responded: “You mean no good like yourself? That you turned him into someone like yourself?” Jerry gave off a kind of shrug saying “No… no” conveying that I was off base and simply trying to camouflage the issue by not facing the real truth of the matter. The dream ended.

I am, first of all, amazed by the manner in which the dream was able to switch characters at just the right moment. I have felt that dreams are not static portrayals in the sense of their having been prepared and presented in total (as planned by the unconscious). Rather, my dreams have clearly demonstrated that the dream state is an on-going communication between the conscious and unconscious standpoints (or some portion of the latter). In other words, if a new character would best fit a conscious reaction to some former event in the dream, the unconscious will make an appropriate substitute, and consciousness will generally not notice or else not care. In other words, consciousness seems able to accept the transition without losing the sense that the new characters are in fact standing in for the old. In such a way, unconscious elements (or characters) are able to make appropriate, generally subtle, responses in a most meaningful way.

Given that this is the way the unconscious works in dreams, it was most appropriate to substitute my nephew at the final climax of the dream since his characteristics in real life are of someone who is “street-wise,” somewhat troubled or serious in demeanor, and, yet, respectful and honest at the core. Had Jerry really committed such a crime (been forced to for whatever reason), he probably would have acted pretty much like he did in the dream. This, of course, is assuming that he knew in advance how I might view and react to the situation. He would, in other words, have accepted the fact that he had murdered my son, and would have hung around to accept whatever consequences were forthcoming, rather than try to defend himself by revealing something which would be painful to me. Yes, Jerry would be the sort of person who would willingly seek to protect his uncle from himself; that is, from a truth which would undoubtedly cause him pain.

The dream left me with the shocking, though definite impression that “my son” was in some way a bad person, and that he most probably deserved what he got. While I felt that I must somehow avenge his death, I was having great difficulty in acting upon this notion. And when I finally dared to act, my action amounted to demanding an explanation for what had happened, and receiving a truth, if it was a truth, that I had a rotten son. (It seems unlikely that dreams deceive, however, but if they do, we might just as well throw our hands in the air because I doubt that we would ever stand a chance of correctly gauging their intent.) At any rate, the impact which this sudden revelation made upon me (this possibility would never have occurred to me on my own… and this is a significant point I feel) felt as true to me as it was surprising. If nothing else, my spontaneous denial of it lent it credibility.

Although there were other elements in the dream (the black boards and search for an eraser), the obvious thrust of the dream was intended to inform me that my “son” (whatever he stands for) could be a “rotten” individual. All else is secondary to this purpose I feel, even the fact of the interchange of characters, although the fact that two of them had twin brothers might have significance. So the question becomes: “Who or what does this son of mine represent in me?” and “What part of myself is Jerry playing–and why?” The notion is that Jerry is acting on my own behalf; that is, is attempting to reveal and act upon a truth or situation regarding myself that requires such action. But, then, I may be reading too much into the dream since Jerry may not have “intended” to kill off my son for my benefit, but may have done so because of some “outside” circumstance involving the two.

In trying to think of who my son might represent in me, I had a brief remembrance of a previous dream (6/29/92) in which I viewed myself as a little boy of eight or nine from the perspective of a father. My “child within” did not want to die and I simply could not leave him until he was ready. Upon awaking from this dream, I spent the entire morning mourning this situation and talking aloud to my son (myself) as though he really was an entity within me. But he was a beautiful child! He was goodness personified, in my opinion, and had simply been overlooked or ignored in terms of never having been loved, or so it seemed to me. Surely there cannot be a connection between this child and the other which my current dream is trying to depict as rotten. Am I to consider that there might be a “twin” of my child within–a rotten, spoiled side which I am not prepared to admit? Well, if so, I feel immediately “justified” in blaming this on the fact that he was unloved. But, while I may be justified in holding that I had a critical, unloving father (at least, a “withholding” father), still this does not account for the fact of my loving mother. But I really haven’t early remembrances of her and so do not know how she treated me in fact. I only know that my later memories of her (from boyhood up) were that she was a caring, if not nurturing, presence.

Well, this appears to be getting better. I now have to admit that, while I may think that I am justified in being a rotten child, (presumably, due too a withholding of love), I do have to admit that there was or “is” such a child within me. And it appears that it is a very “strong-willed” (perhaps devilish) child at that! I just received an image of myself (as an adult) exhibiting this same “strength” with others, and surmise that there is something egotistically arrogant at play here. But if I didn’t develop this attitude from a sense of not feeling loved, then from what did it develop? What else might make a little boy play such a dangerous and hurtful game–especially to himself? I don’t know the answer to this, but I do suspect that we are on to something. Only I feel very tired all of a sudden and wish to return to sleep. It is about 6:00 a.m. and I have been writing for the past two hours, but I suspect that my tired feeling is in strong part a defense mechanism informing me that this has been quite enough for now.

6:00 p.m.
My dream from last night kind of knocked me for a loop, or my tiredness today may just be the result of interrupted sleep in general. At any rate, I went back to sleep at 6:00 this morning and slept until almost 9:00. I worked on resumes for most of the day and read a little from the last chapter of Jung’s Memories, Dreams, Reflections at around 2:00 this afternoon. I found this last chapter very difficult and too exaggerated I felt. While the book is nothing short of amazing, I can’t help but feel that Jung himself got caught up in the sway of imagination, reason, and the unconscious elements which were undoubtedly driving him. At any rate, I felt tired after thirty or so minutes of reading and decided to take a nap. Upon awakening, I thought that I should record what I can remember of the dream I had and also try to record elements of several other dreams which occurred over the last several days. These dreams were not vivid (that is, impacting) like last night’s dream, and I can only remember certain elements. Nevertheless, it is probably worthwhile to record whatever elements I can remember before I forget them altogether since I am looking forward to returning to the thoughts and images given me through last nights dream.

During my two hour nap this afternoon, I dreamt that I was in the military and that we were in some kind of war, although I’m not clear about what kind. I seem to remember that the enemy was (or thinking that the enemy could) attack us from a nearby island which they presumably occupied. I recall two scenes within this dream, neither of which holds any special meaning for me. The first scene depicted several soldiers (I believe that they represented high military brass) entering the water on foot. They were perhaps ten feet off shore up to their waists and walking in a single line. It was as though there were a two-part stair case hidden under water because they suddenly made a right turn, and then another, as though they were wrapping their way around the staircase in order to descend further on to a lower level, which they in fact did. They simply stepped down out of site.

A second scene within this dream had me and a group of other men doing physical fitness exercises. This is very vague, but I seem to remember that there were five or six of us who were laying down horizontally (in bed I believe) and had to rotate periodically. The last person in bed had to get out from one side and move to the opposite side and get in again. I believe that we were in some danger from enemy fire and had blankets covering us. I recall that I was doing my physical exercises in “my own way” and not in accordance with the military method. I may have been “short-cutting” again which seems to be a typical theme in many of my dreams. I recall doing twenty-five repetitions of a leg exercise with my right leg and then running into trouble when I switched to my left leg. I could hardly move it as it seemed to cramp up or simply refused to move as quickly as I wanted it to. I recall someone next to me–a strong muscular fellow who looked like Arnold Swartzennegger. He was chastising me for the way I was going about my exercises. Laying on his back, he began moving his fingers quickly on his abdomen as though he were typing, and said something to the effect that all I had to do was figure out the missing keys and go from there. This supposedly related to my properly doing a physical exercise which would, presumably, have followed from my observing or working out the “code,” if that what it was. I don’t remember anything else.

The night before last (the day before my therapy appointment), I dreamt that I was penetrating a woman sexually (at least I considered this to be a sexual act), although I don’t believe that it was regarded as such either by her or by her “husband” who was standing nearby observing us. (I felt that it was her husband but may have simply been someone to whom I felt she belonged.) I felt as though I were “getting away” with a good thing, although I sensed that this was more a “rite” than a case of making love. The next thing I remember is that she began twirling around in a circle (I believe that I was no longer penetrating her), body straightened horizontally and suspended in air about a foot off the floor. I believe that I was holding her up with a single hand under her elbow. [This reminds me of my dream of several weeks ago (10/31/94) where I was being chastised (by a male figure) for not building my fire closer to the water. He gave me a long pole with a circular ring at one end. I lifted the fire but appeared to be dropping one or two of the logs. This figure then reached out to hold the fire with his hands around the ringed end and suddenly I was carrying both he and the fire as his legs suddenly left the ground.] In a like manner, I was amazed at how she (or I?) could be doing this with such ease. But then I considered that the water was probably holding her up. (Up to this point, there was no water image in the dream.) I next remember the male figure pointing my attention to the pinkish caste which the water had. This, I was told, was coming from the female and I understood this to mean from her vagina. Although this occurred the night before my forth session with my therapist, I failed to mention the dream to him. There were other issues regarding our relationship that needed to be worked on although I did share the following dream which occurred the night before this one.

The essence of this dream was that I was seated in an airplane next to my niece Ann (daughter of Mary) who was piloting it. The plane was patterned after an old WWII fabric-covered Aeronica, only, instead of having two seats front and rear, this one had two rows of four seats each. Ann and I were in the front and family members (I don’t know which) were seated behind us. I’m not certain as to whether Ann was flying us into a city “from” somewhere else, or was trying to fly us from this city “to” somewhere else. I simply remember that she was too low to the ground and would not be able to clear the wires which were stretched across roadways, much less be able to climb out from there. I told her to fly under a set of wires (since I knew we wouldn’t be able to make it over them in time) and to bank to the right since I saw a clearing away from such wires which would enable us to climb at a relatively slow pace due to the heavy load we were carrying. But instead of climbing out of there, Ann landed the plane instead and simply let go of the controls before the plane could come to a stop. I chastised her for this and quickly regained control of the stick. I knew that the plane could tip over unless the tail of the plane was held down.

I knew we were in some kind of trouble because it was going to be difficult finding enough room (without wires) to fly out of this place. I scaled the side of a nearby building and saw a roadway that would serve us well. There was plenty of space to the right of it to enable me to climb out of there. I only needed enough room to get the wheels off the ground. I returned to the plane in order to turn it around and begin taxiing to this location, but realized that it had suddenly gotten dark. I felt that I was in Geneseo and needed to head for the town of LeRoy (my home town) where there is a small landing strip. Only I realized that this simple plane had no lights, no radio, and no navigation equipment whatever. Furthermore, no one would be at the airport and neither would the runway lights be on since no one knew that we were coming. I considered taking a chance, but sensed that it would be impossible. There was simply no way that I could navigate from the one location to the other without leaving myself to sheer chance. I was frustrated but resigned to the fact that the situation was simply outside my control. This is all I remember.

Well, that’s that. I need now to amplify these elements and to especially begin thinking about the therapy I am currently undergoing. Although I left my forth session feeling somewhat better about the person I am asking to help me, I am still not without my reservations regarding him. I know that I need to consider the fact that he knows more about therapy than I, and, presumably is, on that account, balancing more in his mind than what I am, still, I am terribly impatient about getting down to business. As a result, I want to throw my entire life at him in one fell swoop so as to enable him to survey the landscape of my entire personality, and he seems adamant about staving me off in order to allow in only so much at a time. Our directions seem entirely opposed to one another. He’s trying to build a picture out of puzzle pieces while I keep trying to say that the picture (or pictures) are already there–they simply need to be interpreted! Thus, I can’t help but feel that my dreams are more than ample to suggest my present psychological makeup, but he, presumably, has a different agenda. I can only imagine that his agenda does not begin and end with dream analysis, or in laying out the facts of my situation, but also involves my own welfare, and whether or not I can handle what my dreams may be pointing to. I realize this, but wish that he would act somewhat more boldly. I feel that I can handle more truth about myself than he is giving me credit for; but I realize that I could be wrong about this. I suspect that what is really bothering me is that I am being treated as a “patient” (that is, as someone who has an illness) rather than as someone who simply wishes to work out some puzzlement in his thinking. I’m not prepared to regard cognitive errors, suppressed emotions, ignorance of specific facts and issues, etc., as a disease. So I am stuck with having to “trust” that he knows the difference and, as such, is treating me in the “appropriate” manner. In other words, I don’t mind being treated as a patient if, indeed, my problems ought to be regarded as a mental illness; but, again, I would greatly resent this form of treatment should this be otherwise.

But, of course, therapy is about mental illness, and therapists are purportedly trained to handle such matters as illnesses. Thus, the “doctor-patient,” “father-son,” “professor-student,” etc. relationship ensues. It’s as though, unless the game is played in the way that the therapist has learned it, he doesn’t know what else to do. It would be like throwing away one’s tools of the trade in order to greet something new from a totally different perspective. It would be to trust in the analytical process itself (wherever it may lead), rather than hold on to one’s authoritative position or posture. And so it is. My therapist informs me that he cannot always be direct but needs to balance things in his own mind; that, sometimes, he has a need to talk directly to me (that is, to my conscious self), and sometimes must attempt to talk directly (or indirectly) to my unconscious. Because of this, my taking one tact or another can greatly confuse him or else throw him off the target he might be pursuing. Well, if such be the case, I guess that it’s over my head. If there are techniques for talking directly to my unconscious without my knowing it (that is, by bypassing conscious awareness and thus any efforts to resist the same), then the more power to him. Only, I wish he would begin by working directly with consciousness. I can’t help but feel that I am ready to accept almost anything about myself, so sick and tired am I of being sick and tired!

There is one other problem which comes to mind, however. We are so accustomed to thinking that the end of successful therapy (in the sense of uncovering “truths” about oneself or some other person) must have a “positive” result, that we ignore the possibility that the opposite might also be true. Thus, the therapist has the added burden of trying to judge whether or not the truth to be uncovered is going to have an overall positive or negative outcome for the patient. Such god-like judgments, although highly subjective, must be undertaken, no differently than all of us are accustomed to doing in everyday life. In other words, we need to come to grips with the possibility that certain repressions and suppressions may be a beneficial means to dealing with difficult or fateful circumstances which simply happen to have negative consequences for ourselves. In removing the same, the therapist may be tampering with nature’s own medicinal means for helping us to deal with difficult or impossible situations. This only serves to reinforce my former conclusion that the therapist must, first and foremost, consciously desire to help rather than hinder one’s life (thus his need to know himself), and needs to hold tightly to this notion throughout the course of therapy, asking the crucial question at every turn of a every corner. I can only hope that mine is such a person.

October 20, 1994

DREAM (LOW IMPACT)

PLAYING WITH A YOUNG CHILD
Don’t remember much about this one except that in one scene, I was playing with a young child, a three or four year old a girl. She was climbing on my back while I was sitting, I believe, and I pulled her over my head and simply goofed around with her. She was obviously enjoying my company.

OBSERVING A STREET SCENE DEPICTING DIFFERING PEOPLE WORKING COOPERATIVELY AND HAPPILY OUT OF A SENSE OF PRIDE, AND DESPITE PERSONAL EXPENSE.
A second scene had me on a residential street watching its residents working diligently at placing two tar paths (approximately two feet wide) down the length of both sides of the street. I’m not sure if they were sidewalks or not. They seemed rather close to the edge of the street. I had the impression that they were doing this work voluntarily at no expense to the city and obviously were taking great pride in doing it. I also felt that this was the second time they were undertaking this. It felt as though the first project was destroyed by some mishap which had taken place earlier. In any event, men and women were rushing around, filling, wheeling, and dumping wheelbarrow loads of materials within frames or forms which they had set-up in front of their own homes. Each family was taking care of their own property and coordinating their efforts with all of the other participants. I recall that the homes were average and the people very heterogeneous. I recall seeing many black residents in addition to several ethnic groups as well. Again, everyone was highly enthusiastic and moving quickly–at least those who were actually working. I recall seeing a group of men sitting around a table across the street from me while a woman was working very hard in front of them. But no one thought anything of this, including the woman. They were simply taking a break and the impression, again, was that they were just as involved in this prideful work as anyone else.

INFORMING A SUCCESSFUL BUSINESS MAN OF A POTENTIAL NEGATIVE WHICH RESTS OUTSIDE HIS CONTROL TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT.
A third scene had me visiting a neighborhood store; it may have been an Italian Delicatessen. I was with several other men and they were allowing me to try out various cheeses and slices of cold cuts. I found them delicious and was raving about them. I felt as though I were a visitor in this neighborhood and that I was being shown around for some reason or another. I next remember being alone and then noticing a stairway leading to the upper level of (this?) store. I went up the stairs and discovered that I was in what appeared to be a fancy apartment. I entered a small round room which had a long plastic molded bench wrapping it. It led to an outdoor swimming pool which I could see through a window or the open doorway which was to my left. I realized that this store owner was quite successful and obviously doing quite well financially. I also recall seeing something just inside the door that I thought was unusual. It might have been a chair (maybe a “lifeguard” chair) and I felt that it was standing tilted by the doorway (or appeared simply to be in the wrong place). I believe that I sat on the bench and once again was playing with this same little girl who now, however, appeared to be slightly older than she was previously. I recall some men standing around the room. One of them was this little girl’s father, only there was something peculiar about their relationship. I had the definite feeling that she did not live with him. He made some sort of remark about his relationship to her, but I can’t recall what it was.

The next thing I remember was the merchant coming into the room from the swimming pool. He looked as though he were in his mid-fifties, handsome, well built, and had gray curly hair. He had the look of a successful businessman. I began talking to him about the cold cuts I had eaten earlier, apprising him of the fact that they were of excellent quality, but that he surely must have competition in the area. I seemed to sense that there was going to be a wedding or some type of celebration which he was bidding for. I was saying to him that people could easily “cherry pick”; that is, buy one thing from him and another from one of his competitors, the idea being that they would buy “piecemeal” from whomever offered the better deal. He said something to the effect that “they better not do that,” and I could see that he was at least mildly upset by the prospect. This is all I remember.

THOUGHTS:
Upon re-reading my recent dream of two nights ago which depicted one of my nephews (Jerry) killing “my son,” I suddenly considered the possibility that Jerry might stand in for my therapist. In my dream, Jerry did a dastardly deed, something which had to be done, and was not trying to hide from whatever consequences might ensue. He told me that my son was “no good” and, upon reflection, considered that this might mean that there is a “rotten side” to my son or, perhaps, to my “child within.” Needless to say, this was shocking. As I said earlier, never would I have come to this conclusion on my own. I also cannot help but think about the small baby that I threw across the room in a dream preceding my first therapy session. If the baby represented new knowledge coming to me in the form of therapy, and my tossing it across the room a form of rejection, then this current dream might seem to indicate that this former attitude has taken a turn for the better. The changing age of the children in these dreams might also be of significance. The first child was no more than one year old and crawled into the room. This corresponds with my “first” session of therapy. The young girl in my current dream was two or three years older (I just completed my forth session), and got an additional year older within the dream itself. Perhaps there is nothing to this, but it seems that there might be a correlation existing between therapy sessions (or progressions) and the ages of the children depicted in my dreams. After all, I seem to be progressing toward greater truths both within my dreams as well as within my reflections following them. For example, in my dream, I finally dared to ask Jerry for the truth and I received it in two stages: denial in the dream itself and acceptance in my reflections following it. In other words, the dream brought me to the door, but did not force me to go through it. I could have left things as they were and no harm would have been done. But I chose to think about it, and in thinking about it, I was forced to entertain this shocking possibility about myself. That’s what “impact” dreams are supposed to do. That’s progress!

Perhaps my choosing to disregard the fancy erasers in my former dream also pointed to the fact that I was placing myself in a better light. These large erasers were more than enough to erase my small 24″ blackboard–and this is the point. I didn’t want to use a form of erasure which could easily have wiped the truth off my blackboard with a single swipe. I felt that I only needed a small piece of material to do the job and, of course, had to go in search of it while the truth was “allowed” to remain. This allowed me time to make up my mind about whether I would dare to face it or not. As it was, I sought it and got it–full barrel!

Again, in my opinion, dreams are not pre-arranged dramas but on-going communication or dialogue between consciousness and the various elements (personalities) existing in the unconscious. The personalities and scenes that appear in dreams are contingent upon whatever progress (or reversals of the same) result from this same “living drama.” Scenes change and characters are substituted as needed. And while it must be said that the unconscious is the greater controlling element, still consciousness appears to have the power to reject or ignore what is being presented to it. As is the case in waking life, consciousness in dreams can be steered, tempted, fooled, coerced, taught, pleaded with, and any number of other things which we are altogether familiar with. But it can also ignore, reject, attempt to alter, or interfere with the dream itself, or else express its “feeling” by whining, fearing, crying, etc. In other words, the situation is really no different whether we are in sleep or awake. It’s just that we don’t have to take the dreams seriously. If we choose to ignore them, most of the time they appear to go away, or go about their business. So long as the dream is not a recurrent dream, we sense that they are not all that important. On the other hand, I can’t help but feel that an important side to life (that is, a necessary counterpart to the outside world) is increasingly losing its intensity and importance overall.

This said, I can’t help but wonder if the little girl’s appearing one year older (within the same dream) might have had something to do with my climbing to the second level of the building. I don’t recall why I chose to climb these stairs, and I can’t see anything “enlightening” about the fact; that is, unless this meaning was contained in the remarks made by the little girl’s father. I only remember that he was making some reference to their relationship or to her origins. I have a very vague sense of his saying something about her mother, or that her origin required a mother.

But what is the connection, if any, between the dream depicting the killing of “my son” and the others following it?

Soldiers marching down steps taking them under water; my shirking my exercise requirements for sound physical fitness or “combat readiness.”

Is this just another reminder that I cannot go on taking “short-cuts”; that I must dig in and do whatever I must do–and do it right! That I must embrace my structured side, rather than continue to mock it in others, and proceed as though I really know what I am about. Is this still another reminder that, before I can face the unconscious or fate, I will have to muster up the willful courage simply “to be”? Or is my dream warning me that I mustn’t shirk my need to be “fit” before “going under”; that I must approach this task like a “soldier”–brave, strong, disciplined, and self-assured.

The dream which initially depicted me penetrating a woman (I thought sexually at first), and later, watching her slowly twirl around clockwise in a horizontal position, supported only by my hand under one of her elbows. We were surrounded by water which was pinked by blood which I was informed came from her vagina. [However, there was no sign of water when the dream began–it was produced only when the twirling commenced and I was in search of an explanation for this apparent defiance of gravity.] When the water appeared, I was then able to attribute her levitation to buoyancy, even though I had previously seen her twirling without any sign of water at all. But why would the dream provide consciousness with an easy explanation or “way out” when you would think that its interest would be quite the opposite; that is, desire to impact it in some way or another?

Is this another reminder of the “empowering” power of the unconscious? In an earlier dream, I was chastised for not building “my fire” closer to “the water.” I was then assisted by this (same?) male figure who gave me a tool (a long stick with a hoop at the end) for picking the fire up. And when a few pieces of wood began falling off the hoop as I proceeded to pick up the fire, this same individual held on to the hooped end of the stick in order to give me a hand. No sooner than he did this, however, than his feet left the ground, leaving him “levitated” while I amazingly and quite easily found myself carrying both he and the fire forward. I also recall that just prior to building this fire, I had rolled up a long rope which had extended behind me. Only now, the portion of rope which still remained in front of me (that is, in the direction of the water) appeared as an unraveled snake. I remember being somewhat afraid of the snake but not as much as I would be in normal waking life. At any rate, presumably because I was still frightened, I asked a “young girl” (a twelve or thirteen year old) to walk ahead of me in order to prod the snake. There was some sense that I either had to make certain that the snake was stretched out, or else wanted to ensure that it wouldn’t turn its head toward me as I walked along side of it. I told the girl that if she was frightened by the snake, that she could carry a long stick with her which she could use to push the snake away from her if it threatened her. As I said, I remember that my feelings were somewhere between caution and mild fear, but didn’t strongly feel that I or the girl was in real danger. Rather, the impression of the snake was that it was an “unknown” and that was sufficient for exercising caution.

But what significance does this young girl have to my dream or to my goal of reaching the water? What part of my own psychology might these young girls represent? And which part of myself is responsible for placing these young girls into the dream episodes–consciousness or the unconscious? In other words, I am considering the possibility that dreams may not merely be the “royal road to the unconscious” but may also represent contributions stemming from consciousness itself. Perhaps consciousness produced this young girl for its own benefit as it may have produced the water in the previous dream discussed above. How active or passive is consciousness in sleep? This would seem to add another dimension to the manner in which we ordinarily view dreams.

In any event, I think it quite clear that my unconscious is suggesting that I find the courage to come closer to it in spite of my fear–represented by the snake–and that, until I do so, my “fire” (knowledge, power, enlightenment) will not amount to anything, or, at least, will be insufficient to bring light to darkness, or transform darkness into light. On the other hand, water can extinguish fire, and maybe the reason for my not wanting to build my fire too near the water is my fear of learning that I may be wrong about myself. Perhaps I am afraid of subjecting my ideas (or myself) to a test within an appropriate environment; that is, one which is capable of understanding or evaluating or simply “fighting back”! By staying a safe distance away from the unconscious in my mental life, and away from people who might understand me in my relationships, I am able to safeguard the personal illusions and delusions I wish to cling to. But, then, there is obviously more to me than ego, and it is this which is undoubtedly “coaching” me. It is this symbolic male figure in my dream which is lending me a helping hand and showing me that, as I proceed toward the unconscious, I will be only be carrying my “power” or “esteem” with me, but he as well to help me safeguard it. In fact, my dream suggests that he will be holding it intact!

The dream depicting my failure or inability to fly family members from Geneseo to LeRoy due to the airplane’s not being properly fitted for navigation at night. I was frustrated as the result of my dilemma, but simply could not work out a successful solution. I weighed all of the circumstances having to do with the probability of making a successful flight in the dark, but the probability of failure was simply too great. Had the daylight held out, I would have been okay. But as it was, without navigation equipment aboard the plane, nor runway lights at our destination, it would have been a highly dangerous long shot to say the least.

It was the “absence of light,” then, that caused my dilemma. With light, there would not have been a problem. So did my dream impose darkness upon me in order to make this point? Is it trying to convey to me that I must have proper equipment to navigate in the dark? That I either must gain that equipment or else stick to the light? If I wish to take my family home in the dark (or through a darkness which I wish to introduce to them), that is, to “show them the light,” then I’m am going to have to either be in the “light” myself, or else make use of an appropriately equipped vehicle to do so.

But might my dream be informing me of the foolhardiness of my enterprise; that my behavior toward family members is tantamount to my wanting to fly them through the dark in an ill-equipped airplane, which is myself? But, of course, in my dream I recognized the foolhardiness of this attempt and refused to do so. I also recall that in this dream, each time that my conscious attitude made an effort to remove a particular obstacle standing in the way (dodging wires and landing the airplane on a road, or climbing a tall building in order to survey and find a way out of our situation) my unconscious presented me with a new difficulty until I was finally stopped by circumstances which simply could not be overcome. I suspect that, had there been runway lights turned on at the LeRoy airport, I just might have taken the chance at navigating in the dark. With only thirty miles to fly, I just might have risked pointing the plane in a northwesterly direction and taking the chance. I also feel that my unconscious was well aware of this and moved to block the temptation!

In any event, the dream depicted a failed attempt to accomplish something which I wanted to accomplish. More than this, it deliberately turned it into a failed attempt by eventually imposing insurmountable circumstances. Whatever dangers I may have been willing to risk, I was stopped cold.

OVERVIEW OF PREVIOUS DREAMS
Again, constant reminders of my lack of preparation; that I cannot venture forth unless I have the right equipment; that I can do no good for anyone unless I am first “updated” or more suitably “fitted” or “completed” perhaps. I have been reminded of this over and over again: that I am not “psychologically fit for management” (10/8/90); that I may be acting like a fool–that is, a fool of fate (7/22/91); that I may envy those “graduates” who may be hanging on to the feeling of wholeness (8/1/91); that I needn’t feel obligated to answer life’s problems for the world, and that I ought to concentrate, instead, upon the goal of integrity with or within myself (8/4/91); that my desires have in part been locked up and severed from me due to my religious beliefs, and that this has been tantamount to “pinning my own self down”–or making personal growth impossible to achieve (8/5/91); that I may be living on illusions regarding myself, and that I must secure an anchor (to attain truth) from within experience (all experience), including the unconscious; (Intuition 8/14/91); that my thinking alone will not suffice to lead me out of the dilemma I find myself to be in, but, instead, must venture forth and dare to live as my inner self dictates (3/6/92); that a part of my problem may be my reluctance to let go of childhood notions and beliefs regarding myself (6/29/92); that I needn’t bear the burdens that follow from a need to “recompense,” “forgive,” or “undo” what has already transpired; that I only need to heed the voice which bides me toward heaven and not the voices of the “false prophets” lying within me; and that I need to let go of my conscience and allow whomever is talking to me to carry me over the threshold which lies beyond my ability to cross (Auto writing 10/27/92);

I don’t feel like continuing in this way through my total collection of dreams, but recognize that I may have to do so at one time or another. The problem is that there are too many dreams and thoughts coming too fast to absorb, let alone, analyze. It would be a full-time job just to keep up with them and, even then, might prove to be impossible. So what is the answer? Should I organize them around themes? Attempt to penetrate them more deeply? Simply ignore all previous dreams, relying only upon whatever insights can be gleaned from each new day’s dreams? Should I avoid the historical approach altogether and attempt to live in the present of the moment? Am I falling into the trap of trying to prepare a “proper ground” for the interpretation of my dreams, much like my trying to gain “knowledge before acting” which is my usual manner? Is this why I find life so heavy?–full?–complicated?–impossible to control or maintain? Am I simply trying to carry the whole of my experience around with me while awaiting an opportunity to unload some of it through “appropriate” actions which are never forthcoming? Is this the impossible burden that I’ve been carrying for my entire life? I want to let go of it! I want to believe that I am not required to carry it! I want to believe that I can make decisions and act without having such knowledge, which really amounts to a criterion of “certainty”! I want to release myself from this burden–but how? And how did I get into this situation in the first place?

October 23, 1994

HIGH IMPACT DREAM–TWO SCENES.

First scene had to do with me being in Batavia. My car was ticketed one time and towed away on a second occasion. I don’t remember very much about this, except that I thought that someone in Batavia “had it in for me.” I felt that it might be a jealous husband of someone I may have been with during my youth. It seemed too coincidental that I would be getting such treatment every time I came to Batavia. I remember arguing with some people at the second location. There was a row of five or six cars parked across an opening to what appeared like a store or garage. The building simply had an open wall on one side with the row of cars blocking the entire entrance. I asked why my car was the only one towed away, and someone responded that the police usually pick one car to serve as an “example” to the others. They told me that the car was at the city pound or whatever it is called. I remember driving with Tony Rosone (boyhood friend) at my side and telling him of my suspicions. I don’t recall at what point this occurred; probably after my first ticketing. There is obviously a gap here.

The second scene had to do with my daughter Monica dying. She was only seven or eight years of age and I don’t recall there being any circumstance or explanation to describe what had happened to her. I recall having (or wanting) to take care of the body myself. I put it in a suitcase, but I believe that the image of this “container” changed from something resembling a suitcase to something resembling a car seat or black leather futon when folded up. I recall stopping by a place where bodies were picked up or taken care of (a sort of outdoor mortuary) as I carried Monica’s body in the suitcase. I remember walking by a box laying on the ground and seeing the corpse of an old lady lying in it. There may have been another body at this mortuary besides the old lady, but I can’t be certain. I do remember other people milling around and assume that they were family members belonging to these other corpses. I proceeded past these bodies with my suitcase in hand but don’t remember anything beyond this point.

I next remember being in a classroom and that we were studying Jungian psychology. [I have had numerous dreams involving a “female teacher” in a classroom setting. She is always trying to get something over to me which I either refuse to hear or simply cannot understand (12/28/92, 3/10/93, 8/31/94, 9/8/94]. There was a passage in one of Jung’s books that made reference to the type of bag (or container) that I had used for transporting Monica’s body. The teacher (a forty-five year old female) was telling the class how it would be advisable to allow the sun to shine into this container (whenever the sun happened to be out) since it would help to (preserve?) something or another. I vaguely recall some mention of “butter,” but can’t be certain. I calmly said to her: “Do you know what this bag is really used for in Jungian psychology?”, feeling that she was in some way skirting what to me was the “main issue.” This issue (not real in fact) had to do with some usage of the container for a death or burial purpose. She responded: “Yes, but why do you read Jung so casually?” I was angered by this remark and said: “Because he is deep! He can’t be just read through at a sweep! With all the thousands of insights and symbolic meanings contained in his writings, why do you to pick some `aside’ which has little or nothing to do with the main point!” What was strange about this response was that, far from taking her remark at face value–that I was a “casual” reader of Jung–I understood her to mean that my viewpoints were too “in-depth,” “deep,” or “precise.” At any rate, I knew that I had alienated her and the rest of the class at this point. I was also aware of my feeling that this was just like a woman–talking about some “frivolous aside” when there were more important “central issues” which ought to be covered.

I left the class feeling that I could never go back (just as I have done in real life so many times before) and walked out to the front of this place to find my car. It wasn’t there, but I was more concerned about the container which I finally found on the ground wedged between the curb and a parked car. Only now it was shaped like a short, stubby-backed car seat, or, again, something like a folded futon. As the driver of the parked car pulled out away from the curb, I picked it up and examined it. It seemed alright. I carried it back onto the property I had just left, only recall that I was now walking on the right side of the premises. I walked through a gate at the rear of the property (still carrying the empty seat-container) and suddenly the fact of my daughter’s death hit me. I began to grieve as the full impact of what happened sunk in deeper and deeper as I walked toward my car. I asked myself where I was for the funeral, not remembering anything of the kind to have taken place. Did Jane shield me from all of this? I couldn’t remember. I remember approaching the car, opening the door, and flinging the container toward the passenger side. Only it no longer felt like a large, bulky object, but something more like a briefcase, or maybe even a set of keys. I awoke at this point.

Amplification.

Recurring dream elements: auto being towed away; Monica; loss of child; suitcase; female teacher, classroom, “weak messages”; Tony; my refusal or inability to grasp something of purported “significance.”

New elements include: corpse of old lady; Monica’s death; realization of hard luck resulting from former transgressions; accusation of “casually” reading Jung;

Recurring moods or emotions: I am being cheated or taken unfair advantage of; that I consider weak, and fail to appreciate, what my female teacher is trying to get over to me; that I have a definite feeling of uncertainty regarding Monica’s welfare; that I have once again alienated myself from still another social group.

New moods or emotions: handling a difficult situation myself; grieving over a loss; being protected from a painful situation;

Remarks.

The impact of the dream centered upon Monica’s death. I think it significant that the final realization or impact of this event did not reach me until after I had taken care of the situation; that is, had taken care of matters without feeling any noticeable loss. I can’t help but feel that this depiction of “unfeeling activity” might resemble my present state of existence as I go about life without real experiential awareness.

Again, I find the teacher’s remarking that I read Jung so “casually” to be especially puzzling. She’s treating a “specific fact” as something casual which would seem to be just the opposite. In fact, I found her remark to be casual in the sense of being frivolous and aside the point. To me, her criticism meant, not that I was reading Jung casually, but that I was prone to reading Jung piece-meal, though in great depth; that is, may not have a complete grasp of his psychology from the “broader view” as such, but understood specific ideas underlying or expressing what he meant to say. To me, getting it “right” is the important thing, in other words. But to her, concentrating on specific meanings, rather than going beyond them, amounts to a “casual” treatment of the subject matter. I’m trying to reach the truth through in-depth analysis of the actual material at hand, while she is trying to approach various consequences or “potential” directions of Jungian thought through expansion.

In spite of this puzzlement over word usage or method, her remarking to the group that one ought to “allow light into the container” as a means of better “preserving” something (presumably its contents), is certainly worthy of note. After all, my dead daughter was carried in a similar container. So how might this remark fit this fact?

October 25, 1994

3:00 a.m.
I just awoke from a dream and considered that I should write down this first episode before going back to sleep. I have had other two-dream episodes this past week, but they were forgotten because I did not do the same. The dream went as follows.

I was walking down main street with another individual (a male I believe) in my hometown of LeRoy. The town appeared to me as it did when I was still a boy. We had just passed Bank Street and were heading east toward the bridge and school. Just then, I informed this individual that I needed cigarettes and would have to double back to get them. I thought that I would get them at a store located around the corner on Bank Street (which we had just passed) although there was no such store there in fact. I imagined it being somewhere around my Aunt Sarah’s house which was four or five houses down the street (a true fact). I told him I would catch up to him. However, no sooner than I started backtracking to go to this store, than I remembered that I could have bought cigarettes at almost the exact location we were at. I remembered the Cut Rate Drug Store being just one door ahead of where we were. So I did. [This is reminiscent of real life situations where I often conclude something “too fast,” thus wasting time and effort from becoming side-tracked.]

The next scene seems to have replaced or superseded the first inasmuch as I seem to have been further west on main street proceeding to catch up to the individual I had been with. I can’t be certain of this, however, but it seems that I was approaching Bank Street from the parking lot which is “currently” there (but wasn’t in my youth) and was leaping over the road (in slow motion over passing cars) to get to the other side of the street. Just then a woman approached me and began talking to me about her recent move to town and how expensive living here was proving to be. We were walking north toward main street and I recall my entering a building which I felt was where I lived. She walked in front of me up some steps and was relating to me how she had to pay for her son’s coffin which had to be sent from the war. She was sad and angry and I was of the impression that government was somehow to blame for all of these taxes and high costs of living. I remember her husband walking along side of me as we went up the stairs.

I next remember squeezing through or around some beams (we were on some sort of landing with a series of large wooden building members crisscrossing at the point we were at; as though we were up into the gable or truss portion of the building. The woman’s husband was still with me. I sat on one of these beams and I believe that I lit a cigarette. Somehow or another a small fire broke out on the beam next to where I was sitting, and I considered it the result (perhaps the cost) of smoking. I recall feeling a little embarrassed by this situation and began to crush out the fire. I remember remarking to him that I would often sit out on the beam (presumably to be by myself and think), but I had the definite feeling that this wasn’t quite true. Nevertheless, I wanted to convey this message to him. I believe that I may have then qualified my remark by saying that I sometimes would sit here. [This strikes a vague chord in me that suspects that I want to convey and hold on to a personality “mask” which demonstrates to others that I am a reflective, thinking or feeling type. I sense that this may not be altogether true.]

The next scene took place in a factory/bakery type setting. (The machinery looked like stacks of wall ovens.) I was taking care of the place and recall having to be extremely vigilant about watching for fires. Fire would easily break out here and there (usually along the floor) and I had constantly to walk around dousing them wherever they appeared. I remember some fellow worker telling me about his applying for a higher position and had the definite feeling that it was my job he was applying to, or, perhaps, even a job superior to it. I was opening one of the oven doors at the time, again looking for fires, and found a fire in one of the lower ovens. I pointed this out to two people who seemed to be accompanying me as I was making the rounds. In some way, I imagined them to be observers who might have been “evaluating” me. I was feeling pretty much in control of the situation since I had apparently learned how to stay on top of the fires. I reminded them of this upon finding this most recent fire, but one of them was quick to point out that there was food cooking in this oven and that, therefore, the fire was necessary. [I guess that the point of this episode was meant to show me that I must be able to tell the difference between fires which need to be controlled and those which serve a useful purpose, and that I was being evaluated on my ability to discern the difference. This is reminiscent of several earlier dreams where I am being “evaluated” (10/8/90, 2/25/93, 3/10/93, 3/16/93, 9/3/94). In any regard, what these dreams seem to have in common is that they are all informing me that I am not ready to manage either myself or others. The first informed me that I am not “psychologically” ready for management; the second and third, that I must first do the “required work”; the forth, an observation of which path in life I would choose; and the fifth, a reminder that I may be unprepared for management due to a lack of knowledge or courage enough to face difficult circumstances and to lead others in spite of the same.

Getting back to this current dream, I remember the oven being extremely deep (ten feet or so) and that it had an open flame in it, as though it were an old fashioned stone oven. Only this was true of the inside only, since the outside was modern stainless steel. [“Inside” old-fashioned and with fire, while outside is “modern.” Oven may symbolize myself–a place where fire (light, knowledge) is needed!] I remember seeing a long pasta dish (four or five feet long) laying on its side with some of its ingredients spilling out. It was like a five foot long lasagna strip laying on its side.

[Evaluation dream of 3/10/93 was similar to this. In this dream, my chest cavity became transparent and I could see a long, fat-like lasagna noodle stretching from my throat to by abdomen. Again, this dream involved a “teacher” or “evaluator” who was trying to get me to “do my work.” I recall that I was taking the easy way out (not reading the text) and was solely relying on my native intelligence to pass the tests. I had just gone indoors to get some socks to protect me against mosquitoes when this incident happened. I had also decided that I would return outdoors with my book and would read it.

Resuming with the dream, one of the men accompanying me pointed out that I probably should remove the food since the noodles appeared to be almost cooked. I was reminded that by the time the other food in the oven was cooked, this dish would be perfect. I don’t know how removing it from the oven would have this effect, and was hesitating about doing it because I simply wasn’t sure about whether I should. I recall two or three large oval pizza’s being at the rear of the ovens. I had to reach way back with a long-handled spatula (or whatever they are called) to pull them out of the oven. I finally remember pulling everything out except for several pieces of sausage which fell off the pizza’s.

The next scene had everyone (employees?) sitting around the table eating. I recall that it was necessary to have two shifts in order to accommodate everyone. After the first shift had eaten, the second was to sit down. A boyhood friend, George, gave me his seat after he had finished eating and I proceeded to put food on my plate. I don’t recall what I had, but know that some of the food was already gone. Everyone had eaten the pizza, for example, and the result was simply that I didn’t grab fast enough and missed out on the food. At first I felt that there hadn’t been enough cooked, but then I could envision the first shift eating more than their share. I next considered that I should have portioned it or cut smaller pieces, but then realized that this would have been to no avail since everyone would have taken several pieces at a time. [Feel the dread of having to compete; that there is no sufficient “knowledge” or “system” which could avoid this ugly issue which I choose not to face. Thus, as usual, I miss out on the food–the good things of life–and can only grieve my losses from my failure or reluctance to play by the rules; that is, to take life as it comes and not as I wish it.] I also recall a somewhat disturbing incident at the table. One individual had a large quart container of something (I imagined it to be coleslaw) and was complaining how he had been “short-changed.” He then stuck his mouth into the container, licked across the top of its contents, and then passed it to another location on the table. I pointed (or simply took note) of the fact that my portion was only a “pint” container and couldn’t help but wonder what would become of his container. I envisioned that it was possible that someone, who was not there to see this incident, might sit down to the table and begin eating from this container. (Or vaguely sense that I might “get away with the same” since I was somehow in charge of properly feeding these people.) Again, I seemed tempted to take advantage of something “wrong” which could nonetheless aid me in overcoming my difficulties.

[Reminiscent of a previous dream (8/1/91) where I was appalled by thieves stealing student graduation rings from their fingers, while I was not above pocketing them after finding them on the floor. In other words, if I could be reasonably assured of not getting caught, I might engage in the same crime. So much for imagined character!]

There were other vague (though no doubt important) events which I cannot remember. I sense them as vague impulses or reasons underlying the dream images which I can remember. I can only suppose that my ego is apparently not ready as yet to face these, and so they are suppressed for the time being. But I fully expect that their message will come out in future dreams just as previous dream images (fire, noodles, missing out, paying a price, wasted effort, etc.) are depicted in this dream; that is, are depicted over and over again. My goal, as I see it, is to examine the connections existing between these similar elements depicted in differing contexts. The dream work, in other words, is on-going and as progressive as I dare to make it. On the other hand, I have still managed to dodge the main messages in spite of their many repetitions. This is nothing short of astonishing given the sheer number of dreams which I have recorded over the last five years. I believe that it supports the necessity for my seeking outside help. It’s obvious that consciousness is doing its utmost at staving off the truth about myself. BUT WHY? HOW IS IT THAT A “PART” OF ALL THAT CONSTITUTES ME HAS THE POWER TO REMAIN APART? WHY NOT INTEGRATE!

8:00 a.m.
My wife just awakened me from what might have been a significant dream. As this is my day to go to therapy, I especially wanted to remember last night’s dream. Unfortunately, I only remember the one scene or episode which was playing upon awakening.

It was a street scene. I was sitting outside on some sort of throne, watching “my people” go by. I remember a young black man (in his early twenties, if that) sitting a few seats down the row on my left side. He was dressed in royal dress and was my “Counsel,” or in training for the same. For it appeared as though he wasn’t all that sure of himself and kept apprising me of what he was doing from time to time. For example, someone (a commoner) asked him for advice. Only in answering this person, he had to be concerned that he wasn’t in some way abrogating or invalidating his role as my Counsel. He felt the need to run this by me in order to assure me that he had not committed some impropriety. I recall people walking up and down the street as we sat on the sidelines watching. There were a couple of young girls who appeared to be dressed somewhat better than the average person. Someone remarked that they looked and acted so well that they could pass for “citizens” (actually a better term was used to describe their stature, but I can’t remember what it was). The one girl blushed at this and waved off the remark as though it were foolishness. You could see that she was thrilled by it, however.

Well, I don’t have the time to look at these dreams right now, but I can’t help but notice that the young black Counsel could easily stand in for a novice or reticent unconscious not wishing to overstep its bounds. Being a pleasant and considerate youth, instead of a forceful and powerful adult or “wise old man” might indicate just how sensitive my conscious ego (the King) is concerning just who’s in charge! Or might it be the other way around? At any rate, further amplification of these dreams will have to await another time.

October 27, 1994

I stayed overnight at my father’s house (the night before last) and spent all day yesterday with him and into the evening. It was a frustrating and exhausting experience inasmuch as I had to listen to him complain about my brother Augie, and had to withstand the monotony of his sitting in front of a blaring TV all day long, purportedly “listening” to stock and monetary news which I know is entirely over his head, let alone something of interest to him. Even though he has done rather well on the stock market, I believe that his watching this show for four and five hours at a time serves more as a veil or protective device shielding him from his own inner irritableness. To my way of thinking, he is stuck between living and not living (ironically like myself!) and as always, seems prepared to ensure that everyone around him be held to the same level. (Am I also like this? I don’t believe so.)

A part of me wants desperately to punish him–to exact some sort of revenge–while another part of me wants to protect him from the same, thereby demonstrating to myself that I am a better person for doing so; that I am in many ways superior to him. As his behavior continues to sting–demean–I want nothing more than to reveal him to himself. I want nothing more than to force him to recognize that I know the truth about him.

It is difficult enough to forgive past injustices, but it is agonizing to anticipate, withstand, and choose to forgive such injustices while they are occurring. Why do I choose to willfully (or passively) allow the same to take place? Because I wish to be a better–more worthwhile–person!

November 8, 1994

DREAM–LOW IMPACT: Owned a house with two or three acres of beautiful, sparsely wooded land leading to the sea. The seascape was magnificent with several large mountains of rock protruding from the water. I was extremely happy with my home and felt that it couldn’t be better. I was discussing with someone how I would like to create three small garden settings on my property in order to take fullest advantage of the view from different perspectives. I was totally happy with my location and its future prospects.

Recall a neighbor’s property running parallel to my own. I was walking this property and had noticed some beautiful raspberry bushes. I ate one or two and thought that I would ask the owner for some seedlings in order to transplant them on my own property. I felt as though I was trespassing, but continued anyway. While walking along the edge of this property, I suddenly came upon several other properties which ran perpendicular to it, although they were smaller rectangular pieces and were at least four or five feet lower than my immediate neighbor’s or my own. It had a stone wall separating it from my neighbor’s property. I recall walking down the length of his property until I reached the last perpendicular piece below. The owner of this property was out in his yard and could see me as I was clinging to shrubs so as not to fall off the wall or hang out too far onto his property. I felt that he was somewhat perturbed by my presence but really couldn’t say anything. I next remember stepping down to his property and going over to him to say hello. He was friendly at this point and began talking to me. The only thing I can remember about our conversation was that he mentioned his name and then translated it into Italian or Spanish. “I’m Peter, or you might say `Paolo’,” he remarked. I corrected him by saying that Peter would be “Pietro” and not “Paolo.” Or would be “Pedro” in Spanish. I felt that the man was Spanish, but didn’t know what to make of his translations, or his reason for making these remarks in the first place.

November 9, 1994

A friend of mine told me a dream of his which involved myself and my father. I find it extremely interesting inasmuch as it appears to be more “my dream” than his. The dream had a large impact and made a strong impression, not only on Mike, but also upon me when he told me about it. It went as follows:

Mike, myself, and my father were riding in a horse-drawn carriage similar to the one’s the Amish use. He and I were sitting on one side, and my father on the other. Above my father on a ledge was my mother’s corpse, dressed like a mummy and cut in two. There was blood all over her severed body. My father paid no heed to her presence and was laughing and joking with us as though there was nothing wrong with these circumstances. Mike was appalled by this but couldn’t remember what my behavior was.

Mike has met my father in real life and I’m sure that I’ve made mention of a few of his characteristics. But this dream seems to go beyond a superficial treatment of some known facts to something much more striking and deep; something more than he could know. This behavior would be typical of my father in fact, although, under normal circumstances, it would be much more subtly hidden from view. But deep down out of view the fact remains, and there is ample evidence to support it.

What is most frightening, however, is my own feeling or suspicion that I may be no different than my father in this regard–that I may be as devoid of feeling as he. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that neither of us is devoid of feelings, but are simply incapable of feeling. Speaking for myself alone (although I am confident that the same would be true of my father), I seem very capable of feeling at a distance; that is, feeling for persons far removed from myself, crying at movies or other moving events. But the closer one is to me, the more difficult it is for me to feel for them–I, myself, being the last in line I suspect.

This said, it seems quite appropriate that Mike could not recall what my own behavior was during this carriage ride. I have the definite impression that I would have gone along with my father’s apparent attitude, dismissing the fact of my mother’s presence from my mind. But what of this presence? Since this was Mike’s dream and not my own, perhaps her presence, as well as my father’s was an indirect way of depicting his own attitude toward his father and stepmother. His own mother died when he was thirteen years of age (so did my father’s mother die when my father was thirteen!) and Mike may have been using my family to depict his own feeling that, perhaps, his father has all but forgotten his first wife. Although Mike gets along well with his stepmother, there are still things about her which seem to aggravate him.

November 11, 1994

During last week’s therapy session, I asked my therapist about some of his personal opinions regarding dreams. He gave me a general overview which wasn’t all that specific, but seemed enough for the time being. My suspicions of whether he is open to the same sorts of feelings as I am regarding dreams–that is, open to the view that they may result from some separate, intelligent portion of ourselves, normally existing outside of consciousness–has still not been satisfied. In any event, we got on the topic of complexes which I felt were tied to archetypes. In fact, I thought that Jung regarded the archetypes as complexes of a kind, but my therapist corrected this error while admitting that one could be acting out of a particular archetype (like the father archetype) while in a complex. I’m not certain as to whether I stated his opinion correctly, but we went on from there to a discussion of my dream of October 19, 1994 where I (and others in my class) were being apprised of the advantages of “allowing light” into a container in order to help preserve its contents. I had moments earlier utilized a similar type container to transport my dead daughter to where I do not know. In any event, he zeroed in on this teacher’s message, informing me that the container might represent something I carry around with me like a dead corpse, and that there is obviously a connection between my daughter Monica and myself in this regard. And, while I was told to think about this, he told me something about myself which was supposed to “zap” me in response to my asking for such measures during our previous week’s meeting. He told me that I like to be in control, or, at least, that in situations where I feel that I am losing control, I seem to respond with “affective,” if not forceful or assertive behavior. I told him that this was hardly a “zap,” and in fact didn’t move me in the least. But, again, I was told to think about it and to write. So here I am.

Well, it’s true that I don’t like being told something that I already know, and, in fact, find it somewhat demeaning. But I already told my therapist this, and also the reason for it. My critical father competed with his own children and made especially certain that they did not rise above himself. If there was any evidence of this, then the subject was changed or mockery ensured. Nevertheless, if this is the basis for my therapist’s assumption, then it might prove productive to pursue this line of thought.

Since I could never satisfy my father’s unreachable expectations, or, at most, might hope for a “no comment” which meant that he absolutely could not find anything wrong with whatever it was I had undertaken to do, then I think it quite understandable that I (and my siblings) grew especially sensitive regarding assessments of our personal abilities. Unfortunately, such sensitivity led to defensive measures which went well beyond the protection needed. For example, my attitude will not endure (for long) having to listen to some long-winded (to me) explanation of something I already know. As I said, it is demeaning inasmuch as I tend to view such a situation as one which “someone in the know” is attempting to “fill a gap of ignorance” within myself. While I may have had (or compelled myself to withstand) such treatment from my father, it is extremely difficult for me to withstand the same form of treatment stemming from others. Obviously, my usage of the word “treatment” gives it away. In essence, I tend to view even the most innocuous explanations from the “father-son” relationship I have known. The same form of turmoil presents itself when dealing with my siblings. And with my father’s death approaching, none of us are relishing what we all know is going to take place. The animosity we feel against our father is, and will be, projected upon one another in no uncertain terms, and I am helpless to do anything about it. As my dream of 10/19/94 depicted, there I was, helpless to pilot my family home because it was dark outside and our airplane had no navigation equipment.

But does this mean that I want to be in control? I don’t believe so. I am more than willing to listen to someone who is telling me something which I don’t know, but, admittedly, can’t wait to absorb and “improve” upon the same as soon as I am able. For me, the whole world stands in constant need of improvement and, while something may dazzle me at first sight, invariably, I will find the means for overcoming this. Is my usage of the word “overcoming” giving me away? Is this how I view new knowledge, or the achievements of others?–something to be overcome? I suspect so. Rather than open myself to receiving something new, I suspect that my real game is to find in it something weak; that is, something which can be demeaned, proved wrong, or simply overcome. Given this attitude, it is no wonder that I can hardly stand still while listening to something which I already know. This is not merely trying my patience–it is trying my soul!

Well, what is this further clarification of my situation going to do for me? I certainly don’t wish to credit my therapist! No, that would not be in keeping with my controlling nature. In fact, I sense that I may even feel a little resentment toward him, especially if he believes that he deserves the credit for my coming to these conclusions. Of course, I’m being facetious in a joking way right now, but the truth is, I don’t wish to credit him for any of it. It would be tantamount to my having to admit that my father could be “right” when I have long-since shut the door on any such possibility. In other words, whether or not one or more of my father’s criticisms (or explanations) could be right, no longer matters to me. Sheer survival (or sheer revenge) necessitated that I shut off the entire flow–that is, the good with the bad. Unfortunately, my extending this same compulsive treatment to others has been a terrible cross to bear.

But this does not present my case in its fullest. For, while I may have “psychologically” shut off the flow from my father, in reality, I have not. That is, I continue to withstand the onslaught “with grace,” I feel, even while my insides are churning. I continue to feign respect, in other words, and continue in my quest to both understand and forgive him his trespasses. It’s beginning to sound like “The Lord’s Prayer,” only in reverse. Instead of asking the “Father” to be kind and forgiving, I am trying to forgive the father’s trespasses against me! Imagine, the victim is trying to find grounds to acquit his accuser! This may be all well and good for the perpetrator–but it has proven to be sheer hell for the victim. And yet, I feel that I am the better person if I can withstand it all.

Is this an ego thing? Probably. But, then, it may be a “turn the other cheek” thing as well. Or such passivity might be grounded in cowardice, arrogance, or in a so-called “Jesus complex.” I can personally make a case for all of these and probably more besides. But, again, perhaps my wishing to “acquit my accuser” is not all that stupid, since this, in itself, could be regarded as still another defensive measure. For the fact is that such an acquittal would amount to a negation of all that has transpired between us. In other words, my subjecting myself to such a sorrowful and painful quest is tantamount to “going for the gold”–that is, a single “erasure” of the total suffered to date–a total liquidation of sorrow with a single swipe! So, perhaps, my behavior is not an “ego thing,” but is representative of a tired and worn soul seeking rest in the most ultimate sense of the word. A lifetime devoted to redressing what one has been forced to suffer.

But it is obvious that I am not winning. I am steeped in confusion, tired and worn, both physically and psychologically. It is apparent that I am in the grip of something outside my control, or that my refusal to give in to it, itself represents my controlling nature. In other words, my unconscious may be forcing me to abandon such an idea, noble as it may sound to me, but to do what instead?

Okay, I’ve been “zapped”!

November 20, 1994

Haven’t recorded my dreams for almost a week now, although I have had several containing elements worth recording. It’s just that they aren’t very clear, and for that reason, I feel that the broth isn’t quite ready. I sense that dream work goes on apart from, or despite conscious awareness, and that when the soup is ready, I’ll be informed by way of a much more vivid dream. Nevertheless, there are many elements which appear to suggest that positive strides are being made in the unconscious.

Last Monday night, November 14th (my birthday and the night preceding therapy), I dreamt of going up in an elevator and, upon the doors opening, found myself to be aboard a ship which seemed to be docking. I might be missing several elements preceding this episode, but as it was, two individuals next to me jumped ship (while they had the chance) and proceeded to climb up some huge rocks to get to shore. I felt compelled to “take the chance” but declined. A few moments later, as the ship pulled even closer to shore, I felt certain that my passivity had been the better “choice,” but just as suddenly, the ship began to pull away from the shore.

I next remember going down an escalator which seemed to be old, or at least, somewhat dangerous. I had to hold on to a cable to keep from falling off it. When I got to the bottom, I thought that I would be told how to get back to where I was (on the other side of the ship?), but was told that I would have to pay another fee. I was incensed by this treatment (I had been had!) and began to yell about it. I was told to report my complaint to another individual who turned out to be a little elderly lady who was seated at a table not too far from the escalator I had just been on. I remember her counseling me on something or another and that she had a friendly, almost cute way about her–like a “Doctor Ruth” I imagined. When she leaned over toward me, I gave her a small peck on the cheek. I can’t recall what she told me.

This dream, like so many others before it, offers a scenario of my having to suffer the consequences of not having taken advantage of an opportunity which presented itself to me. I wanted to get to shore but didn’t particularly want to jump ship in order to ensure that I did. There is a question here as to whether I had the right to think that the ship was docking, or whether I was merely “hoping” that it was; that is, believing it was without probable cause. “Why do something the hard way when it might turn out to have been unnecessary?” I would inevitably argue. In any event, I was sent back down (into the unconscious?) to suffer the indignity of my failure to act. In this case, it was the indignity of being cheated, I felt–of having to pay all over again to get back to my original location–positioned for a another opportunity.

Last night, I had a more positive dream which shows that I am beginning to make progress. I can only remember a few fragments of the dream, but they point to my having to “admit the truth” about posing as someone else, and also suggest that the potential to accomplish seemingly impossible things may increase simply by going beyond the things themselves.

In the first scene, it seemed as though I was at some busy street or station location, something like a huge market setting built on a pier or train depot, where people were selling things. But I can’t be sure that this is a proper description. I met a woman who was with another man. I don’t know what their relationship was, but she wasn’t particularly fond of him. Somehow he got lost in the crowd (or she gave him the slip) and I took his place. I pretended to be her husband until we came across a couple who seemed suspicious. The man told me that her husband operated a restaurant and that it would be easy to discover if I knew anything about this. I felt squeezed and decided to admit that I was not him, but that nothing improper had taken place in any event.

Another scene, even more vague than the first, had me going someplace to pick up something. I believe that I was previously somewhere else and wasn’t able to carry some large object which I believe that I purchased. While buying something at this second location, I noticed a pick-up truck and asked if I could use it. I was told that I could and immediately thought that now I could double back to the previous location and pick up my other purchase. I remember this truck having two gear shifts side by side and found it somewhat confusing. I asked the owner if the truck was in normal drive (not 4-wheel drive) and believe that I recognized that it was as I began pulling away.

Now I am saying that these two dream episodes contain positive elements, but there is another way of looking at it. In the first scene, I saw fit to tell the truth, but I also realized that my chances for maintaining the lie were grower bleaker by the minute. In the second scene, I fell into a solution to my prior problem, but there was something wrong about my action. I felt that using this vehicle for my “other purpose” was in some way being dishonest. In spite of this, I felt somewhat elated that my difficult circumstance had been alleviated. In any event, upon awakening from these episodes, I felt good about what had been “accomplished” in the dream, and felt that something positive had occurred. It is only now that I sense that something less than positive transpired.

December 1, 1994

While my father continues to fail in his downward spiral toward death, old and new “father wounds” continue to haunt each and every one of us. There are few if any signs of healing and, perhaps, it might be more accurate to say that there are ominous signs of matters worsening.

The old wounds stem from unpleasant memories of former actions and attitudes held by my father; actions which were sometimes physically bruising, but always mentally humiliating. In point of fact, my father’s actions seemed bent upon lowering the pride, dignity, and self-respect of each one of us, almost as though it was in some way or another an honorable or dutiful thing to do. For these reasons, I feel that an understanding of the forces both driving and underlying humiliation will go a long way toward understanding ourselves as well as our father.

The new wounds stem from a deepening of the old through the continual absence of understanding; from the continuing presence and reminder that my father’s attitudes and characteristics have not changed (even though death is upon him), and, more importantly, by the fact that each of us has learned to foster and perpetuate the very same attitudes and actions which we purportedly have come to despise in our father.

I recognize this as being a deep issue and most probably beyond my capability to understand it. Nevertheless, I recognize that without such an understanding, each of us will be left with no other choice but to conclude that we are either deserving of such treatment, or else have been unjustly placed in the hands of a tyrant. My oldest brothers and sisters have tried to convince me that our father is “mean,” but, of course, I consider that a superficial judgment at best.

December 2, 1994

1:15 a.m.

Stopped writing yesterday and went into the house to eat dinner with Jane. I was feeling rather tired, heavy and depressed. Following dinner, I went down into the family room and took out the artificial Christmas tree Jane bought from a friend and began putting it together while watching TV news. Jane joined me soon after and we completed the tree in an hour. Rather than sit up to watch more television, however, I went to sleep at 8:00 after drinking a couple of glasses of water. It’s unusual for me to drink water, but I felt especially thirsty. I lay in bed thinking about the subject of “humility” as it relates to my father and his relationship with each and every one of us, and how I wished that I might be able to dream an answer to this problem. I dreamt the following:

I recall an episode dealing with a football team. One of its players (a Center) who was rather heavy and not at all good looking, had a very nice looking girl friend who he was no longer interested in. I’m not certain, but I believe that I was going to have an opportunity to be with her. I remember saying something to George Mancuso (boyhood friend) and coach of this team, that the line could break and the Center could get hurt. I remember him saying rather matter of fact: “The Center won’t be hurt.”

In another scene, I found myself being challenged by a young man who was after this same girl (who I believed was now “my girl”) and was doing front flips as he approached us. I stood between him and the girl trying to stop him, although I knew I was no match for him. I had a towel or cloth in my hand and, as he flipped, I tried swinging it to catch his legs, hoping that I might cause him to fall on his head. Having failed, and still trying to trick him, I asked him to do another flip which he did. But I couldn’t stop him from coming toward me.

The next scene took place in a sort of mansion where a rather attractive woman in her 60’s was dressed in a formal gown (sort of like a queen or the “Good Witch” in the Wizard of Oz movie). She seemed to be in charge. Just then, a beautiful young woman comes into the room (my girl) and the older woman comments that she is more beautiful than she had imagined. I next saw a middle aged, impeccably dressed, light-skinned Negro milling around the room. He was heavy set and I considered that he might be a body guard sent to protect us against the challenger or “trickster,” as he seemed to me to be. Just as suddenly, I saw the legs of a very tall man in the same room. As my eyes gazed up at his face, I could see that he was an exceedingly handsome, light-skinned black man (more like a seventeen year old boy) who was also impeccably dressed in what appeared to be turn of century English style clothing. I believe his suit was gray and he was wearing a round style top hat, whatever it’s called. Again, this figure was exceedingly handsome and extremely tall (ten or twelve feet). When I saw him, I immediately recognized that he was brought there to entice or distract the trickster away from the girl. I don’t know who planned this, but I felt that this was done for my benefit. The final scene showed me back home in bed. My wife Jane was just then coming to bed and she reminded me that an outside light was left on and that I should turn it off. I asked her why she couldn’t turn it off since she was already up, but I recognized that she wasn’t going to. I thought about how many times she had me doing such things for her and how I would get my revenge. I got out of bed and went into the kitchen which in my dream was my father’s house. I turned out the light and locked the kitchen door. But I wondered if the “trickster” was still outside, or whether I might be locking him “inside” the house. I awoke from the dream.

I had another dream with this same “trickster” character in it five or six months ago, I can’t be sure. I don’t think that I recorded it since I couldn’t remember too many elements. But I do remember that in that dream, he was trying to convince me of something which I didn’t want to hear and felt was threatening to me or to some part of me. I remember rushing home by auto trying to get away from him. Only he came whizzing past me on foot while “turning flips” all the while. He went far out ahead of me, approximately a mile down the road, and, just as suddenly, began flipping his way back toward my onrushing car. I had to swerve to keep from hitting him. I don’t recall the outcome of that dream, but I believe that he might have been at my home waiting for my arrival. I couldn’t beat this seemingly super-wise, super-agile athlete.

What is puzzling or somewhat twisted about this dream is how the “trickster” was initially interested in the girl, but was going to be lured away by the very tall and handsome young man. Why this switch in gender? When I awoke from the dream and immediately began to recall its elements, I may have also felt that the young man may have been intended to entice the older woman, which itself, would have represented still another switch in the dream. Where did she come from? And why would she be interested in this girl if in fact she was. Back to bed. Maybe a subsequent dream will reveal more of this mystery.

December 2, 1994

Just got a call from Mary. Pa died at 7:00 a.m. Very appropriately, he died on my brother Leonard’s watch. Leonard was furthest removed from him over these past few months and more, and it is significant that my father died in his care. Last Tuesday morning, following my sister Annie’s departure for Tennessee, my father went into a very deep and quiet sleep, so deep that I felt sure he had succumbed. I went into his bedroom and felt for a pulse and then a heartbeat. Feeling none, I reached out to touch his face and, upon doing so, awakened him from death. He opened his eyes and looked sort of surprised to see me. I should have realized after that morning that he was ready to let go of life. But I did little or nothing more than mention the incident to other members of the family.

It will be interesting to see whether my brothers and sisters pull together or pull apart. These last few weeks have been very trying due to competing interests, moods and feelings compelling each and every one of us. My father knew this would happen because he had all along been intimately involved in forming our respective natures and as well as attitudes. Like so many other things, he could not help but to project his own confused state of being upon the rest of us. And he fully recognized that this was so. Not that he recognized such traits as his own; I doubt that he was conscious of this. But he was intimately aware of what they constituted, and was most certainly aware of their dynamics. In such a way, my father was able to come face to face with his own negative traits by seeing them in his children. In other words, we reflected his images of himself without his having to bear the painful responsibility; a burden which undoubtedly proved to be too much for him. Speaking for myself, I am proud to have been given this opportunity.

It is not likely that my brothers and sisters will see the matter in this way; it has only begun to be clear in my own mind. But clear it is, and is more and more becoming. Each of us has been assigned a part of my father which my father could not bear. If we as a family took the sum total of all of the negatives projected upon each and every one of us, we would have some idea of my father’s own realization of himself. No doubt, each of us will carry these same burdens (which by now have become an integral part of our own natures) in ways befitting ourselves. Those who are strongest may be able to withstand the same; that is, with fewer projections upon their own children, but it is doubtful that any of us can, so strong was my father’s legacy in this regard. But, hopefully, each of us will eventually come to understand and accept the challenge which was given us, and go on to concentrate on the bright, mostly unspoken, legacy which also was my father’s. I am referring to the example he set in his visions and dealings with the world and other members of society. We must remind ourselves that this too was the real man.

Understandably, in our pain, we might feel more prone to pointing out the negative examples of his behavior (and there are many) rather than dare recognize the positive. But this one-sidedness skews the real man and only serves to perpetuate a mistaken belief about his true character and worth. There are some members of my family who cling to the negative side of the man; some who want desperately to see the positive. The more aggressive stance constitutes an attempt to “throw back at the man” the very projections he fostered upon us–to refuse them, in other words. These most rebellious members of my family (namely Mary and Leonard) appear to be the most aggressive and strongest among us, but just the opposite is the case. It would be closer to the truth to say that they are most unwilling to carry my father’s burdens because they are least able to carry them. It will be up to the rest of us to relieve them of the excess.

Most of the rest of us have remained passive in our willingness to bear the burdens which have been imposed upon us. Not that we haven’t tried to return my father’s fire from time to time–we have; but that, on average, we seem more resigned to carrying it; more hopeful that there might be something positive in it that we simply can’t see. I think that Mary and Leonard have shut the door in this regard; Leonard quietly retreating into his own impressions, while Mary has sought to put on my mother’s dress and has imagined herself as carrying her banner. “Remember Mama” is her cry to the rest of us as she goes into battle after battle, sometimes with my father, sometimes with the rest of us. I imagine that she considers herself a kind of “protector,” and herein lies the problem. For while both appear to be cloaked in my mother’s protective armor, the rest of us are not, at least not to this degree. While both of them are able to derive strength, as well as justification for their actions, by imagining themselves as fighting for Mama–the rest of us are not so willing. In my opinion, Leonard and Mary are, most appropriately, fighting for themselves, and no others in the final analysis. And they are doing so in the only way they can. What will be most difficult for either of them to understand is that their perceptions and relationship with their father are their own–and my mother’s her own, although it is doubtful that they will break this identification with her. Nor should they.

In order for each of us to gain a proper perspective, we will need to rise above the merely “apparent” to what we know is innermost in our hearts. If we choose to remain stuck in pain, denial or revenge, we will never be at peace with ourselves, much less with our father. Of course, we can pretend that we have not been all that much affected by our father’s life and actions, but this will do no good. The effects are everywhere present and they are very much alive within us. As such, they must be dealt with and not simply ignored or withstood. To stop at this point would be to demean both our father and mother since we carry both their burdens. In a very real sense, then, each of us is forced to live out whatever was not completed in our parent’s lives. If we accept this challenge, the bad along with the good, we will grow toward greater strength of character and wholesomeness which is our right. If we refuse life in this regard, we shall perish both as individuals and as a family.

December 3, 1994

My father lived as he died–unstructured and very much alone with his intuitions, thoughts and beliefs. Not very long ago, a couple of weeks, perhaps, he brought up the subject of Galileo and the fact that he was forced to recant to the church fathers. He also tried to remember the name of Giordano Bruno who wasn’t so fortunate. Condemned by the Inquisition for heresy and blasphemy, and unwilling to recant his beliefs to the church fathers, he was burned at the stake. In like manner, my father could not–would not–recant his beliefs.

December 14, 1994

An altogether common (and ugly) characteristic which I share with my brothers and sisters is becoming more and more apparent to me. I am referring to our attitude of hating the fact that others may know something which we are unaware of. Rather than relish the opportunity to learn something new from someone else, we all but despise such situations, finding them close to intolerable. If we did not feel a definite need to know what was being told us, we simply would not subject ourselves to such brutality. But as it is, we are forced to bear the humiliation under such circumstances, although we will attempt to hide what we are feeling by either presenting a veil of disinterest (looking away, changing the subject, interjecting some tangential point, etc.), or by immediately grabbing (I should say, “usurping”) what is being said as though we were saying it! Rarely do we allow an individual an opportunity to complete a sentence without inserting a comment of our own. And, in nearly every case, such comments will take the form of: “Yes, I’m already aware of what you are saying, and….” Again, the object is to “grab” what has been said and then diminish its importance as something new to ourselves. In so doing, we feel that we are staving off a “personal humiliation” which we are forced to suffer. In such ways, my father’s legacy to his children continues even after death.

December 15, 1994

HIGH IMPACT DREAM
Awoke from a dream whose details are pretty much lost to memory, but whose major elements are still with me. One scene dealt with my purchasing a bare, single stemmed tree which was a yearling from all appearances. I recall carrying it outside of the store and was approached by my brother Leonard, I believe, and told that it would be to no avail; that I would wind up with a tree full of tiny oranges which would not have sufficient time to grow into full-sized oranges. I told him that I would not allow this to happen; that I had every intention of severely pruning the tree to allow at least some of the fruit to grow to full proportions.

A second scene had to do with my standing outside with several of my grandnephews. One of them (Johnny) was making a nuisance of himself and I believe was severely dealt with by the others inasmuch as he was “killed” in my presence. There was something “rational” about this action which led me to do nothing. After the incident, however, I walked with the others into a building where I found Johnny’s mother, Betty, her sister Anne, and her mother (my sister Mary). Just then the full impact of what had taken place hit me. I embraced Betty and told her that Johnny was dead and that I had killed him. I remember seeing his body laying there (it simply reappeared in this location) and thought about Betty’s loss and our having to have another funeral. Presumably, I was thinking about my father’s recent death. In any event, I felt that my “values” had in some way permitted Johnny’s death and I could see that there was no remorse on the faces of those children who committed the act. I especially remember Johnny’s older brother, David, who I felt was looking to me for some sort of guidance concerning what had taken place. There was one other factor which seemed odd in this dream. The strong grief I felt for the moment while I was embracing Betty seemed short-lived. I recall both Mary and Ann chastising my behavior in all this, but that Johnny’s death had pretty much been accepted a few moments latter. Unfortunately, Betty now had one less child and that was all there seemed to it. The situation was simply accepted for what it was. This was the second dream in which I openly grieved for something I had done (See 10/23/94). Both dreams had to do with a death.

It strikes me that the first scene, concerning the orange tree, may have something to do with my attempting to carrying too much in mind (the source of my confusion) and not allowing myself the opportunity to select and fully develop a few ideas. This impossible burden has also led to a certain degree of superficiality, underdevelopment or stagnancy within my life. As a result of this attitude, I have not chosen a career path to follow and have been forced to withstand the consequences of having pretty much wasted my life.

The second episode also hints of this same dilemma, although from a different perspective. Here, we see the result of allowing “reason” to have full sway, even though it may be trespassing altogether obvious values which we may hold. By overvaluing reason in this way, I allowed a terrible incident to take place in my presence, almost without notice! “I saw, but I did not see.” It was only afterwards that the full impact of what had taken place finally hit me and awoke me from my dream. I ignored my inner values for the sake of an illusion.

I fully suspect that both dream scenarios accurately depict two important aspects of my current attitude regarding life: that I cannot choose, and that I cannot feel. Or better, perhaps, that I cannot choose (or allow myself) to feel–cannot bring my emotions and feelings into life and accord them the status which they deserve. As a result of this, I live “mezza morte” (or half-dead) as the expression goes; that is, detached from life-giving substance. I am pretending that I can live solely as a “conceptual man,” totally without recourse to anything else comprising me. I have, in other words, allowed myself to become dissociated from all that I am, and have tried, valiantly, to make a complete person out of what can only amount to a severed half. It is becoming more and more apparent that my writing, including criticisms of others, has been more a reflection of my own personal psychology, than it has been an objective understanding of others. Again, still another reminder of the sheer power projection holds over us.

I also cannot help but wonder if this dream had anything to do with the call I received today from my therapist. Having broken off therapy last month out of a lack of confidence in his ability to correctly interpret my dreams, here I was passively agreeing to continue with my sessions. I have felt that I have gained a meager amount of insight from the eight sessions I have already had, and feel that I am better equipped than my therapist to draw relevant conclusions from my dream material. However, my therapist continues to remind me that he is the expert and not me. Only I, on the other hand, feel strongly that most of what has been told me was derived from no other source than myself, given him through my own observations in the form of writing. In like manner, he will receive this piece as well.

At the same time as I am convinced that I am right in this observation, I am also aware of a potential tendency (which I might share with my brothers and sisters), to usurp and take credit for another person’s ideas (12/14/94). Again, the rational side of me will allow this “theoretical possibility,” but I am emotionally, if not intuitively, convinced that this is not the case. I rather suspect that I will merely be giving my therapist still more ammunition which he can use to perpetuate the charade, if charade it be. In other words, he can take full advantage of my inclination to abide by the dictates of my “rational” rather than “emotional” side. Since the possibility remains that my feelings might be wrong, I remain “hooked” through a self-imposed vulnerability which I seem both willing to expose and withstand. In other words, rather than abide by the dictates of my feelings, emotions, or intuition regarding this man, I have chosen to fight against myself in this regard. In so doing, I have revealed my tendency to give in to the will of another, rather than safeguard or stand up for my own. This thinking obviously demonstrates a lack of self respect and, I suspect, is a crucial element in understanding my personal dilemma. I can only wonder if my therapist will be able to grasp its significance.

During my sixth session, I asked my therapist to “zap” me with some relevant truth. He responded to this request in my seventh session by informing me that I “want to retain control of any situation I am in, and that if I feel I am losing it, I will generally respond with strong affect”; that is, with force and emotion in trying to regain a lost momentum. I didn’t think that this was very enlightening at the time, but decided to give him the benefit of trying to go with it. In a writing session (11/11/94), I tried to develop the idea in my own mind and came to some enlightening conclusions on my own. (On my own? Suddenly, the question of “idea ownership” seems irrelevant. I wonder why!). My writing session served to elaborate this point and I came away from it with a deeper understanding of my need for control and, specifically, how it stems from my relationship to my father. Following my father’s death, I elaborated this point still further (12/2/94) since I was more and more noticing this peculiarity of ours in the actions and quibbling of my siblings.

The point of all this is that my subsequent observations were stimulated by my therapist’s remark to me. In effect, he succeeded in raising (into conscious awareness) a highly relevant issue which is bound to have still further ramifications for me. This is precisely what I wanted him to do and should be grateful for his having done so. And yet, there is a part of me that still wants to diminish his contribution as a minor insight (perhaps a mere “shot in the dark”) which, of course, was really developed by myself, “as only I can do.” I recognize that this seeming arrogance on my part has something to do with my relationship to my father, but I can’t be certain as to how.

I wonder if it has anything to do with the humiliation suffered by having to listen to my father explain something (which may have already been understood) without daring to let on that we knew it, or whether it might, instead, have stemmed from the fear of not being able to understand what it was he was telling us. However, neither of these explanations seems appropriate inasmuch as nearly all of my father’s remarks were in the form of criticism rather than information or explanation–that is, unless he was talking about himself. So, how might the humiliation of having to suffer constant criticism fit in this regard? Perhaps the constant bombardment of the same made it impossible to regard any form of conversation in different light. Perhaps I, and my brothers and sisters, reached a point where even valid criticism had to be rejected as a safeguard against the brutalizing effects of the former. Perhaps my philosophical interest in searching for “essences” is little more than a desire to diminish what is already known. I seem to have been on such a crusade for the greater part of my life; that is, have always sought to show how and why what we claim to know is in fact bogus, lacking sufficient depth, or constituting an illusion or deception, etc. [Reminiscent of my dream of 10/23/94 where I was chastised for reading Jung too casually when in fact I was pressing a fact which was being ignored.] Does this account for my incessant compulsion to always want to improve upon something? Nothing is ever sufficient as it is for me. Everything stands in need of improvement. Is there a connection here?

I just returned from a break in writing. My wife is getting up for work and I thought that I would go into the house to say hello. I met her on the steps leading down to the living room and she wanted a hug. I embraced her saying that I really didn’t think she deserved it and proceeded to point out the fact that she had hurt me a week of so ago, a fact which I hadn’t forgotten. I proceeded to tell her of the incident which seems trivial on the surface, but was humiliating for me. We were driving home from having visited my father. I was driving my father’s car and she was following me in our own car. I was amazed at the clarity and sound of my father’s radio and wanted her to enjoy it. So I pulled the car off the road (she did the same), got out, and asked her to switch cars in order for her to enjoy the splendid sound. She declined saying that she would rather drive our own car, stating that having to shift gears would help to keep her awake. I recognized this as simply another insensitive rebuff which was altogether common for her. Angered, I slammed the door of her car shut and went on my way. Nothing more was said of the incident but she knew it was festering in me. So now that I was mentioning it, she commented to me: “So now you know how Catherine felt when you humiliated her,” referring to my informing family members of the fact that Catherine and her cousin Lenny had considered it appropriate to simply take two straight razors from my father’s barbering tools. They thought it appropriate and I did not. I considered it stealing and used the incident to reinforce my belief that the household belongings needed to be inventoried and dealt with promptly now that my father was no longer with us. I asked Jane what this had to do with our incident and whether or not this was the source of her rebuff. It wasn’t since the incident with Catherine took place after this time. And so I pointed out that it was just another example of her general insensitivity toward me and of our general incompatibility with one another. I reminded her that similar incidents have occurred in the past and that I was just tired of it all; that, perhaps, my own insensitivity toward my children and her were stemming from this self-same state of affairs. She said that maybe we should just end our marriage after the holidays and let it go at that. I responded by saying that we would probably be the better for it and most probably be much closer. And now I can’t help but wonder how my relationship (or lack of relationship) with my wife might fit in with my current thinking.

Another hypothetical I’ve happened upon recently is that I may be unable to be intimate with those who are closest to me; that while I can easily cry watching a sad movie on television, I am generally “stone cold” in the face of causing pain to someone close to me. This too is a very important fact regarding my personality and personal dilemma overall. Although I am critical of virtually everything surrounding me, including life itself, it is those who are closest to me who feel the brunt of my apprehensions, misgivings, and constant foreboding. [It’s odd, but it seems that when I’ve hurt someone close to me and am being chastised for having done so, or simply in full view of the consequences of my action, my turning stone cold feels like a defensive mechanism designed to protect myself rather than the person I’ve hurt. It’s as though I had to protect myself from feeling remorse.] And it almost goes without saying, that in this context, those who are closest to me appear to be least loved. In regards to my wife, children, and family members, there is an emptiness in me that tells me that this is true, shameful though it is for me to admit. I want more than anything to deny it–but I can’t. And yet, I can get choked up by thinking about this situation. This shows me that, while I may in fact be devoid of love, I am certainly not devoid of striving for it. But I also cannot help but feel that deep down within me, there is a strong love for my wife and daughters that is struggling to surface. Or is this just wishing it were different; something more closely approximating my ideal of what I wish were the case?

Only now I need to ask myself what it is that is preventing me from securing what I purportedly want–what I am most in need of? What is it about intimacy–real intimacy–that holds me at bay? What in it is feared or despised or longed for? A parental relationship which cannot be satisfied by any other persons? An ideal which has no way whatever of being realized? Am I seeking after an illusion of peace and contentment? An ideal wife or ideal children whose mere presence will simply right all existing wrongs and bring peace and harmony into my life? Is this the spell that blinds me?–the “holy chains” which bind me (treated in my Journey’s End 3/16/90)? Is this what my “submission to nakedness” was all about?–a “test of strength that dares receive the dress of truthfulness”? Yes, I believe that it is. And more revealing yet are the lines following it: “For now that I’m unraveled, my true self bared to see/ I’m frightened more than ever–simply frightened to be me.” Simply to be oneself, then, constitutes a veritable act of bravery, at least in my case. That poem represented my first step toward the truth about myself. As I recall it, it left me at the doorstep of my inner self. The last four and a half years have represented a clash between inner and outer world compulsions as well as a move from a purely rational standpoint to greater confidence in intuition and feeling.

It has been ten years almost to the day when I left my job at Iron City Sash and Door Company to begin “my work” at home. I don’t know whether there is any significance to this time interval, but it seems as though there is. I feel as though I’ve reached a point of acceptance (or nearly so) whereby I am no longer questioning the significance of my inner self, but nearly stand ready to embark on a journey toward it. My defenses against doing so are quickly losing ground, be this from sheer exhaustion and fatigue, or from “enlightenment” as I wish to believe. And yet, I am still not without my doubts. There is still some fight left in me; a continuing “ego resistance” to whatever it is I am compelled to follow. But, admittedly, it is growing ever weaker. It seems that I am being asked to make a leap of faith, to jump into the abyss, in other words, and this without “knowing” why or whither I go.

In any event, it seems that I no longer have any choice in the matter; that I can no longer choose to resist because the means for doing so are growing increasingly ineffective; that I am being “worn” into submission. But in spite of it all, I still am not ready to simply let go of my rational standpoint–to simply submit to the unknown. “What if…?”, I keep asking myself. What if I’m making a terrible mistake? What if I am succumbing to delusions? What if I’m submitting to some darker side of myself? And, again, Why should I trust? Why should I make myself vulnerable? Why should I offer my ego up to a force which is not sufficiently understood? Sure, I want to believe that to do so will lead to greater inner and outer harmony; that I will in some way become more “integrated with myself,” as the saying goes. But what if…? Yes, what if I’m wrong!

December 16, 1994

Dream–Two Scenes–Vague recollection of two elements only.

First scene had me slowly flying (2 or 3 mph) over a long rectangular strip of land (approximately eight feet wide by 100 feet long). As usual, I was able to levitate in this manner, only this time, I carried some sort of bag which I needed to stay aloft. (I accomplished this by slowly compressing the bag. When all of the air had been squeezed out of the bag, I could replenish the supply by simply loosening my grip and allowing it to re-expand.) The strip of land contained all sorts of snakes who seemed to be enjoying the warmth derived from its brush and sand-like condition. I was pointing out the snakes to people who were passing by, noting a large python at one location and several other varieties as well. I felt rather safe so long as I could hover a safe distance above them.

Second scene had me visiting my mother. I went to her house (which was not her house in real life) and felt that I had to go through some sort of trap door in order to enter. I reached for keys to permit me to enter but noticed that that small door (30″X30″) was already open. I walked in and found my mother seated at the kitchen table. She appeared as a fairly thin black woman in her sixties. She was dressed in a silk, flowered nightgown and I immediately began teasing her about this. I asked her if there was a man hiding in the house, and she laughingly said “No”!

Once again, I am brought into close proximity with snakes. In my dream of August 31, 1994 (which happens to be my wedding anniversary, should this prove to be significant), I was encouraged to carry “my fire” closer to the water while having to walk alongside a tremendously large snake which, presumably, extended all the way to the water. (I can’t be certain of this point. I seem to recall seeing its head swing around toward me at one point and, thus, could not have extended to the water since the water was not yet in sight.) In any regard, I was somewhat afraid, but not terribly. As it was, I asked a young girl to walk ahead of me and to prod or push the snake away with a stick should it prove necessary to do so. In this current dream, I am put into close proximity to numerous snakes of every variety. Again, I am somewhat apprehensive, but not really afraid so long as I am able to remain safe above them. I can’t help but feel that I’m being slowly “conditioned” to face my fears. I don’t know what else to make of it.

I also don’t know what to make of my mother appearing as an entirely different looking black woman. I have had several previous dreams depicting black persons (4/2/93, 9/7/94, 10/20/94, 10/25/94 and 12/2/94) and can’t help but wonder about their significance. Each played a different role in every dream, and I can’t see a common theme running through them unless, of course, each is simply a representative (or representative) of my unconscious. The woman posing as my mother seems totally unlike the woman she was. This woman seemed genuinely decent as my mother most certainly was, but she was being “sexually daring” in a way that my mother could never be. And yet, my black mother in this dream was not all that comfortable in this garb herself. As with my real mother, I could easily tease her because of her decency and the general discomfort she was experiencing. Despite these few similarities, I don’t know what to make of this personage. If I could remember more material regarding this aspect of the dream, I might see why my unconscious sent this woman to me.

December 17, 1994

I recall a general mishmash of dream elements from last night which appear, on the surface at least, to amount to little or nothing of significance. I recall that I had been visiting Jane’s sister Helen’s home and was awaiting to depart from there to the airport in order to catch my plane home. My grandnephew, David, (Betty’s son on my side of the family) was sitting on a sofa next to me. Apparently, he was Helen’s and Dave’s son in this dream, or else was brought into the dream for some other reason. In any event, he appeared somewhat lost or lonely and I put my arm around him in a comforting way. I recall hoping that Dave or Helen didn’t see this since I felt that they might be jealous of my relationship with their son. The upshot of the dream was that I was fidgeting, not knowing when I had to leave for the airport or whether or not I had all my belongings with me. I had no idea of departure time, whatever, and was thinking to myself that I probably ought to call the airport rather than sit there fidgeting over the situation. The dream, in other words, like so many others before it, represented the confusing state I seem to be in. It seems preposterous that I wouldn’t have known the time of departure, or whether I had all my belongings together with me since this is just the opposite of how I would have acted in real life. And yet, when it comes to the larger matters in life–not mere details associated with routine action–but those which require decisiveness and action on a more important plane, I pretty much fit this picture.

Why this confusion? I don’t know. I suspect that it has something to do with my inability to sort myself out; out from the barrage of competing elements which also seem to comprise who I am. It’s not a loss of identity, or anything on that scale, but more of a hodgepodge of competing conceptual and emotional issues which are impossible to sort out. Here I am, 54 years of age, with a lifetime of reflection, and I still can’t sort out or comprehend even the most basic issues concerning myself. For example, with all of my reading on the subjects of philosophy and psychology, I still do not know whether my problem (or need) is to go inside or outside myself; whether I need to allow greater passivity and openness toward my unconscious, or whether I must shut it off in favor of a stronger conscious judging attitude. In other words, is my confusion due mainly to my unwillingness to choose and dare act upon my choice, regardless of its uncertain outcome, or am I to await direction from the unconscious–continue to withstand its many confusing elements–while retaining the faith that, in so doing, I will become integral with all that I am? In other words, is my ego too strong or too weak? Do I need to give it up or assert it? Again, I can’t even answer these basic questions which, presumably, are conceptually definable and clear to others. Why aren’t they clear to myself? Why is it that I seem to be able to have two perspectives of a singular thing which allows me to see it in opposition to itself? Is this a conceptual shifting or a personal one? Regardless, it forces disequilibrium and stagnates action.

But is it necessary to act from a balanced posture? Perhaps not. But it would certainly have to be considered abnormal were we to do so. Whatever else normality may mean, it entails wholeness or at least some semblance of it. It seems likely that we, as a species, are forced to suffer a continuum stretching from integrity to dissociation in order to progress. That imbalance is as necessary to life as is balance, regardless of the oftentimes disastrous consequences stemming from both extremes. Thus, we cannot simply shut imbalance out of our concept of normality, as though it were not an integral part to it. Rather, our concept must be enlarged to encompass its opposite. But how? Wouldn’t this be inviting imbalance or disequilibrium? Isn’t action or progress itself contingent upon our choosing sides?; contingent upon our hacking off and ignoring what we choose not to see? Perhaps. But perhaps there is more to this than meets the eye.

For example, it just might be the case that the unconscious has carried this burden for us; that despite our apparent need for a one-sided conscious perspective, the unconscious may bear and hide its opposite for our mutual benefit; that is, enable us to carry the illusion of “freedom” by limiting our perspective. It would stand to reason, if I am right in this, that the further one is removed from one’s unconscious, the more certain he or she will appear, and vice-versa. Should one choose to delve deeper into oneself, one is likely to see glimmerings of the opposing perspectives themselves. Admittedly, I can’t help but feel that I belong to this self-same class of individuals who feels himself somewhere in between where he should have been and where he should go, not knowing whether to retreat or press forward as it were. As my conscious attitude has reached a point of stagnancy, a point of equilibrium between two seemingly equal forces compelling me in opposite directions, I am wearing down both physically and psychologically. What will it take to break the stalemate?

I have tried, to no avail it would seem, to understand how I got to this place. While one part of me is saying that I am getting what I deserve because I am guilty of trespassing where I don’t belong, another part is saying that I have not gone far enough; that I must dare to venture deeper into the unconscious if I am to gain that knowledge which is necessary to sustain me. Because I am who I am, this voice is saying that I have no choice but to travel the road which I have already traveled; no choice but to travel the road which spreads before me. Therefore, I must have courage and trust myself to the hands of fate. Wherever my destiny lies, I must dare to let it unfold.

But in my Journey’s End (3/16/90), I was told that my battle is with fate; that it is fate that “entraps me,” “holds me,” and now “calls me to battle.” Only why does there have to be a fight? And how exactly am I to battle and entrust myself to fate at the same time? And what exactly would I be fighting for–freedom? I presume so. But in what sense must I regard this freedom? Am I after the freedom to know and understand that greater part to which we belong? I presume so. Then is this why I am being told to “build my fire closer to the water” (8/31/94)? Am I being told that the freedom I want must be sought and fought for by daring to approach the unconscious? Should I assume that the most frightening aspect of freedom will be the act of daring to stand alone; that is, without those safeguarding illusions provided by the unconscious? I believe so. And, as I further expressed in my poem: The challenge which confronts me “is for all the world to tame” and that my “true strength” can be said to derive from “wanting,” the “source of [my] travail.” Is this what I want–what I’ve always wanted–to tame the world? Heady though it sounds, I believe it is. I have always felt that, with proper understanding, we could somehow overcome our base instincts; that in so doing, we could create a greater sense of respect for one another, as well as foster greater harmony in the world as a whole. But do I have the courage to stand naked before the unconscious in order to gain the means? Without my “holy chains”–those illusions which have both “protected” and “withheld” us from the true facts of our existence–will I be able to withstand knowing the truth about myself–about all of us, perhaps? Is this to be the price which must be paid for freedom? That we must dare to stand alone–dare to simply “be”? Is this the test of strength which I am told I must endure?–the “dress of truthfulness”? But what if I’m unable to do so? What then?

It strikes me that the “holy chains,” which serve us as “supporting crutches,” may be a good thing in disguise. Perhaps none of us are ready to know, much less, accept the truth about ourselves and the world to which we belong. Perhaps we would all be better off accepting things as they are and simply holding to the faith that all is unfolding as it should. And, perhaps, I’m simply too cowardly to face my destiny.

December 23, 1994

UNUSUAL DREAM
A character in this dream reminded me that I had seen him previously which, to my knowledge, I was totally unaware of until I finally remembered that it had been in a former dream which was different from the present one, though containing many of the same elements and characters. Another example of my conscious attitude maintaining its dualistic stance against the unconscious.

It was an outdoor, park-like setting. There were bowling alleys on the lawn and bowling ball racks scattered here and there around the grounds. I remember walking around from rack to rack trying to find a ball that fit. It was next to hopeless since so many balls were missing (presumably from being stolen), and I was unable to find anything resembling a good fit. It seemed ridiculous to simply leave bowling balls outdoors without being locked up. There is a vague recollection that there was such a locking mechanism which was used after-hours, but not during the day. I felt that this was still foolish since anyone could simply take a ball and leave with it in broad daylight. I don’t know who I was going to bowl with or whether someone had in fact invited me to bowl. I suspect that it might have been the latter, but can’t be certain.

I remember going over to another section where I was supposed to rent bowling shoes. The man in charge gave me a pair of shoes that resembled sponge slippers, or worse, slippers which were made out of some rough-textured material like a scouring pad would be made of. I remember not having socks since I was wearing sandals and felt that these shoes wouldn’t do under the circumstances. He brought me out another pair which were heavy leather fleece-lined work boots. I thought how strange this was; that apparently no one any longer cared what one wore on the alley’s these days. Since the rough-textured one’s were not really bothering me, I believe that I simply stayed with those on my feet.

The next scene had me going up a steep grade with my wife Jane and daughter Catherine. I don’t recall if we were walking or driving. It seemed as though there was something worthwhile (something sacred, I seemed to think) at the top of this hill or mountain, but felt that it still may not be worth the effort it would take to climb the hill. This said, it may have been the case that we were on foot. Just then, a man in the distance yelled out my name. He was tall, lanky, and had long reddish hair. I didn’t recognize him. I don’t recall the details, but I remember feeling somewhat uneasy in his presence. He proceeded to chide me a bit (which now reminds me of the “trickster” character in other dreams–only without the trickster’s acrobatic antics), and eventually told me that his name was Walter. I don’t know if I recognized having him at this time, or remained suspicious.

The next thing I remember was climbing this grade again, only this time with Walter at my side. We passed a house which was built in a tilted fashion, much like a young child does when drawing a chimney perpendicular to the slope of a roof. At first I thought that this might have been Walter’s house, but it wasn’t. Finally, we reached the top of the slope and then remembered being here some time in the past. Walter pointed to some of his friends and asked if I remembered them. They were motorcycle gang types living in communal fashion in this large ranch-like house. Some of them were milling around its western-styled front porch, seemingly disinterested in our presence. I recognized some of these faces and knew that I had been here before. But I did not recognize the fact that I was in a dream while trying to make reference to still another dream. This realization only came upon my waking.

Again, I was feeling somewhat awkward in the sense of not having control over this situation. Walter forced himself upon me, more or less, and I had felt compelled (perhaps out of fear) to follow him. Like the “trickster,” I instinctively felt that he was someone to reckon with, and that I had to be on my toes. I remember wondering what I would be able to do should Walter and his friends suddenly decide to rape my wife and daughter. What were their intentions anyway? How well did I know these people? How did I get into this potentially dangerous situation? How could I get us safely out? I believe that the dream ended at this point.

Upon awakening, I tried recalling the dream elements and immediately recognized that I had met these characters in a previous dream which I was only now remembering for the first time. And, although I couldn’t recall what the former dream had been about, I do remember that it was different from this one; that the situation had been different and that some of these characters appeared to be a little older now than they had previously. It was another reminder that forgotten dreams are never forgotten, but are in fact stored in the unconscious. I was reminded of this when recalling a dream I had on 7/4/93. In the midst of trying to remember elements of the dream, I experienced a sudden “outpouring” of previous dreams which may, in fact, have never been conscious outside the dream for all I know. It occurs to me that this outpouring of remembrances may have had nothing to do with previously forgotten dreams, but, instead, correlated with the actual dreams themselves; that is, as they occurred in the original dreams. I don’t think this was the case with these dreams–that I was never conscious of them outside the dreams themselves–but the possibility remains.

There are numerous issues which may have provided the impetus for this dream: my unduly suspicious nature; my vulnerability or tendency to allow myself to get into compromising or dangerous situations; my sense of having lost power or control over a situation, or my feeling that I must suffer (am at the mercy of) acts outside of my ability to control. For example, I couldn’t find a proper fitting bowling ball because too many had been stolen. They had been stolen because it was altogether easy to do so. Because I happened not to be wearing socks, there was a good possibility that no shoes would have felt comfortable. But as it was, changes in “normal” circumstances grew even worse than this and I was given a choice between two unsatisfactory alternatives. Instead of questioning Walter further, I, instead, allowed him to lead me (and my wife and daughter) into a situation which I couldn’t be certain of. Why? What compelled me to do so even though I was uncomfortable with Walter? Was it that fact that I was uncomfortable with him? Did I feel it a greater risk not to play along? Or was I fighting against my fear by taking the risk?

I recognize that I may be getting too far away from this dream’s message to me, but I find it somewhat ironic that I was on the verge of deciding not to climb the steep hill, when I felt that there was some sort of holy shrine or sacred benefit to doing so, but agreed to do so when persuaded by a character who I was suspicious of. It seems that I am too lazy to pursue a good, but too frightened to refuse a threat. Like so many previous dreams have depicted, I didn’t think it “worth the effort” to do something which would have proven to be difficult. And it was just at this deciding moment that Walter appeared on the scene. So does this represent a switch made by the dressmaker in order to get me up the hill? Or was I reluctant to do so because something inside of me was warning that nothing sacred rested at the top of the hill; that I was unconsciously aware of the potential danger which I would soon experience for myself? If so, then Walter’s appearance on the scene amounts to the dream revealing its true characters and motivations which, in this case, would amount to a deception. Walter got me to go up the hill where a vague sense of something sacred (worth seeing) could not. Was there ever something sacred there to be seen had I chosen to climb the hill in the first place? Had my conscious attitude made the right choice, would my dream have taken another direction entirely?
Despite my failure to understand what this dream is saying to me, I can’t help but feel that all of the emotions evoked in the dream are my own. I do feel “fearful,” “fatigued” (if not lazy), “vulnerable,” and simply “overwhelmed” by life or fate. I am anxious and unwilling to settle for a solid, though piecemeal, portion of life. I desire power through knowledge, but refuse to get lost or side-tracked by paying attention to details, or paying the price. I want to know “essences” as a form of protection against a fearful world. I want to cloak myself in this protective device; shield myself from a hostile world. I don’t want to be a pawn in the hands of fate. I want the freedom to control my own destiny.

December 26, 1994

I’ve had numerous dreams over the past week which I haven’t recorded. Some of them were rather unique and for that reason should have been recorded, but I just didn’t feel like it. Perhaps it was because so many of their elements were forgotten, and I didn’t want to bother with trying to remember them. Perhaps I just didn’t want to get out of bed during the middle of the night in order to do so. At any rate, I will try to recall some of the highlights which did get my attention.

Beginning with last night, I had several different dreams interrupted by several awakenings. One dream was extremely exciting inasmuch as it was one of those dreams that reinforced the idea that there are other personalities within me and that they are much more knowledgeable than my conscious self. I only wish I could remember what was said. I recall trying to look up a word in what I thought was a large dictionary. Only the book had all sorts of different sections or purposes to it–everything, it seemed, except a dictionary. I was directed to another book which in some way or another represented the antithesis of a dictionary, or another way of looking at something, I don’t remember.

Another part of this same dream had me speaking to two different people with the aid of two telephones (one at each ear). One person was an expert on something or another and was talking to someone else who was smarter yet. I believe that I may have had separate conversations with each of these individuals and was also able now to listen in on the conversation they were having with one another. I would give anything if I could remember this conversation–but I can’t. As I said, I do remember that the one man was more brilliant than the other and that he was helping the other to see a point. It had something to do with seeing or describing something in a way which was completely different (that is, in complete opposition) to our conscious notion of it. He was confident, cogent, and matter of fact. He said what he had to say in clearest terms, and what he had to say appeared to me as totally credible. Nothing will convince me that such personalities (or intelligences) do not reside in me. They most certainly do, whether I can remember the details of what they are saying or not. As far as I’m concerned, such details needn’t serve as evidence in this regard, for I am absolutely certain that I experienced what I experienced!

I recall laying in bed nearly dumbfounded by this dream, trying as hard as I could to hold on to the conversation that had taken place for as long as I could. Only moment by moment it began slipping from my mind until a minute later, I could hardly recollect anything at all regarding its context. Nevertheless, it was enough that I had in fact experienced a tremendous significance upon awakening from the dream. This was real and, at least, understood sufficiently enough to make me nothing short of enthralled by its message. Despite its fading from conscious understanding, I cannot forget that it was there in conscious mind, in varying degrees, even if only for precious seconds. For this reason, I am convinced that I have a great deal to look forward to in the coming months. I suspect that the perspective it called up proved simply too much for my accustomed conscious categories to uphold. The new conceptions stood naked and vulnerable to the barrage of “conscious normality” which followed in their wake.

Another dream from last night took place in a classroom-like setting with several instructors at the front of the class. One of them was Harold Greenstein, a former philosophy professor of mine who has come to be a “regular” in my dream life. The subject being discussed had to do with intuition, dreams, mystical qualities, or “fringe elements” which a structured, empirical modernist like Harold would not be all that comfortable with. It struck me that in this dream (unlike the others in which he appeared), he felt compelled to acknowledge the value of the topic at hand, but was trying to put it into a more acceptable order or framework. In other words, he was trying to control a situation which he was finding somewhat uncomfortable as well as unfamiliar. I recall being in the back of the classroom thinking that he was diminishing the facts at hand; that he was not according them their true value. I can’t recall anything beyond this point but have a vague feeling that I either did something, said something, or some further episode followed from this which I can’t remember.

If Harold represents the empirical skeptic in me, that part which wants to diminish the importance of the unconscious, he seems obvious that he is growing ever weaker as evidence in support of an oppositional standpoint continues to mount. Furthermore, it is growing more and more obvious to me that consciousness belongs to the world–has been made part and parcel of the same–while the unconscious has been shunned and hidden from view. By definition, we tend to believe that what lies outside of consciousness belongs to the unconscious. Tautological, perhaps, but this is only because we haven’t a proper term as yet for the “unconscious.” Or, more accurately, because we have refused to acknowledge anything existing outside of our ability to perceive it, we have simply shut out what has all along been with us. It is for this reason that the term “unconscious” became necessary–not because it was discovered, but because it could no longer be denied. Thus, Freud was forced to uncover and readmit into ordinary language, what has all along been with us for millennia.

Still another dream, or episode belonging to one of the above dreams, occurred last night. I remember being in a department store. I had dropped and broken a glass (belonging to me) on an earlier occasion and had just now broken still another one which I had been carrying. I was angry about the floor being so hard, but could do nothing. I remember talking to a clerk about it, but knew that there wasn’t anything that the store would or could do since both glasses belonged to me. As I was walking out of the store, I remember seeing a black security guard who I believe was trying to hail me. Since I didn’t do anything wrong, I was about to stop. But just as suddenly I got the urge to turn around and start shooting at this man with a gun which appeared from nowhere. It was a pistol with a long, rigid ammo pack (or straight clip) extending from it. I felt as though I were firing an automatic rifle. I fired a volley of shots at him and turned and ran. I can’t be certain if this episode ended at this point or not, but the next thing I remember, I was delivering mail as a postman.

What was the significance of bringing my own “fragile glass” (containers?) into a department store? Why wasn’t I able to hang on to them (both times) while still enabling myself to handle other merchandise? Why aren’t I allowed to handle other departmental merchandise? I suspect that my reason for cursing the hardness of the floor had to do with my inability to pursue what, from all indications, amounts to an improper action. Had the floor been softer, I would have been able to pick up my glass and proceed with what I was doing. Who or what did the black security guard represent? A message or “attitudinal correction” stemming from the unconscious? And why refuse to listen to this message, if that what it was going to be? Why shoot at this symbol of law and order, structure and focus? What am I so afraid of hearing?

To continue, the next dream (or dream episode) had me acting as a postman. I had three bundles of mail in my bag (two large and one legal size), but had, unknowingly, only been delivering the legal sized ones without realizing that the other bundles needed to be integrated as well. I remember being at the home of one family (the Berings as I recall) and was fumbling through my bag looking for mail for them. They seemed anxious for something and I finally found a piece for them which may have only been junk mail. Mrs. Bering seemed disappointed. I was about to leave when I realized that the other two bundles in my bag (large envelopes and magazines) should have been integrated with the smaller bundle, and that I had not, therefore, made complete deliveries to those houses I had already visited. I discovered in one of these other bundles another piece belonging to Mrs. Bering. I think it was nothing more than a magazine, but she seemed pleased that it was something. I remember mentioning the fact that I had not delivered all of someone’s mail (I forgot the name) and Mr. Bering responding that he worked with him and that he could take it to him. I don’t know if I declined the offer or not, but remember feeling very disorganized and frustrated over not having integrated the mail in the first place. The dream seemed like just another reminder of the benefits of organization and the frustration which often ensues from not having taken the time “to get it right” from the start. Because of my failure in this regard, I considered allowing Mr. Bering to deliver some; to go back to the houses I missed and correct my error; or to simply re-deliver the following day in a more proper fashion. This reminds me of my dream of 2/25/93 where another “structured personage,” Mr. Taggart (a former high school and college teacher of mine) was standing in the way of my receiving a high school diploma or not. I wasn’t attending his history class and was afraid that I would fail the final exam. I remember being left with three choices in this dream as well: should I attend class and try my hardest to catch up? Should I take a summer course which would qualify me for the same? Or should I simply forget about earning a high school diploma altogether? In other words, should I “correct my poor behavior?” “circumvent it?” or simply “quit my original goal?”

UNPUBLISHED THOUGHTS

1995

Thoughts on Dream States
January 4, 1995

Haven’t felt like recording my dreams of late, mostly because they have either not been all that interesting or have been too far out on the fringe to grasp. Two dreams in particular were like this, the first seeming to indicate that something was being resolved, while the second seemed to indicate that my personal dilemma (character traits) affect or spill over into the modern world–whether related or not.

I recall that in the first dream I was entangled in confusion and couldn’t sort out whatever it was that was bothering me on that night. I remember a solution coming in the form of a braided rope. The various strands comprising it in some way stood for the differing qualities I was finding impossible to deal with, or put into some form of order. The rope intimated to me how this might be possible, but did not do so in clear terms. Or I should say that, while its apparent meaning seemed clear to me at first, it proved to be a fleeting moment as its meaning slipped further and further away from me upon awakening. Dreams of this sort are perplexing. I can’t help but want to ask my unconscious why, if it is trying to get something over to me, take it away so suddenly? I’m certain that this is the wrong question to ask, but it seems natural to want to do so.

I do believe that we are forced to conclude that our “conscious waking state” is in some way different from our “conscious sleeping state”; that is, consciousness appears to behave differently when in either state. There are two things in particular which seem noteworthy in this regard: a) that when a dream has a special “impact” by way of proffering a solution, enlightened response, or something shocking, etc. the impact always seems to come at the tail end of the dream, or else forces the dream to terminate by the sheer fact of its impact, and b) waking consciousness quickly begins to lose track of whatever meaning was there to be had. Try as it might, consciousness generally has a difficult time trying to maintain possession of something which, apparently, has not yet been committed to memory. And, so long as waking consciousness is unable to directly experience the images which occurred during sleep, it can no longer sustain the proper correlations which existing between the images. In fact, as one slowly (or quickly) awakens from the dream, conscious “reality” appears to put a damper upon what had earlier seemed an altogether exciting prospect. How many times have I reveled in a dream–reading text, for example–only to find that I could remember none of it upon awakening.) Indeed, at this point, the prospect of having gained anything of real significance is severely diminished. And so it was that I was left with a mere memory of a rope which, in my dream, held out the prospect of providing a real solution to a personal complexity. Now, I can’t help but wonder if there ever anything there of value although, of course, I still have the image or model of the “braided rope.”

As for the second dream (my dream of last night), I have a similarly dismal recollection to report. All that I can remember is that I was experiencing a variety of modern-day situations or circumstances–the politician, Knute Gingrich was one such image–and that I was either affecting (or being affected) by this state of affairs, presumably, because of my personality characteristics or personal situation. I remember puzzling over these images (while still in my dream, I believe), and simply couldn’t understand what they had to do with me. They seemed totally outside of my personal interests and I recall being almost angry at the prospect that my time was being wasted by such images. This dream would suggest that sleeping consciousness (or more accurately, consciousness during sleep) is not always enthralled by the prospects presented to it–and it appears capable of registering its dissatisfaction.

There is still another enticing possibility worth noting. While I am undoubtedly conscious while dreaming, in the ordinary sense of the word, sometimes in the role of observer and sometimes as a participant, there are times when consciousness appears “self-reflective” inasmuch as I sometimes know I am dreaming while dreaming. However, this phenomena might just be owing to my merely “believing” the same, and it is this alone that enables me to “act” as though it were a fact.

In any regard, if I could just manage to stay in the dream throughout the period of impact or revelation, I am certain that I would gain a great deal more than I have. As it is, however, my conscious personality (in sleep) simply can’t wait to “capture the prize” and make a quick retreat back into the waking state. If only I could remain in order to more closely examine and review what was being presented to me. But, of course, this is easier said than done since the images are so fleeting, while the dream episodes seem to change almost erratically. Besides this, it seems apparent that dream reality and waking reality are two different things, even if consciousness can be said to remain the same. Thus, consciousness is undoubtedly armed with different evaluative mechanisms which are based upon outside world characteristics. As such, bringing logic and ordinary expectations into the world of dreams will probably not work. It is highly doubtful that the images will wait for us. On the other hand, in those dreams which appear to be communicating with consciousness by “responding” to some request or problem perplexing the dreamer (and I have had several), we might expect that the “dream presenter” might slow things down a bit. But what if there is no such presenter in fact? What if the response is nothing more than a reflex mechanism which at various times serves to regulate or counter the conscious attitude for whatever reason? How can we claim to be communicating with a “mechanism” in such cases? Let’s try to elaborate this point.

Whether the mechanism(s) governing dreams constitute real personalities or not, it cannot be denied that they at least produce such personalities in the form of dream images. Furthermore, we cannot deny that they are produced outside of conscious awareness and presented to it through this act of imagination, be we awake or asleep. In other words, we appear to have nothing whatever to do with the origination of such personalities. Thus, we are forced to conclude that, much like external reality is presented to us, there is an internal reality of images which are also presented to us. For the plain and simple fact (which we refuse to acknowledge) is that consciousness always receives, and if it can ever be said to be capable of creating anything at all, it is only after it has received the impetus (material, images, insights, etc.) enabling it to do so. Now since dream scenarios neither originate in the outside world, nor in consciousness as we understand it, we must assume that they originate from some unknown portion of ourselves which has this capability. Again, if there is an image-making mechanism within us that is capable of producing meaningful life-like, as well as fantastic scenarios, then we must either recognize it as a “creative personality” in its own right, or else must deny personality to our conscious selves. In my opinion, our conscious personalities are neither “creators” nor “suppressors” because in neither case are they acting alone. What causes us the most trouble is our tendency to simply “hack off” interfering phenomena in order to more easily establish and maintain those concepts we choose to accept.

I suspect that the truth of this matter lies somewhere between the two (rather flimsy) extremes which enable us to maintain our view of both conscious and unconscious personalities. In other words, it would make just as much sense to claim the one view (so long as we claim the opposite), as it would be to deny the one side, (so long as we deny the other). In my opinion, far too much has been made of the supposed “contents” and “merits” of consciousness, as well as our wrongly placed notion of “personality” which purportedly arose out of it. When one dares to look closely at this so-called “subject” or “identity,” one merely finds a hollow shell. Its “life-giving force”–its meaningful contents–appear to have been stolen from the outer and inner worlds–that is, from outside whatever parameters we have circumscribed for it. In my view, our notion of the existence of a “conscious personality” separate from the rest of what we comprise, as well as the world at large, is an illusion at best–a mere myth born out of the myth of “ego.” We might better ask: “What is it in us (our total being, or the world at large) that could benefit from such a self-deception?” Of course, we could say that it would be of obvious benefit to the “ego” itself, but this would entail that the ego is really something outside of consciousness, something which psychology would not wish to admit to. Ego is thought to be at the center of consciousness, but if it is, it was moved there only because something greater than it created a home for it. No, breaking off consciousness or ego from the rest of what constitutes us, neither resulted from any action on the part of “consciousness” nor from “ego”–because neither can properly be said to exist–at least not in their own right! Distinguishing identities and properties of identities is a conceptual affair and is never ending–one permutation following the other–like religions begetting religions. I can’t help but wonder if the entire problem is owing to nothing more than a misuse of language. Perhaps the philosophy of Ludwig Wittgenstein will be shown to have an even deeper influence upon psychology than what I feel will one day have to be acknowledged.

Returning to our discussion of dreams now, whatever we view the “giving mechanism” to be, we must hold that it is the self-same image-supplying mechanism at work, whether we are awake or asleep. As such, we must hold that it is this self-same mechanism that gives us our sense of personal identity–that which refers to the entire unity comprising us, whether we are aware of it or not. The point is that we don’t distinguish between what we know and don’t know regarding our total selves. When I refer to myself, it is all of me I am referring to–the unknown as well as the known. (And I fully recognize that there is a great deal which I don’t know.) Thus, when we are confronted by dreams which do more than depict our current circumstances; that is, which appear to interpret, resolve, or seemingly foretell some future consequence, we ought to feel that we have no other choice but to acknowledge that there is “more to ourselves” than what our personal understanding allows. This is no different than saying that “there is more to the world than what our limited understanding permits,” and yet, we can’t seem to escape the notion that there is a “dualism” present, and that it is contained “within” ourselves. In the so-called outside world, we acknowledge physical selves and the world of other objects. Within ourselves, there is that part that is within the range of consciousness, and that part which remains outside it. But it doesn’t end there. Consciousness and the “unconscious” can be, and are, further divided into oppositional constructs of a variety of sorts. We speak of “ego” as the central personality of consciousness, while the concept of “self” plays the same role in the so-called unconscious. On top of this, primarily as the result of Jungian psychology, there are still further constructs or personalities in the form of “archetypal images” which have come onto center stage. Now our view of the unconscious is swarming with competing “instinctual” compulsions or preferences, oftentimes depicted by mythical characters. This makes matters even more stressful inasmuch as it makes it more difficult to hold to the belief that we comprise, or are a part of, a single basic “unity.” With this picture, consciousness is open to a veritable bombardment of elements stemming from the unconscious. And, to be sure, the characteristics of various “pathological diseases” would appear to support the same.

This aside for the moment, I find it somewhat ironic that Jung spoke of society suffering a “fragmentation of personality” by holding too much to consciousness at the expense of the unconscious while, at the same time, opening up a veritable Pandoras box of discrete unconscious entities. Whereas we formerly suffered a discrepancy thought to exist between two entities, primarily, now we are forced to suffer the fate of one against thousands. But this is not what Jung intended. Rather, he clung to the Apollonian aim of “enlightening consciousness” by admitting more and more of the unconscious into it. In other words, rather than simply submit to the unconscious, he saw the necessity of holding to the conscious standpoint while, at the same time, daring to open it up to the greater part of ourselves.

Now I would not argue the point that what we call consciousness remains a very strong part of us; indeed, a much stronger part than what we acknowledge as “Self.” Indeed, there seems to be a hierarchy of response mechanisms working within us which more or less determine this precedence. For example, for some time now, we have been told that we need to pay greater heed to our waking state than to our sleeping state; to immediate sensations of outer circumstances rather than those stemming from the imagination alone. But I would argue that it never was the conscious standpoint compelling us to do so (not in the limited sense we make of), but rather our “innermost selves” which have all along provided us with the only identity we know. This is why consciousness appears to be stronger than our weaker notion of self. It is because it is the Self! As such, when we speak of the “unconscious” as though it were another cognizant, coordinating center contained within us, we are either referring to the unknown portion of ourselves or to nothing more than another portion of the outside world. In this new sense (or, more accurately, old sense), the sources of images and dreams remain outside ourselves, being integral with the world. Again, they do not originate in us, but through us. To be sure, there appears to be a coordinating “center” within each of us that allows us our sense of identity. It comprises (or at least is aware of) feelings and sensations, memory and imagination, and speech and thought–all of which appear to propel and safeguard us as we experience the world within and without. But then, this is precisely who we are and, as powerful as it might make us feel, we would be smart to recognize that the world is much greater still; that, in fact, it is the world that makes possible our perceptions, thoughts, and derived sense of personal identity and limited power.

Thus, I contend that it is not the hollow shell of “consciousness” that needs to admit greater portions of the unconscious into it. We make this dreadful mistake whenever we think that everything within us is in someway belonging to us. Our concept of physical identity–a self-contained container–is only made possible by our having distinguished it from all that surrounds it, and also by our willingness to take possession of all that remains within whatever parameters we choose. In such a way, even the tiny micro-organisms living within us are “belonging to us,” even though we are forced to acknowledge that they have their own physical realities. But there is simply no indication whatever of there being some “other” knowing entity, (outside of ourselves), that gives a hoot about what “our” hearts or lungs or bodily parasites are doing at any given time. For again, the plain and simple truth is that “we” are the only identity that we know, and it is an identity that is rightfully gaining ground. I am referring to the growing awareness (and I believe it to be an extremely healthy awareness) that meaning rests in the world outside ourselves, and that we are an integral part of its meaning–and not the other way around.

Speaking for my Self (and I mean this literally), I once expressed in an Autowriting session (8/4/91) that consciousness is “neither a goal” nor a “seemly source to soul.” If this Autowriting was in any way representative of some portion of the world speaking through me, as I believe it was, I will have to deny Jung his separations. As I stated earlier, I have found that when consciousness is stripped of all that it “receives,” there is little left to it but raw sensation. Why then hang on to the illusion surrounding consciousness when it can be shown that what it claims ownership of is in fact received and “usurped” from a world of “unconscious sources.” I believe that these irreconcilable facts are in need of satisfaction.

January 7, 1995

Personal experience has shown me that most of what I believe and do results from my own personal beliefs and psychological makeup; that I am, in fact, living out of the same, although what I am living is not always apparent. For example, I often feel that there is an oppositional struggle going on within me; or that I am being pulled in several directions at once. And, like anyone else, I want to believe that my behavior, thoughts and feelings, actually reveal who and what I am, even if what I am remains something of an enigma. Now it would be quite another matter if I could count on some form of synthesis or a “fusion of opposites” to clarify confusion on a regular basis, only this isn’t the way it works. New conceptions often come and go without clear contexts. And when they do suggest context, more often than not such contexts generally oppose current belief and practice. Aside from this, there are those times (albeit few in number) when new conceptions arrive as mere “glimmerings” of something dimly perceived (and only for a brief moment) and always prove impossible to grasp. At such times as these, I am always left with the feeling that something monumentally important occurred; though too monumental to understand for the time being. Thus, the first appears to be a gift for the present, a definite rung in the ladder of perception, while the latter appears to be something for the future. The first is generally associated with my current thought–the second portending something of great significance for the future. But what is the real significance of these remarks? Namely this.

Many writers continue to write out of personal beliefs and general concepts without having a significant understanding of what is actually taking place. In other words, they apparently think and write without noticing that they are both propelled and carried by the very concepts they believe they are employing–believe they are controlling. For example, when they attempt to “clarify concepts” by making their definitions more precise, they do so without understanding that they are only weakening them. Perhaps no other writer to date has done more to define his concepts than did the psychologist, Carl Jung. And he did so to the nth degree, even including a glossary of terms in his Psychological Types. As impressive and penetrating as these definitions are, the careful reader will note that they eventually bleed into one another; that sooner or later, one is forced into having to combine concepts into multiple variations which, of course, were neither intended nor wanted. Like so many others before him, Jung understood this slippery ambiguity, not as something belonging to the nature of the concepts themselves, but very likely as an error in his own perception or judgment, something which “will have to be worked out.” This phrase has been used so much that it’s a sheer wonder why it hasn’t been worn out by now. But so it goes with contemporary authors as well; authors like James Hillman, Nathaniel Branden, Thomas Moore, and virtually every other author who appears bent on wringing new truths and knowledge from concepts. Virtually every one of them is falling into the same trap. But let’s look at an example of this.

In his book, “Honoring the Self,” Nathaniel Branden tries at the onset to establish a more refined definition of “self-esteem.” He tells us that high self-esteem is the “integrated sum of self-confidence and self-respect,” which sounds pretty good, even if takes us no closer to the truth. From here he proceeds to maneuver through all sorts of subtleties of meaning and, finally, narrows his definition down to something which might best be described as a common-place ideal. So commonplace, in fact, that virtually every book on the market today is the direct result of having clung to the very same illusion. And what is this? It is the thought that what is easiest, least ambiguous, most “normal” or representative of all that we seem to aspire to, is to be considered accurate, while that which isn’t, shouldn’t. Thus, like so many other definitions, especially in the field of psychology and personal growth, Branden’s definition of self-esteem turns out to be nothing more than a substitute for “adaptation.” And when he solicits the views of psychologists from across the spectrum of psychology, not surprising, he gets the very same thing. All seem in agreement that a person with high self-esteem is exactly “centered” in virtually every respect. As they put it, they seem to “take joy in being alive,” “speak confidently and openly regarding their achievements or shortcomings,” “are open to criticism,” “project an attitude of flexibility,” and on and on. Well, of course they all agree; they are clinging to the same paradigm. For them, what is most desirable in life is health and ease, as if individual desires could somehow replace nature; as though we could somehow insist on the same through such efforts. And if this weren’t bad enough, Branden goes on to present us with a whole host of “physical indicators” which could be used to identify the self-esteemed individual: “eyes that are alert, bright, lively”; “a face that is relaxed and (barring illness) exhibits natural color and good skin vibrancy.” It sounds like something which might have been written by a 19th century Phrenologist. Anyway, I think you can get the point. He doesn’t have an inkling of what he is doing, nor do any of the other psychologists that responded to his inquiry.

Again, the hidden paradigm in all such books are doing little more than making the tautological claim that “the best fit is always best.” Of course it would follow from this premise that the person who (for whatever reason) is able to go through life with a minimum of effort, will most likely be comfortable and at ease with him or herself. Who wouldn’t? But why artificially reduce the term to this shallow definition? Not only is such an assertion not true (since I can esteem myself while, or even for, having to suffer “the pangs of life”), but it blatantly disregards the facts of life itself. For we are not all “well-adjusted” or “ideally suited” to each and every circumstance of life,–nor can we be,–nor should we be. And yet, this is precisely what we have been led to believe; are told to strive for.

Our bookshelves are loaded with such information, informing us of what we need to do to be happy; need to do to solve problems, mend unhappy marriages, get job interviews, etc. But, if nothing else, our instincts tell us that we would need to be chameleons to meet all such requirements for each and every circumstance. How long will this charade be tolerated? Branden’s definition of “self-esteem,” like all such definitions, is plainly devoid of life. At very most, it will be seen to apply to a mere sliver of the general population and, as such, will only serve to fragment the rest of us even more than we are at present. Again, such definitions are dangerous precisely because they are lifeless.

These remarks should point to a need for greater awareness of the manner in which we are led by preconceived notions and concepts. I further believe that we are presently on the brink of such a conceptual breakthrough; if not, neither I nor anyone else would be able to point to such errors by offering differing perspectives. It is obvious, therefore, that at least some of the relevant concepts are beginning to take shape. So it is to this area that I would now like to draw your attention.

Consider the person who strongly espouses conservative views. Now most of us would be prone to conclude that such views are representative of his personal beliefs; that such a person is fighting against liberal tendencies belonging to others? Only psychology offers another possibility. It informs us that it is also possible that the “liberal enemy” might exist within; that one’s strong reactions toward the views of others might really be a reflection of his trying to suppress a similar stirring within himself. Thus, what appears to be the case may be just the opposite, thanks to certain psychological concepts which allow us to gain such a perspective. Besides, one cannot help but wonder why so many “hard-liners” (on either side) are always so eager to engage in such battles, even when the situation is only remotely connected to themselves. Who are they really trying to convince?

Or consider another case of a conceptual turnabout. For a long time, I puzzled over the fact that national elections are always close; or by the fact that a 55%-45% outcome is generally considered a “landslide.” It occurred to me one day that what we might be witnessing in such cases, is not the fact that 55% of the population “believed” one way, and 45% the other, but that only 5%-10% showed any such conviction. As for the remainder?–they merely “flipped a coin” when told that their time was up. It is for this reason (namely, statistical probability) that elections hover around the mid point. More evidence to suggest that most of us live and act without firm beliefs or convictions–a seemingly obvious, though highly profound statement if true.

Admittedly, I am not yet on solid ground myself in discussing these matters. I only know that, in my own case, many of the things I once believed were true of myself, turned out to be false or opposite to what I formerly believed; that, for example, a troublesome relationship I thought I shared with God, turned out (after many years of reflection) to directly parallel the relationship I shared with my father. I remember feeling violated when this truth descended upon me. I couldn’t help feeling cheated and misled. Why weren’t such facts evident to me from the beginning? Obviously, my latter belief superseded the former because it was more accurate, or because it represented a deeper truth about myself which couldn’t be denied. But what does this say about the certainty of belief? That we never can be certain? Perhaps. Only this is quite another matter from believing that we are capable of self-deception, which brings us yet to another conceptual quagmire–the subject of dualism.

For, just as we seem prone to cling to sterile ideals, none of which truly represents the way things are, so too are we prone to clinging to the “subject-object” relationship we share with the world. Unfortunately, like our habits regarding definition, this area also suffers from misinformation and conceptual ambiguity. As such, the fact that we are able to come to a better understanding of something which occurred in the past, is taken to mean that we must have been wrong. The fact that we did not know that our belief was mistaken is taken to mean that we were deceived or at least deluded. But were we deluded by nature or by some inner “subject” of which we know little or nothing? Thus, the idea of “self-deception” is not merely taken as a mistaken belief about some fact in the world–it becomes the result of our not knowing that “some other form of thinking” is going on within us. The point is, our arrogance simply refuses to acknowledge that there could be anything outside of our conscious selves (that is, located in nature) that could adequately stand in for us, much less be considered superior to ourselves. [Emerson be damned!] No, the paradigm we wish to cling to will only permit some other kind of “Self” which is somehow contained in us–belongs to us–and, of course, is very much like ourselves. This we can tolerate. And it is precisely this attitude that causes us to stray further and further from the facts–further from our true selves.

To judge (at some later time) that an earlier perception was wrong, is not at all the same as saying that “At that particular time, I was deceived, or that I was deceiving myself.” On the contrary, at that particular time, I fully believed something which only later was judged to be wrong. Self-deception never entered the picture. But what about our first example–the conservative who is unaware of his own liberal tendencies? “How can he be mistaken about something which presumably belongs to him?” “How can anyone be unaware of his own true feelings and beliefs?” Of course, only a dualism can save the day for us. Only by positing the existence of another self, can we say that such feelings are ours and not ours. Again, my aim is not to attack beliefs regarding minds, spirits, souls, inner selves, or any other such entity that we might imagine, or in imagining, construct. I believe that all such things are symbolic of some fact or truth in life. Indeed, from what I have said so far, it should be obvious that I believe all facts to be symbolic to one degree or another; and that all truth is a question of degree. All that any of us can do is to point to more encompassing levels of thought and perception in order to add to present knowledge and belief. New conceptions and perspectives not only serve to shed new light on current problems, but also shed light on the many of the activities underlying them.

And so it is with the subject of dualism. Emerson found the thought abhorrent because he clung to a monistic view of the universe. Nature is integral–is one–and that’s all there is to it. However, it’s not so easy with us. Since we will always be in some form of relationship with whatever happens to surround us, we have no other choice but to sense a duality. No matter how much we learn about other features belonging to ourselves; even those hidden and mysterious portions of which we know little or nothing; no matter how much we might extend our conscious knowledge of the same–we will always be left with our conscious selves. For the fact is, our conscious relationship with the world does not change. For us, it seems likely that this much will remain a dualism, even while we may hold that the world is one. In short, we attempt to construct concepts in order to fill in the gaps of our thinking. And so the conservative (in our former example) gains an “inner self” which has ideas of its own; which is capable of manipulating and keeping “liberal-minded” secrets from consciousness itself.

Once again, continuing in this vein, because we might come to recognize that a former belief was mistaken or misconstrued–that we did not understand the exact nature of a relationship, for example–this does not mean that we were deceived. In point of fact, we understand very little of what we, ourselves, comprise. There is no mystery in this. In light of this, why, then, do we insist upon clinging to false paradigms? Why, in fact, believe that our old perception was wrong? For if we hold former beliefs to be less than true or plainly false, then, in principle, we must hold the same for our present beliefs. For what belief has ever withstood the test of time? As I said, all of what we say and know is merely a never-ending portion of truth. We grasp more and more as time goes on. Not that we are heading toward a knowledge of “absolutes,” step by step, conception by conception, but that the continuum of which we are a part is forever changing. This does not merely mean that our conceptions are changing–we too are changing. I suspect that this is what Emerson had in mind when he presented us with this rather chilling remark:

This one fact the world hates, that the soul becomes; for that forever degrades the past, turns all riches to poverty, all reputation to a shame, confounds the saint with the rogue, shoves Jesus and Judas equally aside. (Self-Reliance)

In spite of these remarks, most of us will continue to cling to the belief that “we can deceive ourselves,” rather than begin to realize that our former conceptions were simply less sophisticated than our present ones. Again, it is for us to make such mistakes since there is an abundance of ready-made conceptual constructs to serve this purpose. For example, if we are spiritual-minded, or have read some philosophy or psychology, we could easily point to the complementary or “compensatory” nature of the “unconscious” as evidence for this dualism; or to the actions and characteristics of some “inner personality” or “archetypes” presumed to be acting (almost surreptitiously) beneath consciousness. As I said, theologians, philosophers and psychologists, have provided us with all sorts of “conceptual constructs” to fill in the missing gaps of our thinking. (Or is it a question of failing to think clearly or to reach our ideals?) Thus, if our conservative is unknowingly a “liberal,” then the liberal portion must belong to some other “subject” co-existing within himself. This is how the familiar subject-object relationship (between ourselves and the world) becomes internalized. Rather than examine and accept the new insights or conceptions coming to us almost on a daily basis, we would rather cling to our original conceptions, even though, by doing so, it forces us into having to “create” ever new contexts in order to “befit them.” And so the illusion continues.

Now we are prone to ask: Is our conservative espousing conservative ideals because he believes in them? or because he is reacting against liberal ideals which he really wishes he could hold? In other words, when a conservative attacks his adversaries, is he really testing them, hoping against hope that they might prove him wrong? Well, if so, then we must consider, further, the possibility that such an attitude might, in effect, be “emotionally-based,” rather than rationally, as we generally believe. And if we suspect that there could be something to this, then we should be willing to take a closer look at the role emotions play in both the formation and usage of our concepts. And “lo and behold,” we just might discover that it answers our apparent need for positing a dualism. It could be all a matter of categories of thought, I suspect. Such categories place belief and emotions in separate camps and, therefore, we do not suspect that one could serve as an alternative perspective for the other. Perhaps this can account for the “perceived presence” of a dualism.

Thinking now of myself, although I generally consider myself more liberal-minded than conservative, I know that I want nothing more than to see that such notions are appropriate; that all such ideas can be evaluated, structured, and put to good use. Thus, I would like, in effect, to be able to conserve whatever can be shown to be worthy of the same, and toss out the rest. And so, while I always remain open to new ideas, I am also aware of the fact that I am extremely cautious regarding all such ideas. For I am always in search of truth and certainty in order benefit myself and others. And while I remain open to the reception of new ideas (stemming from “myself” as well as others) I also know that I want nothing more than to grasp and hold onto them. So what am I?–liberal or conservative?–Berkeley or Stanford? Apparently it’s not so easy to judge, although I must honestly admit that, while I need, and am enticed by, the former, I feel a greater identification with the later. I love to perceive–but, without purpose, I’m afraid all such perceptions would prove to be numbing. I can speak from experience about this since, for most of my life to date, my perceptions have in fact inhibited or prohibited the structuring side of my personality to have its day.

Once again, our concepts prove to be extremely slippery whenever we attempt to pursue them, or make sense of them. Returning to my own example, I have never relished knowledge or change for its own sake–but always for its potential benefit to humankind. I can be extremely critical of both liberals and conservatives, and especially of those who too easily feign knowledge (and apparently get away with it). I seem to want to tell liberals to be more conservative, conservatives to be more liberal, and those professing to know something, to be much more honest. And, it almost goes without saying, that I find myself always groping for the middle ground; my thinking always seems to lead me here. For me, opposites do not appear as opposites, but as potentially interchangeable, if ever I gain the proper conceptual apparatus to really see it this way. But, even though I do not as yet have the ability to “unite” such conceptions, I can certainly point to their precarious nature and many of their flaws. Because of this, I have no doubt whatever that I am on the right track. This is not to say that one-sided perspectives are wrong, or far afield–I am equally certain that they play a crucial role in both the formation and clarification of concepts. My words are merely meant to remind us that other perspectives are possible; that they come to us almost daily; and that I personally experience them from the center. Your location on the continuum of life (or personality) may be in a different place and serving a different purpose. Mine is at the center. It is only after struggling with both ends of the conceptual continuum that I come by new conceptions. And rightly so. In my opinion, it is this pulsating effect (within the continuum of opposing concepts) that propels us to higher planes of understanding: from a single conception–to the formation of opposites (which, incidentally, give meaning to both sides)–to more precise definition–and back to the center again with an entirely new conception. What is most important to note, however, is that when our concepts become so refined as to no longer have meaning; so refined that their given meanings slip all too easily from one category to another; so refined that they no longer can stand firm against the backdrop from which they were taken–we can bet that the arrival of a new–far more encompassing–conception is imminent. I would like to believe that my remarks can serve to shed further light on this process.

January 8, 1995

I can’t be certain of what I’m about to write at the moment, but I suspect that I may have had a “continuance dream” last night. By this I mean both a dream reminding me of a previous dream (which was either forgotten or never entered into consciousness at all), but can now be seen to have been a first episode to the dream currently in view. Thus, I am without supporting evidence outside of the dream itself. And yet, my dreaming consciousness did in fact recognize and remember certain facts in the dream which made it possible for future events (within the dream) to unfold–namely, my determination to act upon such recollections as though the events remembered actually occurred.

Before recording the dream, I think that it may be especially worth noting that, prior to falling asleep last night, I was thinking about what I had written yesterday regarding the subject of consciousness and dualism, and was especially preoccupied with the notion of “self-reflection.” In particular, I was demeaning our notion of “self-deception,” while trying to demonstrate the absurdity of holding to such a view without also having to bring in dualistic notions which go far beyond the familiar “subject-object” relationship of ordinary experience. Such notions, in my opinion, entail that we believe in the existence of “other subjects” within ourselves–that is, other than that which we hold constitutes our personal identity. And yet, I was beginning to “doubt my doubts” as I lay there trying my hardest to concentrate on this subject. For while I was making this attempt, my thinking was constantly interrupted by emerging images and thoughts which apparently had some other origin (since I didn’t want them), and seemingly had no bearing whatever on the topic at issue.

And so I began asking myself where such images come from and how it was that they appeared to be capable of overriding “my” conscious thought–those thoughts which I felt “I” was generating from my own conscious standpoint. Furthermore, how is it that I am able to return to my original standpoint from such digressions with the incumbent feeling that I had in some way been intruded upon? For if “we” are truly “in” our thoughts when thinking, in the sense of being one and the same identity (and not in the kind of dualistic relationship we normally share with outside objects), then we shouldn’t have to regard such images and thoughts as “objects” of perceptions. And yet, here I was trying to fight off interfering images and thoughts which, while I was in them–that is, while they had hold of me–seemed really no different than those thoughts I saw fit to call my own. But there was a difference. For while it is true that each grouping appeared alike, while they had hold of me, there was only one identity which I eventually returned to. And this identity appeared to be distinctly different from both.

It occurs to me now that the confusion between the two types of thought (self-generated and other-generated) might just stem from the illusion of believing ourselves capable of creating thoughts in the first place. After all, my own so-called “self-generated thought” proved capable of making me forget myself; that is, lose track of my former state of awareness which preceded the same. Why, then, not suppose that both kinds of thinking are absolutely alike. And why not also suppose that, perhaps, neither type originates in so-called consciousness, but are “other-sourced.” Now I don’t mind admitting that there is something very satisfying about these remarks, even if I don’t fully understand them as yet. But I just wanted to say that the “pump was already primed” before I fell asleep last night, and I fully anticipate (though I am still not able to recognize it as yet) that my dream of last night most assuredly deals with this topic, and does so in a significant way.

The dream was like the second half of a story; an un-folding of something which had previously been folded; almost a direct reversal of a former series of events, segment by segment, which I feel had to have occurred. In my dream of last night, I was in search of a motorcycle which I had formerly hidden and, at this moment, couldn’t find. Only while I was engaged in searching for it, I was remembering all of the events which had led up to my having placed it there in the first place–that I had in fact secured a safe place for it at a previous time, which I believed to have been in a former dream. In other words, while I was searching in my dream, I recognized having previously gone through this same series of steps (though in reverse), and also recognized much of the existing environment as well.

I recall that I was in rural Wisconsin where I had gone to visit a girl (unrecognized). I left her house without saying anything to her and went in search of my motorcycle. I also recall feeling somewhat guilty about not asking her if she wanted to go out for breakfast. But I felt that I would do so once I found my motorcycle and returned to the house. I was in a very small village, the kind with a house here and a farm there, and felt that I would have to retrace my steps if I was to find my bike. (Perhaps this was the first instance of recognizing that the former events had occurred, but in any event, I couldn’t remember where I had left the bike.) I knew that I was retracing my steps, however, because I had remembrances of the surroundings and also vivid remembrances of my former actions. For example, I recognized a farm setting up on a hill (on my right side) as well as some of the houses which I had “earlier” come into contact with. I came upon a small little park-like business or residential apartment setting which I also recognized. It had brick pavement and trees shaped into a courtyard. I remember continuing past this setting and finally stopped at a house where I recall having formally considered leaving my bike. I remembered that I had originally just wanted to leave it in the driveway, and now I was afraid that if I did do so, it might be stolen or towed away at the owner’s request. (What is strange about this recalling of the dream thus far is that I am able to remember being in these places, and able to remember some of the thoughts I had while I was there, but I simply cannot remember past these situations. Why, for example, aren’t I able to simply remember not having left the bike at this particular location? And why didn’t the silliness of “towing a motorcycle” dawn on me?) At any rate, I went on to imagining that I might have to talk to a judge and try to explain why I saw fit to leave my bike there, if in fact I did so. But the bike wasn’t there at the moment, and so I turned around and resumed my search in the opposite direction.

While passing by the park once again, I remember seeing a young man who appeared to be walking toward a motorcycle which was standing on the walk. I thought how crazy he was for riding a motorcycle in the winter (suddenly it was winter), only he got on a nearby snowmobile instead and rode off. (There was never any thought that this motorcycle could have been mine). I continued walking in this direction, noticing once again the farm on the hill (which was now on my left side) and, more importantly, recalling that I still had my bike with me at this point at a former time. (I was not, however, aware of the fact that I was presently in a dream or that the remembrances I was having belonged to a former dream.) But I was quite aware of the former events as I continued to retrace my steps. My memory of what had happened before seemed altogether clear, but, again, only up to a point. Again, I wasn’t able to remember “past the present” in order to know the final outcome of what had happened previously. Had I been able to do so, I would simply have walked directly to where I had stored my bike.

As it was, however, I could recall only that I had previously come to this state in search of a girl; that I had a difficult time in trying to locate her house, and that, to make matters worse, believe that I may have run out of gas. As such, I needed to find a safe place for my motorcycle while I resumed my search for her home on foot. Again, I remembered the house and driveway, the park-like setting, and the farm on the hill. And now (only now) I was remembering that I still had my motorcycle with me at this point. So in one sense these events were a part of last night’s dream, but in another sense, they were not–only their recalling was. In fact, I was beginning to be suspicious of the girl at this point, wondering if she might have “lured” others out here. This, as I recall, never occurred in my previous dream or in my current remembrance of these earlier events.

I finally came upon a barn which I am not certain that I recognized. I walked inside it and came upon a room which was closed off by a large sliding door. Upon opening it a foot or so, I could see that it was filled with plumbing fixtures up to three or four feet from the ceiling and that there was a girl inside singing. I recall that I could hardly squeeze through the door since I now had a large knapsack on my back and was also shirtless for some unknown reason. I turned sideways and pulled myself upwards so that the knapsack could clear the top of the pile. I managed to get inside the room and began crawling over the pile. The girl was on the far side of the room doing something with these fixtures (which I believe were copper elbows) and was singing in a spiritual vein, much as a slave might have done in expressing the drudgery of her hardship. I was amazed at how good the lyrics were and told her that I wished that I had brought a tape recorder to record them. Nevertheless, I continued crossing over to the other side of the room and opened another door leading to still another room.

This room was also filled with material, grain I believe, although I can’t be absolutely certain of this. I remember working my way over to the front door, which was merely a small vertical trap door only two or three feet high with heavy tar paper covering it. This may have been the only door in the room. I noticed that the tar paper was held in place with nails and began pulling it away from the door opening, noticing that I was tearing the tar paper, however, while making the attempt. I then took greater care in pulling it over the nails without tearing it. When I had finally gone through the opening and was outside again, I could hear a rush of grain falling against the tar paper and knew that the opening was once again secure. (It is worth noting that this particular location was not familiar to me, nor was the girl or any of the events just mentioned.)

I felt very frustrated by this time since I was still unable to locate my motorcycle. But then I noticed a small building to the left of the larger building. It was something like a storage shed which seemed to be attached to the building. Upon seeing it, I immediately recognized that this was where I had left my motorcycle previously. I remembered that I had found this building and had locked my bike inside it with a padlock on the door. Now I was searching my key ring for the key (and worried that it wouldn’t be there, or that I might have put it in a pocket and lost it)–but there it was, a tiny “black” key. I proceeded to open the lock and removed my motorcycle.

At the point of wanting to leave, I suddenly found that I had my hands full since I noticed a long boot and some other object laying on the ground which I knew belonged to me. How would I be able to carry these objects while riding the bike? As I picked them up, I recalled that my helmet was missing. Where did I put it? Just as suddenly, I remembered that I did have it, only I left it at the girls house. I presume that I found some way of carrying the two objects because I was then readying myself to leave. But then I noticed that two or three of the farmer’s small trees were bent over the path which I had to follow, and couldn’t help but wonder if I had run over these when I first brought my bike to this location. Then I noticed a white powdery substance on them which indicated that they were diseased and so had nothing to do with me. Only now I considered that maybe I shouldn’t start up the motorcycle since it would make a lot of noise and bring a lot of attention to me. I didn’t want anyone to notice me leaving like this. After all, here I was, a bare-skinned (from the waist up) native New Yorker, riding a motorcycle in rural Wisconsin, with a knapsack on my back and no helmet on my head. I felt conspicuous, but then concluded that Wisconsin probably didn’t have a helmet law and so this, at least, would probably not present a problem. To my knowledge, the dream ended at this point.

I believe that this dream was a highly significant one and that it ranks right up there with my so-called “high impact” dreams. Only, unlike the others, this one did not impact me in an emotional sense. Rather, it did so in a low-keyed, intriguingly “intellectual” manner which, I’m convinced, was meant to steer me to further thought. And, in fact, it is presently giving rise to so many possibilities that I hardly know where to begin. But enough for today.

January 10, 1995

Failed to record a couple of dreams from the night before last and can’t now recall what they were about. At any rate, last night proved to be a somewhat unusual night inasmuch as I had a frightening dream, something which I rarely, if ever have.

I was in a very frustrated mood last night prior to going to sleep. I simply wished that I could just dump my confusion on someone else’s shoulders and be free of it. You might have guessed it, I tried to unload it on God. Unfortunately, no sooner than I began crying the blues about the anguish of it all, and how I needed His support, than I almost immediately began harping about this lousy creation of His. I questioned why life had to be dog-eat-dog, and thought that it could have been much more amicable had He wanted it. So what kind of a God is God?, I questioned. And so, instead of pleading to God for help, I fell fast asleep still chastising Him for making such a poor job of creation.

I dreamt that I was in the kitchen of my boyhood home in LeRoy. The kitchen door was open leading to the cellar and the Devil or some evil was on its way up the stairs “to get me,” I presume. I was frightened out of my wits and called for God to help me. Just as suddenly, I changed my plea to Jesus (just in case) since the evil seemed to be coming closer to the top of the stairs. I believe that my pleading worked, but, in any event, I awoke from the dream at this point.

And so I began with a problem, sought a solution, demeaned the solution, and rather than suffer the consequences, cried out for help instead. I’m bringing out this sequence of events because it seems strikingly similar to the way so many other scenarios have unfolded in my life.

I can also recall a portion of a second dream from last night. I was in an open field where several people were looking at the night sky. One of them, George, (a boyhood friend who was in the role of a coach in my dream of 12/2/94), may have been instructing the group. I noticed what they were doing and went over to them saying: “Let me introduce you to the stars.” I pointed to the constellation “Orion” (practically the only one I know) and asked George if he could see two stars which I was then pointing to. Only now, the big dipper had taken Orion’s place and I was pointing to two stars in its upper left corner (which don’t exist in fact). I indicated that these were “Rigel” and “Betelgeuse” (both of which belong to Orion and are not close to one another), but then admitted that I really didn’t know any other constellations. I next remember walking across the field with Bob Virkler (a former fellow employee at Wickes Lumber) and some other person who I can’t remember. We were in the old ball field behind LeRoy High School and were walking toward the gate leading out. Bob said that he was going to get his (female) doctor friend to come over. And while he and the other individual went to a corner of the fence to climb over, I, instead squeezed through the tight opening of the locked gate, much as I did throughout most of my boyhood.

It is obvious that I was trying to show off my knowledge of the stars when, in fact, I had very little to offer. This might be more typical of my behavior than I would like to admit, since I admittedly know a little about a lot of things, but have no real in-depth knowledge of anything in particular. As such, I can generally contribute something of significance (out of my storehouse of facts and ideas) to every conversation, and my intuition generally fills in for the rest. I am referring to my usual ability for coming up with any number of intriguing possibilities or ideas based either upon my limited knowledge of the subject at hand, or else on something which the other party may have presented or provided the impetus to.

As I lay in bed thinking about this idea of my “turning potential goods into bad,” and also about the topics of the last few days, a few puzzling things came into my mind. For example, I imagined how nice it would be if I could find a situation where I could be paid for dreaming, and suddenly thought about a dream laboratory at some hospital or college. This wasn’t really serious thinking, but nonetheless, no sooner than I began imagining myself in this (then positive) situation, than I began imagining myself in the hands of “psychotic” or at least overly exuberant doctors who wished to follow their own experimental agenda. As such, I felt that I was in immediate danger and went on to imagine how they could keep me institutionalized against my own will. Again, a potential positive turned into a negative.

It also occurred to me at this point that such thinking might have to do with my fear of “losing control.” Surely, this would be conducive to this sort of paranoia, and might even account for my relationship with God described above. For was I really prepared to submit to Him, feeling as I do about His creation? Am I really prepared to submit to anyone’s control? I don’t believe so. For I hate controls with a passion, and in some (warped) sense, perhaps, even feel that it is in someway deceiving. As such, I consider any kind of “manipulation” a kind of control, and I know that I tend to take this view to the extreme. For example, in my second dream of 11/20/94, I felt that it was wrong for me to take advantage of a simple “opportunity” which presented itself. While I didn’t have the means to carry something home which I had purchased from one company, I gained the opportunity to do so by making a purchase from a second company that offered the loan of a vehicle to transport it home. Thus, I was able to double back to the first one, but felt guilty for having done so. As I said, I tend to view this as taking advantage of someone, a dishonesty of sorts.

A couple of other thoughts occurred to me as well. My thinking over the past few days appears to be on the conservative side; that is, more to the “right.” Rather than accept the split between consciousness and the unconscious as fact, or that there are essentially distinct archetypes acting independently of one another, I seem to be heading back toward “unity”; toward Emerson rather than Jung; spirit with a grounding in nature rather than mind. Over the past couple of years, there have been several dream episodes which have indicated that I should, perhaps move to the right, even if only for a short distance or time. For example, my dream of 1/23/93 had me puzzling over which way to turn the prop of an airplane; fearing that if I was wrong, I would be sucked into the engine. On 3/10/93 I dreamed that I could propel myself and glide across the room simply by leaning my body to the right. My dream of 7/1/93 showed me reluctantly making a right hand turn immediately after mentioning to my brother Leonard (who seated next to me) how good I was with my left hand, and in still another episode preceding this latter one, tried to convince him that I could jump from pit to pit (while “setting pins” in a bowling alley) without getting hurt, so long as I were careful, that is. After making the right turn, I felt as though we were on a one-way street going in the wrong direction. But a little further up the road, we came upon an intersection with arrow directionals pointing in three directions. This business of “threes” is still another thing that keeps cropping up. But more enlightening still, on 11/5/93 I dreamt that I was lost, again while driving, and eventually wound up at a factory which amounted to a dead end. A person in a toll booth (or maybe a guard booth) informed me that to find my way out of there, I would have to make a right turn and then an immediate left. I can’t help but suspect that my thinking over the past few days amounts to my turning right. And I believe that I know what the “immediate left” might be alluding to. It just might mean reinstating the world (Mammon?) to its rightful (pre-Cartesian) place.

Last, though perhaps not least, while thinking about this persistent “dualism” which seems so difficult to shake, I had an image of a safety deposit box that required “two keys” (each one belonging to a separate party) to open it. I couldn’t help but think that this image might prove to be a “key” to understanding this relationship between ourselves and world, if not consciousness and the so-called unconscious. Since no one party had possession of both keys, both parties had to be present to open the box. And while it would seem that both parties were positioned to look at the contents of the box, as a matter of fact, only one party could. For the one party (the bank) seemed to play the part of the “holder,” while the other party (the individual) appeared to play the part of the “owner.” Now what would happen if we followed this analogy? The first thing that comes to mind is that the holder can in fact see the contents of the box if the owner allows it, but only if the owner allows it. If we regard the unconscious as “owner” and consciousness as the “holder,” the analogy seems to hold. But reverse it, and it fails. And yet the reversal of this situation seems much more natural to hold. We can’t help but think that the vastness of the unconscious should be looked upon as the “holder” while the limited perceptions of consciousness would appear more like “possessions,” especially in light of my earlier remarks concerning the manner in which consciousness appears to take ownership of the same. In spite of this apparent difficulty, let’s hold to the analogy.

Since the unconscious is owner of the contents, it can allow consciousness (or the bank) to see them, but, again, only if it wants. This appears to be in keeping with our normal perceptions of their relationship since we understand only too well that consciousness is a “receiver” and, apparently, at least, seems to have the power to “perceive.” Thus, we have an “owner-sender” and “receiver-holder” relationship at work here. The owner can send or reveal its contents to the receiver who, for that time at least, can perceive or hold onto the same. So far so good.

But now we come to the question of personalities. So far, we have been talking about two cooperating entities, the owner and the holder, each of which appears to be able to exercise a certain amount of control over the other. For example, if the owner-sender does not permit it, the receiver-holder will not see the contents of the box–will not have the “perception,” in other words. On the other hand, if the receiver-holder does not permit it, the owner-sender will not be given a “place” in which to locate its perceptions. Again, so far this seems to accord well with our view of the relationship existing between consciousness (with its central personality, the Ego) and the unconscious (with its central authority, the Self). Psychologists do in fact claim that the Ego has the power to deny or suppress much of what comes to it from the unconscious. But, whether it is able to do this by blocking entry into consciousness altogether, or by its ability to locate a hiding place of its own, is still an open question. But what about our analogy? If it takes two keys to simply open the box, then this would correspond to consciousness requiring the unconscious simply to be conscious!

You can see from the way this conversation is going that we are getting into deeper and muddier water. We know this because we are beginning to raise more questions than we are able to answer, while our original analogy is growing harder to maintain. As we’ve said in earlier discussions on this topic, it is difficult enough to simply speak of these two oppositional constructs, let alone maintain them with some modicum of sense. For the fact is, we run into a great deal of difficulty in having to think of ourselves as in some way containing “two conscious entities” acting within us: one which we suppose is conscious of what the other is conscious of, as well as what it is not conscious of; the mostly unconscious (to the Ego) conscious Self), and the other only conscious of what it is conscious of–that is, the conscious Ego. Does this sound mind-boggling? Well, I may be mistaken, but I think this is perfectly consistent with both Freudian and Jungian psychology.

January 12, 1995

Had some interesting dreams over the last two nights. The night before last, I dreamt that I was a supervisor in a factory and recall that I was doing a pretty good job. We had to move cartons around and I was assigning various crews to get the job done. The place was neat and clean, thanks to my efforts, although I recall that there was some embarrassment since one of my employees (someone who actually worked with me in a former job in real life) was unable to create a clean work environment. In my dream, I was really on top of things, although I still suffered some uncertainties. For example, at one time I considered that I had too many employees and that the work would be finished before the day’s end. But then I just as suddenly realized that the work day was practically over and that the size of my crew turned out to be just right.

Another episode had me driving a small motor scooter (or something like one) with three other persons crammed aboard. I recall driving to some location which seemed like a restaurant, but don’t recall why or what transpired.

A third episode made reference to a river which could be reached through a park and would lead into and through Pennsylvania. What’s worthy of noting is that this was a reminder of another dream which involved this very same river. That dream was never recorded, but I can remember some of the details relating to it now. And in writing these words, I suddenly thought of still another dream which was never recorded. This one also involved water, a long trek, and having to overcome obstacles along the way. I sense that these are very old dreams (at least four or five years old) and can’t help but wonder why they are surfacing now, or what significance some of their common elements might have for me.

The forth and final episode on this night took place in some sort of building. I recall following a young girl and her boyfriend up an escalator and reluctantly worked up the nerve to touch her hand which was gliding along the rail. She squeezed by hand approvingly, and a few moments later, I found myself to the left of her with my right arm around her waist. Her boyfriend remained one step ahead of us as we climbed the stairs. (This reminds me of my dream of 1/20/93 where I had my hand squeezed in the same manner by a young girl who I was fond of. I remember taking some initiative which put me into closer proximity to her, but believe that it may have been to no avail. The dream had a very peculiar outcome which was beyond my understanding.) The next thing I remember was that I had to have my second physical from Dr. Sahler (my primary care physician) and that I was running late for my appointment. When I got to the end of the hall, I looked through the open door of his office and could see him looking over records with his nurse at his side. They were discussing who they thought had passed and failed, only their discussion related to school, rather than health physicals. I felt certain that I was doing alright in this regard. At any rate, there I stood outside his door in my underwear, not knowing whether I should make a mad dash to shower first (since I had just gotten up), or whether to simply go into the room as is. There were many more details within these four episodes which I can’t remember.

During the first part of last night (9:30 p.m. to 3:00 a.m.), as in the previous night’s dreams, were lots of seemingly unrelated dream episodes which I can hardly make out. But these were followed by a couple of hours of waking reflection and still another dream state which took place between 5:00 and 9:00 a.m. I believe the latter to be most important, but the events leading up to it might be equally important as well.

I should note that before falling asleep for the first time last night, I lay in bed thinking about how futile all of this “dream business” appears to be. I thought about my personal plight and the confusion I was suffering, and also about some of my thoughts regarding consciousness. In any case, I fell asleep rather disheartened by the prospects of it all. As I said, there were a whole series of episodes which followed and are difficult to recall. I believe that each was separate from the other, but that too is difficult to ascertain since dream elements flow so easily from one to the other.

1. I was discussing dreams (within my dream) with my daughter Catherine. I remember telling her that I was having “relationship” dreams again, but can’t recall what I had shared with her. She told me one of hers which I interpreted as a demonstration of her over preoccupation with wanting to be married. Again, while I can’t remember the elements now, I most certainly did while I was in the dream. (When one forgets something, at very least, one recognizes that “something” was forgotten.)
2. I was sitting on the floor next to another person whom I can’t recall. Sam Rizzo, my first cousin and early boyhood friend, was serving us food, only it was on the floor (or ground) in the shape of a three foot high pile of scalloped potatoes. I asked him for a plate and fork and noticed that he seemed slightly perturbed, or simply had a nondescript look on his face. It bears noting that Sam was a leader during our boyhood years, and oftentimes a rival, especially where a third party was concerned. I sometimes had a different idea of what we should do, and I might either try to win over the other party to my way of thinking, or, if failing to do this, might simply stick to my conviction and walk away from both. But it bears noting that Sam was a quick thinker and liked having things his way. Because he was a generally a good leader, and always an adamant one, I normally saw no need to block him since his thinking was usually sound. Nevertheless, we grew apart during high school and have remained so to the present time.
3. Dan Frost, another early boyhood friend, also appeared in the dream, although I can’t remember the circumstances. I recall finding him standing with a blank look on his face. I noticed that he had cold hands, and there may have been some mention of his smoking (presumably because he had to go outdoors to do so), but really can’t remember the specifics.
4. I was hiding from Eric Zimmerman, a young man who once dated my daughter Monica. I’m not certain if Monica was with me or not, but I believe that we may have been hiding in a room which had large vertical blinds. I recall closing them as we laid low on the floor trying to hide from Eric. I felt that Eric would probably find us, however, as he could easily peer through the slits in the blinds. As it was, Eric walked up to the window and spotted us inside. I sensed that we were in some danger, even though there was something hesitant or disappointing about his demeanor, as though he wished that he didn’t have to do what he had to do. I remember thinking that I could have told his father about what was going on, but didn’t. His father has been a long-time acquaintance of mine going back to my Wickes Lumber days, and I am currently helping him to locate another job. I recall nothing else of this segment.
5. Standing with a group of people. Only recall my sister Anne standing ten feet or so across from me, and her former husband, Dale, standing on my left side. (It bears noting that Dale was the reckless pilot in my airplane dream of 10/3/93.) In any regard, I was standing there trying to pick-off several small gobs of “tree sap” which were stuck to the lower portion of my right arm. Someone commented that I ought to allow the birds (or insects?) to pick them off since they would be more thorough. Dale made some wisecrack saying that the birds could also pick the sap off of my “pecker,” and I retorted by saying: “How did you know I have sap on my pecker?” which I believe shut him up. In any regard, I didn’t enjoy this kind of sparring or ribbing (which is the case in fact) and felt very uncomfortable about being in this situation. I recall reciting two poetic lines which were meant to be insulting, although I stopped short of completing the second line. They went something like this: “Here I stand in a room with wit/Surrounded by a pile of ____.” Seeing my sister Anne across the room, I felt somewhat embarrassed by my remark. I vaguely recall Anne saying something like: “Had I known this before, I would have….” but can’t remember what it was she was referring to.
6. Jane and I were in a kind of public agency or meeting room for the purpose of donating or earmarking money for a savings plan, I can’t be sure of which. I recall having a pile of vouchers with income or money amounts on them which had to be tallied. I remember trying to do so, but then realized that I was taking the wrong figures from the sheets and so was coming up with less money than was actually there. I felt rushed in having to begin all over again (as though people were watching me or else waiting for me) and remember asking Jane if she had a calculator with a “memory function” on it. I felt that this would quicken the process, but also felt that it probably would not work. I was afraid that I might get half way through the process and make a mistake which would force me to begin all over again. I wondered whether I might be better off simply doing it in two steps, that is, the long way.

This concluded my dreams of the first half of the night. I was perplexed about these as I lay in bed trying to recall them, and remember growing more and more frustrated over my confusion regarding them. How, for example, would I ever be able to deal with so many disparate entities informing me of I know not what? I recall thinking about consciousness again, and how there always seems to be something (our identities) which we always return to. That, following excursions into dreams and imagination, there remains a “center” which is forced to bear witness to all those pangs which continue to haunt us. And so there I remained for the next two hours trying desperately to sort things out. I was so overwhelmed, in fact, that I was worried that I wouldn’t be able to fall back asleep, something which is rarely a problem for me. And so, in my desperation, I returned once again to asking God or my inner “Self” for help. Following this, I concluded that perhaps the best thing I could do for myself would be to simply let go of consciousness. And so I then began trying my hardest not to think about anything at all, believing that, somehow, my unconscious mind would know what to do. I then remember feeling a definite “pull” on me, and also recognized my reluctance to submit or let go. This went on for awhile until I actually began to feel dizzy and sensing a loss of equilibrium. And yet, I found the newness of this experience to be fascinating, and felt that I might have really hit upon something. And so here I remained, pulsating back and forth between “allowance” and “resistance”; that is, fearing the very thing I desired, and soon fell into a deep sleep.

I recall flying over a Russian landscape on a thick blanket or thin mattress , and that Jane was doing the same, although still some distance behind me. I could see Russian farmers harvesting a wheat crop which appeared to be very rich and abundant. Somehow or another I had a handful of wheat and, as I flew down to a lower level, I dropped the wheat, thinking that it would fall on someone’s head. It felt like a kind of playful thing to do, just to get their attention. In the next moment, I could see that the landscape was getting more mountainous while the sky remained beautiful. And then I was suddenly flying lower and lower over a large body of water. I was enjoying my flight and found that I could even land in the water and still return to the air. As I was coming down to the water for a second time, I could see a woman walking out into the water from shore and yelling: “Hey Splash!” or something to that effect. She obviously recognized me and may have been a “flyer” herself, although I can’t be sure of this. Jane arrived seconds later and we both walked with this woman to shore. She brought us into a type of pavilion which had things for sale. She said that we were lucky since she and her husband had ordered two cases of beer and were leaving (the island?). It seemed as though it were some kind of vacation resort.

The remaining episodes weren’t altogether clear, but I can recall that I was trying to find a job and was applying at some fast-food restaurant which specialized in roast beef. I remember thinking that I had won something in a raffle contest and was asking someone at the restaurant what my prize was going to be. He said that it depended upon whether I was going to accept the job or not, and I asked whether my acceptance would make the prize even more significant. I don’t know if he responded to this or not. I next remember seeing the chef slicing and eating large portions of beef which looked delicious to me. Then he simply held up a large hunk of beef on a bone and began eating it directly. I surmised that this was his way of showing me “the benefits” of taking the job. I jokingly told him that I didn’t like beef and I believe that he had a brief look of surprise or disappointment on his face. I then followed up by saying that I was only kidding and that I loved beef. There was still another part to this segment. Mike Knaus was in this dream and he was tallying up the benefits of my taking the job, adding an hourly wage to something else which together amounted to $16,000 as I recall. Mike thought that this would suffice since he was aware of my real preoccupation with thinking and writing, and that I needed some income in order to continue it.

The remaining episode was also somewhat unclear, but before mentioning it, I should mention the fact that I awoke from dreaming at 7:00 (when Jane turned on the bedroom light) and then fell back to sleep after making some sort of comment to her. What’s significant about this is that I was able to return to the very same dream I had just left, although I can’t be certain as to where I was in the dream when the awakening took place. Again, all that I can remember is that I registered a complaint to Jane before falling back asleep.

The final episode might have really been two, but I can only remember the last. I was standing apart from a group (maybe a band) and had some sort of instrument in my hand. It was like a long 3″ wooden cylinder whose one end seemed to be broken off, or else could be opened like a hinged lid. I simply held this in my hands, and while the music played in the background, was able to make (or allow) my instrument to make music as well–simply by holding on to it. I did occasionally cup my hand over one end and was able to make the warbling sound of a mute by patting it rapidly. I recall that it was jazz that was playing.

Now the real significance of this dream was that I was indebted to two black men who, presumably, had played some part in my ability to play the instrument, or in providing me with a great deal of valuable information of some other sort. For at the end of my dream, I was saying goodbye to one of these men and moved to shake his hand. Noticing that I had a glove on my hand (which I consider to be rude), I quickly removed it and extended my hand to him again, shaking it profusely and thanking him in no uncertain terms for all that he had done for me. It is at this point that there remains some confusion in my mind about a possible missing episode which may have preceded this one. For while I was profusely thanking this man, the other black man, who had been standing behind us, began reminding me of all that he had done as well. I somehow felt that this man had been an even greater contributor to my welfare, although I can’t remember in what way. In fact, it was apparent in my dream that we both recognized this fact, although he may at first have suspected that I didn’t credit him as such. I awoke at this point.

January 13, 1995

I am becoming rather disheartened by my dreams. True, there is a great deal that is fascinating about them, but there is also a great deal that is distressing, especially when I tend to place so much emphasis upon them. Perhaps the greatest disappointment is that they seem to go on independently of my understanding, as though my witnessing them really doesn’t matter much in the overall scheme of things. And, although I can’t deny that they can and do provide me with significant information from time to time, still, there doesn’t seem to be anything “intentional” about their having done so. Instead, the whole effort appears to be very much one-sided, dependent solely upon my own efforts at trying to understand them. As such, it appears that dreams may be pretty much like other phenomena in the world; that is, something which may or may not hold our interest; may or may not have meaning for us; but always dependent upon what we do with them.

I think that there is a need to approach dreams by more closely examining the workings of the imagination in the waking state, although it occurs to me that waking imagination may be quite a different thing for us today than it was for our ancestors. It may represent a crossover, or compensation for having lost the dream reality. But why would this have happened? Could it be that whereas imagination came directly from within in the old days, now it represents a vessel closer to consciousness. We seem to be able to “use” imagination as a “tool” today. I suspect that imagination was more of a passive affair to our ancestors. But we can’t “dream” something upon command. Dreams are still passive.

But there is a middle state existing between sleep and waking where the elements of imagination appear to share some of the characteristics of both worlds, though not…

For while there are great similarities in the characteristics of imagination in the sleep and wake states, there are also numerous differences which I feel can shed light on this mystery. When we look at dreams, we find that, like waking imagination,…

To be sure, they seem to be more fantastic, surprising, daring, bold, etc. They don’t appear to rely on memory. Not concerned about ordinary pressures which give rise to images in the waking state… reminders of what one needs to do, worries, etc.

There are episodic changes which occur throughout the dream as though it were following the responses of consciousness and making changes accordingly. But these appear weak.

Dreams are either not intended for conscious understanding, or represent a lost part of ourselves which at one time may have been as strong to consciousness (to our ancestors) as is phenomena in the waking state to ourselves. If our ancestors remembered their dreams in vivid detail, they would have attached great importance to them. I believe that this was the case.

August 21, 1995

Is there a higher level intelligence, outside of consciousness, yet still working within us? Speaking for myself, I have had ample evidence to support such a view and also to reject it. And this is the problem. For there seems always to be a lack of consistency in maintaining either view. Just when I have received powerful evidence to support such a belief, something generally follows which all but makes me feel like some kind of an idiot for having held such a belief. Admittedly, what makes me feel like an idiotic are precisely my own responses to such situations, for it these that appear to go unheard or are ignored. But if there is such an intelligence working within us (which I know to be true), then why won’t it communicate with us on our terms? Why, when we try to address it, are we left looking like a fool? Why must the communication be one way–always indirect, outside our control, and seemingly never on our own terms? Why must we hope, pray, or beg an intangible when it seems so certain that it could reveal itself to us if it wanted.

I have personally had numerous experiences, both within and between dreams, that would probably satisfy most people that I have in fact had two-way communication with a higher level intelligence within myself.

September 9, 1995

The realization that we oftentimes drift-off in thought, and then return to our normal (or prior) state of consciousness, undeniably suggests the presence of a dualism. In fact, this altogether normal, periodic state of mind, when sensations of external objects appear to be the only things present in consciousness; that is, without the presence of intervening thoughts, images, or memories,–provides us with what might be considered our best evidence for believing ourselves “free” or “active” agents; that human beings are not merely subject to the whims of nature, but are also capable of creating, controlling, choosing, resisting, and other such feats; and that all such feats are made possible primarily because we share a separate, though entirely integral, existence with nature. Such states of consciousness, then, appear to us as waiting states; that is, states of readiness or awareness, more or less, awaiting the next sensation or experience. Now it is a common practice to distinguish between sensations and the so-called “objects of sensation,” as though they were two separate things–they aren’t. Nor does this fact hinder the case for believing a dualism to be present. In my opinion, the problem hinges on our reluctance to consider the possibility that the unity which we try so hard to see and maintain within ourselves, is a unity belonging nature and not to ourselves; that is, a unity which transcends the notion that mind is one thing, or even body, for that matter. We can speak of consciousness as being separate from the unconscious in the same sense that we can admit to being ignorant of ourselves. I believe that it is the very same relationship in either case.

We may have noticed that one’s attention can be drawn to, and held to an idea, goal, or present circumstance for a duration, such that, should some intervening material appear–a thought, image, perception of an object, feeling, etc.–it does not necessarily deter one from whatever it is that preoccupies him. It is rather the case, that when one’s attention is captivated in such a way, subsequent thoughts and actions appear to “automatically” conform with the end sought; otherwise, one is generally pulled back on track and recognizes the diversion as such. Generally speaking, then, when one is captivated by, or simply focused upon a thought, one merely has to respond or react to subsequent thoughts to remain on course.

From the above remarks, we might wish to claim that we are, at least, “free” to acknowledge that which we receive from our environment, and, perhaps, also free in the sense that we are able to resist or refuse the same. It is very tempting to want to empty consciousness of its contents in order to then dismiss it altogether. I have wanted to do this on the basis of believing that consciousness (by itself) can produce nothing whatever; that if there is an Ego or conscious “will” at all, it is a will which is entirely dependent upon “other sources” for its content and, therefore, the exercise of its power; a will which in so many ways remains in bondage.

To be sure, there are numerous cases of a dualism present in life; between ourselves and whatever might be received from external environment, and from whatever might be received from within. If we should passively accept the belief, for example, that outer compulsions may compel us to act or believe in such and such a way; that is, should we acquiesce and respond to whatever the environment demands of us, we seem quick to conclude that such behavior demonstrates the absence of an active, self-determining force–an absence of Ego. On the other hand, should we passively accept so-called inner compulsions, such as instinctual demands for satisfaction, and acquiesce and respond to these, we are prone to believing that such actions point to the existence of a conscious determination “originating” within ourselves. But wherein lies the difference?

In point of fact, at any given time, we are all prone to a broad variety and mix of compulsions stemming from without and within. Whether and how we react to such stimuli is the real crux of the matter. When outer circumstances compel us to action, we need to remind ourselves that the compulsion which is felt is not outside–it is internal, even though it remains continuous with the outside circumstances giving rise to it. The impression made is felt internally, and so will be the deciding factor that will determine whether or not we comply with it or resist. Now, as was said, we tend to allude to this “deciding factor” as our conscious self, that part of us which we feel both experiences and decides such issues–our Ego presence, in other words. And, in a real sense, ego consciousness does seem to constitute a sort of room or repository where such events are experienced and stored, or at least retained for a time; a kind of “buffer zone” which allows us (Ego) sufficient time to “decide” such issues. That such a focal point or buffer zone exists, cannot be denied, no matter how we might choose to envision or describe it. For we do in fact have the means to stave-off or forestall our reactions and responses to such situations. Only, again, it should be equally clear that the personal pronoun “we” is being used in its most conscious- or ego-ladened sense. In other words, my normal usage of the term already presumes the existence of a conscious “choice-maker” who, as it is believed, by means of imagination, personal feelings, thoughts, reflection, advice from others, etc., will go on to “weigh” the potential consequences which may (or may not) result from having “chosen” (or not chosen) a given response. Again, that such phenomena or sequences occur is not in question–that this demonstrates the existence of a “free agent” acting on one’s own behalf–is.

For where in consciousness can this presumed fact be seen to exist? No matter what we “intend” to say or do, our intention, or words pointing to the same, always follow the thought or feeling which gave rise to it. I repeat, never has there been an occasion that I can point to, where “I” have been able to create the thought, or think-up the action or response in question. In every case, the thought is already there to begin with, or else comes to me during the process. I can do nothing more than acknowledge its presence, and further acknowledge whatever else may be forthcoming. True, I can easily take credit for its appearance in consciousness, since there are no other competing claims as to its origination, but this does not make it mine! No, one must be prepared to go beyond the scope of consciousness to claim such ownership, and that we seem reluctant to do.

September 15, 1995

No matter how much I credit everything outside of myself (outside consciousness, that is) for having provided me with the various, on-going contents of my mind, still, I am always left with the sense that I remain alone; some fragmented portion of something which I understand to be much larger than myself, but to which I refuse to relinquish personal control or responsibility. And is it any wonder that I am reluctant to do so? With so much coming into conscious mind at any given time–so much beckoning me to take so many different directions and approaches to life–so many seemingly competing emotions, moods and feelings,–is it any wonder that confusion reigns?

Now it is interesting to note that the word “confusion” suggests something which is working “against fusion”; that there might exist, for example, a sort of stalemate between competing forces stemming from both without and within ourselves; some state of fragmentation working against internal unity or integration. Were this unity present in my mind, it might enable me to successfully act or “adapt” to my immediate surroundings. But as it is, no matter how hard I try to answer to such forces (however they might exist apart from my current awareness), I find that there are no “personal counterparts” to myself which are ready to make their appearance known. There is only the on-going presence of conflicting thoughts and images which have all but frozen me in my place.

To be sure, there are forces acting upon us always–be they stemming from without or from within–resulting from outside circumstances or internal needs. It is equally clear that such forces are demanding in the sense that they compel us to action; compel us to put such matters to rest. If the action (activity, desire, etc.) has not been satisfied, circumvented, or successfully put out of mind, the “omission” continues to haunt us through recurring memories. Worse, not only will such memories carry those feelings and emotions formally associated with them, but they will continue to accumulate and carry any number of further associations as well. They will, in other words, spill over into other areas of our lives. Since I am here speaking in terms of my own life and feelings, is it any wonder, then, that I find myself to be in such a state of confusion–that is, subject to having to withstand the tormenting effects of “pent-up inaction.” But why do I refuse to act on my own behalf? Surely, there is something amiss here which is all but begging the question. If my personal confusion results in my having to suffer and withstand an internally fragmented disunity or psychic disequilibrium, then why can’t I resolve such conflicts?

Given that this is, and has all along been, my condition, it goes without saying that I would like to believe that such conflict and suffering is not wasted, but, instead, may have important consequences for either myself or society; that in some way or another, they enable me to experience associations which would not have been forthcoming otherwise; that is, had I satisfied each issue and thereby removed its elements from mind. Yes, I would like to believe that my life has meant something in this regard, or yet holds out such a promise, but perhaps this is simply a disparaging cry on my part. Regardless, surely there must be some worth even to fragmentation. What if there were no such distinctions to be made or already present? How would we be able to understand the wholes which comprise them? Surely one’s understanding of the whole of anything is increased by an understanding of its parts. Call them what you will, fragments or parts, they are distinctions in relationship. More important, they have the potential to associate with other parts and wholes oftentimes far removed from themselves. Think of how severely limited such possibilities would be if we could only hold a few distinctions in mind at a time. Regardless of the sometimes extreme costs to an individual, in terms of physical and psychological well-being, it is doubtful that human knowledge would have climbed so far had not so many of its members suffered or been sacrificed for its sake.

I once dreamt that I had to leave “my boat” in the care of someone who I felt would make an honest effort toward keeping it intact. I remember knowing that its parts had value and was worried that it might be taken apart for this reason. Surely this dream has some significance to the subject at hand. Surely, it depicts my desire (or the desire of some part(s) of me which I am generally ignorant of) to want to keep myself (ourselves) intact even while I continue to tempt disunity and fragmentation through my apparent willingness to forestall fusion. Surely this reluctance to gain satisfaction provides the fertile soil from which intuitive insights arise in thought, dreams, and imagination. And yet, there seems to be something unnatural about suffering in this way; that we have the right–even duty–to rid ourselves of all such states whenever possible. Then too, just maybe my thinking amounts to nothing more than an elaborate rationalization cleverly designed to shield me from the truth. Only what might that truth be?

Well, for one thing, I’m not so sure that I’m really in control of this situation; that I am really choosing to forestall satisfaction for the reasons given. After all, not every compulsion to act promises a satisfying outcome. Some offer uncertainties which I may not have the courage to meet or risk. Perhaps fear, rather than a desire for knowledge, is preventing me from leading the life that I ought. Another potential truth about myself might have to do with my strong sense of idealism, or, more specifically, with the price I have had to pay in order to safeguard it. In other words, if my ideals happen to be higher than what I can reasonably or emotionally maintain, then I am forced to take one or more of the following actions: I can give them up while admitting that I cannot maintain them; I can pretend that I am maintaining them when I am really not; or I can continue to live them even while I know that I cannot; that is, choose to withstand or suffer them. I believe that this last instance adequately reflects myself. I do try to live my ideals even though I know that I cannot without causing harm to myself and others. Perhaps this kind of lie is the worse one of all. For not only does maintaining the ideal force me to withhold the real truth from others, but it forces me want to shield the truth even from myself. I have a feeling that martyrs and strong idealist make superb liars. But, then, whose to say what level a given person is able to live on, or what constitutes the necessities of life for each individual. One person’s ease may be another’s disease.

But why do I choose to anguish rather than seek satisfaction? Why continue to perpetuate the lie? Why not admit to my weakness or inability to carry such a burden? Why not express what I want; seek it, and gain satisfaction? Is it because I feel that I am on trial?–that I am obligated to try for someone else’s benefit?–at someone else’s command? At whose command? No one but myself called me to this task, or is this so? Why accept a burden which I am not obligated to accept?–a burden which I feel that I cannot withstand for much longer? What is it that is compelling me to want to try? I cannot any longer deny myself or ask others to do the same. After all, “Earth must be called earth.”

September 16, 1995

I seem to be perpetually preoccupied by two major themes in my life: my need to understand the nature of the world, and my need to understand my place within it. All of my thinking and writing fluctuates between, or else blends with some combination of the two, as though they were really one and the same topic. No matter which theme serves as an initial impetus to thought on any given day, I can almost guarantee that the other dimension will be touched upon, if not deeply integrated with the former. For my part at least, the two do in fact seem inseparable.

Earlier today, I began writing some remarks in one of two identical manuscripts I keep on hand. (I often re-read my material in order to glean further understanding, and then write my new thoughts in the margins, or on the back sides of the appropriate pages.) This morning, I was reading some remarks I had written last year relating to Jung’s view of introversion and his model of mind. The concepts of consciousness and the unconscious, as well as the relationships existing between them, have both intrigued and baffled me over the years–especially as these relate to the “Ego” and the “Self.” More specifically, I have found it difficult, if not impossible, to conceive of the “Self,” rather than the “Ego” as being the “real subject” of perception and cognition as Jung claims. This view compels us to shift our perceived center of consciousness from whatever limited sense we have of ourselves, to a much broader center of which we know little or nothing. The problem for me is that I can’t separate the sense of identity that apparently accompanies my awareness. I can’t help but feel that I am my experience or my awareness of the same. Now if you wish to inform me that there is more to me than what my limited awareness permits, this I can readily accept. But if you insist that this “something more” is the “real” subject of my perceptions and cognition, then I can no longer comprehend your meaning. For no matter how limited my perceptions of the surrounding world happen to be, an awareness of myself as subject must necessarily follow.

I am growing to suspect, however, that Jung may be approaching this problem of personal identity from a different angle. Undoubtedly, there are many things which come into and go out of consciousness on an on-going basis. That there is much more to us than meets the eye, cannot be denied; that even our knowledge of our own selves is pale in comparison to the intelligence that comprises and surrounds us, also cannot be denied. Just imagine what would happen to us if the controls of maintaining our bodily functions were turned over to us–we would be dead in a matter of minutes! Thus, in terms of knowledge, we seem to be in a perpetual state of trying to catch-up to an already existing complexity which far exceeds our ability to comprehend it. I suspect that it was this point, or something very much like it, that Jung was trying to bring to our attention. Only he tried to do it in “psychic” terms rather than “physical.”

The Self, then, might be likened to our physical bodies in the sense of “constituting” and “knowing” much more than our limited consciousness permits. Whether the Self is “material” or not, really shouldn’t matter. For what difference does it make if we point to our nervous systems to locate the Self, or consider it to be something “insubstantial” either existing within or having the ability to affect us from without. It is almost embarrassing to even bring up such notions of materiality or immateriality given our current level of knowledge. Call it brain–world–spirit–God–it simply doesn’t matter. For the plain and simple truth remains: We are all a part of something much larger–more complex–more intelligent than we can even begin to comprehend; and that we only need to look about ourselves to know that this is true.

It would seem, then, that a better description of Jung’s intent would be to say that what he sought more than anything else, was to put an end to our outlandish egocentricity–an egocentricity which has cost us dearly in terms of lost physical and psychic well-being. I am referring to the all-too-prevalent attitude of believing ourselves superior to nature. Our willingness, and apparent ability, to usurp and take credit for what is always and only presented to us through experience, has not only perpetuated a dangerous state of ignorance, but promises to keep us there as well. Of course, Jung presented this issue in psychological terms. For example, he spoke of the introvert’s tendency to confuse his Ego with the Self, thereby elevating it to a position which it doesn’t deserve. In other words, because the introvert is more in tune with inner perceptions (intuitions, impressions, imagination, memory, etc.), there is a greater probability that he, rather than his extroverted counterpart, might seek to credit himself with those “contents” which are, properly speaking, not of his own making. According to Jung, such “inflation” often leads to the development of a neuroses. But what is it that causes such a tendency in the first place? And why does the “Self” or “Nature” permit it? Again, why are we conscious at all? And why do we seem capable of exerting our wills; that is, capable of resisting ourselves as well as nature?
Or is this pointing to one and the same thing?

September 17, 1995

“Why don’t you build your fire closer to the water?” my dream asked me some time ago. I didn’t understand the significance of it then, and I still don’t. Yet a fleeting notion crossed my mind just moments ago; it suggested the possibility that I may be acting in a cowardly fashion by keeping my ideas too far from that which might extinguish them; that I have not dared to “test the waters,” so to speak. I originally felt that this dream was encouraging me to build my fire (knowledge, thrust, etc.) closer to the unconscious; that I should, perhaps, make better utilization of its contents, in other words. Only now I’m not so sure. Perhaps both notions are right.

Then too, perhaps “my fire” is only intended to illuminate the unconscious, or, at least, some small portion of its shoreline. Maybe it has little to do with knowledge and everything to do with simply daring to “look” at something which I find altogether frightening. Maybe I am being called upon to illuminate myself, rather than others. Or might “my fire” stand for my individual “force” or strength of will. Maybe I am being told that I must bring my force closer to my foe, or closer to where my personal battle will take place. Maybe I am still working toward that end which my Journey’s End (3/16/90) predicted five years ago: that to gain whatever it is I want, I must first set myself free in the sense of being willing to submit myself to “nakedness” in order to receive the “dress of truthfulness.” What are these outer garments I wear if not protective defenses enjoining my fears? And what is it I mostly fear?, if not the brutality inherent in nature–the brutality inherent in humankind. And what is it I mostly want?, if not to tame this inherent brutality–to tame myself and others.

And yet I must also acknowledge the possibility that this might all be cleverly disguised “gobbledygook” designed to delude myself into believing that I’m on some noble crusade of sorts, rather than simply in search of that comfort and love I so desperately want and need. Could this be my “want”? my “strength”? the “source of my travail”? the up-coming “battle with fate” that I must fight? Am I fighting for love?

“Why don’t you build your fire closer to the water?” my dream asked some time ago.

December 13, 1995

Well, after spending an entire morning writing on the back pages of one of my manuscript volumes, I decided that it was getting too cumbersome to continue in this way as my thoughts were beginning to flow almost out of control.

Actually, I was making some good progress and came to some interesting insights regarding my personal dilemma. I came to realize, for example, that my conservative behavior in thought in many ways parallels my brother Leonard’s conservative behavior with things. He saves every nut and bolt and piece of wood (just in case!), while I attempt to save every thought that comes to me–just in case! He attempts to use his materials whenever an occasion presents itself, but finds that he generally wastes more time in looking for them than he does in completing the actual project. Since my major concern has always been myself, I generally search my attic by remembering previous thoughts or rereading previous writing. Potential “outside” uses for my thoughts generally are ignored while I continue to hold out for even greater revelations. He often comes to realize that many of his materials are presently out of date (that is, were stored for naught) and in his attempts to use them nevertheless, complicates, rather than ameliorates most situations. My materials are never out of date, but it hurts to see “my” thoughts expounded by others who were capable of gaining the same insights as I, only knowing how to make use of them.

Like nuts and bolts, sticks and stones, thoughts appear everywhere and always, unending it seems. And I can always count on each successive thought being deeper and, therefore, more revealing than any of its predecessors. This is what makes it nearly impossible for me to take the time to put them to use. Not only do they spring leaks when I attempt to order them for some purpose or another, but there is always something more insightful on the horizon which never fails to appear. Unfortunately, the new insights do not always follow the former in the sense of something additive. Most often, they degrade my former thinking. What to do? I wish I knew.

A few hours ago, I began to conclude that it was high time that I put my attic filled with thoughts in some kind of order so as to find some proper use for them. But then a new thought appeared on the scene. Since the source of my inspirations is always present, always presenting me with higher level thoughts, why save anything at all? Why not simply trust that the old stuff will be incorporated in the new if and when it has value or relevance? So how do I go about emptying the attic? It seems impossible. For its not simply a storage place that I can go to at will. Rather, I carry (or certainly feel) all such thoughts as an on-going presence–which is not pleasant. It’s almost as if my source of intuitions requires and compels their presence in order to make the necessary transitions and alterations in the formation of new ideas. I suspect that so long as they are present; that is, so long as they are not forgotten through my preoccupation with some form of activity or another, the stream of ever new insights will continue to flow–though at a price!

I have paid this price for too long a time now, and all without making proper applications for any of the insights given me. I recognize many of these insights as powerful conceptions since their depth is always felt at the moment of revelation, even while retaining a certain transparency making clear vision impossible. All of my thinking is above me, and I am forever playing catch-up with past thoughts. They seem to arise in symbolic form, take some shape, be it conceptually apparent of felt, and then over the subsequent months and years, take on ever more meaning as they blend anew with other thoughts and circumstances, past or present. They reshape or offer explanations for previously misunderstood thoughts; sometimes soothing to me, sometimes causing me great pain. Yes, I recognize that such insights are powerful and damaging, but I have to believe that such transformations are always beneficial, if not to me, then to others.

December 14, 1995

The mind is a recorder, storage and retrieval device, no different in kind from its crude replica, the computer. As Emerson indicated, the mind creates itself; all of our tools and implements mere copies of what is already there to observe in ourselves. Nature, soul, or mind,–all are in a state of perpetual becoming and, therefore, all must always degrade the past. And yet, we seek, and apparently find, knowledge and understanding in past events. We are forever looking behind us for answers. We see that the psychologist is really a historian since he too seeks understanding through thematic interpretations of past facts and events in the life of a patient. It is just such events as these, together with their characteristics, that make up the individual, or so we think, and it is to these that we look for explanations of the present.

The present, then, is for us only a thin veneer where past and future meet. It explains nothing–and yet, is everything! All things considered, we must admit that the past pales in comparison, for it is only in the ever-present that we experience the accumulation of, not merely what we comprise, but the effects of the present moment as well. Of course, we cannot suppose that everything is going to be felt in the same way as it originally came to us,–past feelings of remorse, hopes, fears, memories, dreams, transitions; and yet, we can and should hold that all are in some sense either directly or indirectly felt in the mix of the day’s emotions and images. Thus, the past is presented in every moment through a process of “re-membering”; as though the mind would be left “mindless” against the future unless it had its proper materials or safeguards.

But the truth is, we know very little about the contents and workings of the mind, and most of what we do know can be summed up by its image-making capability. We talk about the so-called “processes” of intuition, thinking, dreaming, conceptualizing, and the like,–as though each pointed to some separate mechanism at work in the mind–but none of these distinctions really changes the altogether apparent fact that it is all imagination. True, we can make important distinctions between these by employing different classifications–but we must remember that our having made them does not mean that they have validity. Thus, day-dreaming can be distinguished from night dreaming by bringing sleep into the picture, which is much the same thing that was done in distinguishing states of consciousness or unconsciousness. But, then, the distinction itself may be the only difference, for, aside from my being awake or asleep, I can see no significant or essential differences in the two “kinds” of dreaming. Nor can I see any “real” differences in the workings of consciousness in either the waking or sleeping states. Yes, once again, we are free to interpose whatever distinction we might wish to make, but the fact remains, the only real difference may be the distinction itself–and it may have little or no significance to the issue at hand. For, once again, I find that I act no differently in dreams than I do when awake. I carry the same attitudes, am prone to the same types of behavior, and carry the same moral standpoint. To be sure, the situations are often fantastic, and I have the ability to respond fantastically by flying, leaping over buildings, etc.,–but I am the same conscious person, behaving in the same conscious way as I would be in ordinary waking life. And if such fantasy’s could somehow present themselves in waking life, I have no doubt that I would behave exactly the same as I would have were I dreaming.

So what is to be gained by contrasting intuition with thinking, or with dreaming or imagining? Obviously there is something to be gained insofar as ordinary usage is concerned. But ordinary usage of concepts is one thing, while different aims require paying closer attention to content, characteristics and patterns, which go beyond ordinary usage. For example, there is a great deal of difference between flour poured out on a table, flour made into dough, and dough baked into bread. And this is because of the various mixes. And the same could be said for the differences existing between imagination when awake and when asleep, or between remembering a past event, receiving a sudden insight, or utilizing sub-vocal speech and imagination while performing some task. And, again, the difference is in the mix. So where is the danger in this? It is in the “essentials.” For, just as it is necessary, in making distinctions, to note essential differences between things, or within a single thing undergoing change, so too is it absolutely necessary to understanding that we pay close attention to the unchanging essentials as well. For there can be no such thing as disjointed understanding. All understanding is and must be anchored to, and throughout, the transformation from the already familiar to the new. Thus, cause and effect can be seen to be riding side by side in shooting the gulf from the old to the new, and might properly be thought of as the conceptual glue which holds us together. Unless the familiar past is brought into the conscious present, any such transformation (from something unknown to something new), would be totally meaningless.

And so we can see that the past anticipates the demands of the present. Which portions of our present constitution (comprising all of our past) will be called to the fore at any given moment–which images, feelings, emotions or behavior will be compelling us to action–will not only depend upon the past, but upon present circumstances as well. Thus, there is, properly speaking, no past or present, only a constant stream of transformations of arbitrarily distinguished elements and events. Nor does it do us any good to consider upon which side is cause and which effect; which means and which end; which intention and which fulfillment. History is brimming and overwrought from such exercises as these represent. And still we seem prone to persist.

UNPUBLISHED THOUGHTS
1996

January 2, 1996

Is there at least one other personality, beside our conscious selves, residing within us? There is a great deal of evidence for believing this. Things happen to us. We receive, rather than originate, concepts, ideas, insights, images, etc., although our conscious selves, apparently unchallenged, appear altogether only too willing to take credit for the whole of it! But is it true to say that consciousness is never challenged? or is it simply the case that we are inclined to hide such challenges from public view? True, most of us are not hearing voices “within,” admonishing us for having taken credit for something undeserved, but while such direct responses appear to be absent under normal conditions, there may well be indirect challenges to consciousness in the form of compensations, alternative insights, challenging viewpoints, or in the form of feelings (such as quilt, shame, fear, etc.) regarding our actions. Since little, if anything, can be said to originate in consciousness, in the sense of being isolated from other contributing influences, the origins of such occurrences as these must be looked for elsewhere.

Just took a moment to call Mike Knaus to see how he and Cindy are doing. Haven’t seen either of them since before the holidays. Talked to Cindy and found out that they got engaged and also that Mike’s cancer is back and that he didn’t want Cindy to tell me. I don’t know what to think about this. On the one hand, it seems almost ridiculous to continue with my present thinking and writing at the moment, and yet, these days at least, I seem to be almost absent from feeling anything whatever, unless, of course, it strikes me in the face. To me, Mike’s illness and its potential outcome is just another example of life’s dealings, and I see no sense in feeling remorse at this time since I don’t know what the outcome will be. I realize that underlying this emotion, or lack of emotion, is the ever present feeling (which I can’t seem to shake) that life is as cruel as it is beautiful and mystifying. This being so, the current news is just one more example of its dark side; just another piece of anxiety to be joined with all the other anxieties already existing within me. In saying this, I can’t help but wonder if this might have something to do with the meaning of the dead corpses I am so often dragging around behind me in dreams. I originally thought that they might represent “my father,” then later “my past,” but now, just maybe the corpses represent my ever accumulative, highly dissatisfied (and somewhat repressed) “attitude” regarding life in general. In other words, an unacceptable (to me) attitude which amounts to a denial of life when all is said and done.

The warning here is that I can’t expect to be able to live by rules unless I am able to first accept them. But this doesn’t mean that I could in fact avoid them if I wanted. No, life doesn’t permit this. My choice is not one of having to decide whether or not I wish to flow with the currents of life–we are all forced to–no, our choice is simply over whether we will do so “willingly” or “reluctantly,” or, perhaps, by taking some position in-between. For a passive acceptance of life may prove to be as futile and dangerous an outcome as a total rejection of it, and this leads me to believe that the proper attitude and direction lay in taking the middle road; that is, by neither fighting nor giving in to nature, but, as Emerson put it, by “harnessing” her powers and putting them to proper use.

January 5, 1996

Notations on a couple of disconcerting dreams from the last two nights. Since both include the abuse of “my child,” I feel that they might offer significant clues as to my psychic character and well-being.

Two nights ago I dreamt that I was riding through a woods “on the back of my child” who appeared as a four or five year old boy. I was riding him like a horse, although I took pains every now and then to alleviate his burden by leaning over and bracing his arms. In a couple of other instances, my dream accommodated this apparent desire to help by altering the form of the dream itself. For example, I suddenly found myself pushing down on one of two pedals, the other of which, he himself was pedaling. Prior to this, I simply rode his back as he crawled on his hands and knees at a pretty good pace. At another point, we were at the top of a hill and I simply leaned us both backwards in order to allow us to “roll” down the hill on two back wheels which suddenly appeared. But what is most significant of all is what my child said to me when we reached the bottom. At this point, I was carrying him rather than he, me, while walking toward the shore of a river or lake which I sensed would have to be crossed. Suddenly he turned around to look at me and said: “The only reason you’re carry me is because there are others around.” I remember being taken aback by this remark, but said nothing in response.

Another incident took place while we were standing at the water’s edge. My child looked down and was startled upon seeing a canoe resting up-side-down under a few feet of water just off shore. I guessed that he thought it was a large creature of some sort, and I quickly assured him that it was only a boat. [Only now, I recall that boat’s often symbolize “life” in dreams. It strikes me that the boat was a canoe–I only hope it was a short one! Kidding aside, I suspect that my child may have recognized his own immanent death, or mine for that matter.] I also recall that we had to pay a “price” to ride on something (as though we were in an amusement park), and I remember thinking that the price was too high and that we would teach “whomever” a lesson by refusing to pay it. (It was as though I could organize some sort of strike or boycott). I next remember thinking that we would never get across this water and, just as suddenly, a sort of island (or boat) appeared off shore which seemed to present a possible solution. Only when I proceeded to enter a door which would lead us to the island, or boat that could take us there (it’s all very fuzzy), a man came out and waved me to go around, as though I was going against one-way traffic. Suddenly a male figure appeared beside me and prompted me to go ahead in the direction I was then heading. I remember having to brush by people who were coming off this island (or boat), but managed to get us through in spite of the difficulty. I don’t remember anything else.

My second (last night’s) dream was extremely violent. I was once again with my child who now appeared as a one or two year old. I believe that we were standing in a store and that he was crawling around on the floor. Suddenly a large man passed by the boy, and I believe brushed against him as he did. I muttered something under my breadth to the effect that “he might have run him over.” The man must have heard this because he walked over to my child and picked him up over his head. I thought that he was going to play with him in order to offer some form of apology for this near incident, but, instead, he violently swung the boy downward crushing his head into the floor. I could hear the crack of his head as it split open from the sheer force of this action. Needless to say, I was as shaken as I was surprised by thus sudden action, and then grew extremely fearful as he then came after me. He picked me up as he did my child, holding my face close to his. He was simply enraged and I felt that he was preparing to “eat my face” or simply tear me to shreds. In sheer desperation, I tried talking to him, trying to “placate him” in some way by acknowledging his violence, almost as though it were in some way appropriate or justifiable. Again, he was absolutely furious, and I remember feeling that nothing could possibly save me at this point. The dream ended–thank God!

It has only been in the past six months or so that I have begun to have violent dreams, almost as if my unconscious were at the end of its patience, and decidedly out to force me to acknowledge something about myself which, for some reason or other, I am not able to acknowledge. It’s not that I’m not trying–I simply seem unable to do so. Although I have spent hundreds upon hundreds of hours thinking upon such matters, I can’t seem to get anywhere, or at least to a point where I can feel that I’m out of danger, or heading in the “right” direction. I’m amazed at how I can continue to learn more and more about myself without coming to understand what is, presumably, most important for me to see. And, as I said, my dreams are beginning to treat me roughly; characters thwarting me at every turn, reminding me in no uncertain terms that something in my thinking or behavior is simply wrong. But what (behavior) is it? And what (personage, function, characteristic, etc.) is preventing me from seeing it?

In the two real-life situations mentioned above, I acknowledge that I should probably have been more sensitive toward both children and parents who were obviously affected by my actions. But do such actions warrant “killing my child” when the shoe was on the other foot? Surely this dream is not suggesting how I should have acted in either incident. What then? What could “killing my child” and threatening my life mean? Wasn’t I merely protecting or sticking up for my child in the same manner as they? Well, not exactly, since each of them confronted me directly, while I acted (somewhat cowardly) by simply muttering something under my breadth. Why didn’t I “openly” stick up for my child? Is this what infuriated this man; that my concern for my child was insincere since I was allowing him to crawl around on the floor? Or was it for the fact that I “allowed” this? Or could it be that I had “purposely” allowed my child this freedom in order to create such an incident? But if it was my action or fault in either case that infuriated him, why didn’t he come directly after me? Why kill my child first? Or was he showing me that “my tricks” or “props” would never get by him–nor will they be tolerated!

What makes these questions so difficult to answer is for the fact that I can’t be sure as to what role the man is playing in my dream. If I assume that he is acting on my behalf, then I must further assume that he is either telling me (in no uncertain terms) that my child must go–that he must die in effect–or simply that neither my child nor I will be tolerated. But what if this man stands for some non-beneficial force or personage existing within me? Then might my dream be warning me of a potential catastrophe which could happen to both myself and child. But, then, this is really saying the same thing, since, in either case, it must be supposed that the “dream” is acting on my behalf and, thus, presupposes a beneficent force or guardian looking after my welfare. If this were not the case, why warn me of impending danger? Then, again, who says that the dream is meant to be a warning? It may simply be an internal event whose characteristics are owing to differences between myself and other existing personages within me, and nothing more!

And yet I can’t help but suspect that there is something more to this “child of mine” who keeps cropping up in so many dreams? I recall the first time he appeared in a dream (6/29/92), only here he appeared as myself as a boy of seven or eight years of age, and not simply as “my son”–or another personage. I remember knowing in this dream that he had to die, and that I would have to leave him. Only he looked so sad standing there before me (although he never said a word) that I couldn’t bring myself to say goodbye. Instead, I promised that I would give him what he has all along deserved, and upon waking from the dream, spent the entire morning talking to this child as a father would his son. I told him how much I loved him, and reminded him of how good he had always been or tried to be, and promised that I would not leave him until he was ready. (It now appears that I may not have much choice in the matter! but I think that there’s more too it; this experience was altogether right and proper.) Then there was the dream I had preceding my first session in therapy (9/27/94). A child crawled into the (therapy?) room where I was standing; I proceeded to pick him up and threw him across the room. I remember being somewhat concerned that he might have been hurt, and was relieved to see that he was not. He simply crawled out of the room. Still another dream (10/19/94) involved my nephew Jerry killing my child because “he was no good,” as Jerry explained upon my confronting him. In the first dream, I recognized the child as being myself; in the second, simply as a child, anybody’s child; and in the latter (as well as the two previous dreams cited), as simply being my son. My therapist suggested that the child I threw across the room might represent “new knowledge” which I was going to reject. Perhaps this was its latent meaning in fact, or perhaps, as I am inclined to believe, the child might literally have represented “childhood,” or the fact that I wouldn’t be prepared to deal with it. In a similar vein, all of these dreams might be alluding to the fact, if it is a fact, that I am too strongly attached to, reliant upon, or in the grip of the facts of my own childhood; that I am continually “riding it” (though careful to shield this fact from public view), and, perhaps, have all along been suffering from my apparent inability to let go. As my nephew said: “my child was no good” and, presumably, this means no good for me. The man who violently crushed my child’s head into the floor was somewhat more explicit and apparently saw no reason to explain his actions. In any event, it seems that I have been warned, time and time again, that something is amiss–and that this something, I must believe, most assuredly has to do my continuing relationship with my past or childhood.

Yes, my dreams have grown increasingly violent of late, and I still have not gotten the message, and this in spite of the many messengers which have been sent to me. Sometimes they appear as females (several times as a teacher); sometimes as benevolent male figures who appear to intercede on my behalf; or as “giants” to startle or impact me in some way or other; or, again, as heavy-handed “trickster types” who seem to irk me to no end. Only why, I am prone to ask, can’t my dreams be as verbally explicit as they are visually? I want to be “told” just what it is that I am specifically doing wrong? How, in other words, am I to interpret all of this symbolism–all of these personages–when they appear in so many differing guises and circumstances? Again, who or what might these giant men–sometimes kindly, sometimes violent and fearful–represent? Who is this highly unlikable, arrogant, agile, intelligent and daring “trickster” who seems bent on antagonizing me, and who I can’t seem to thwart, compete with, or simply avoid? [I do have a strong sense that, while he is opposite to what I have always tried to be, I sense that he might also represent much of what I might wish I were or could be. I suspect, however, that he represents the “advantages” which can be accrued by not playing by the rules and, thus, giving full sway to one’s talents without the imposition of societal or moral restrictions.] And who do these black personages represent who appear as male or female, strong, silent, giant, or simply kindly types, as was the case of my “black mother” in one dream not long ago? (12/16/94) And what might these corpses represent that I am either dragging around behind me, or having always to contend with in some fashion or other? Again, am I appearing stupid in the face of the obvious? or is all of this symbolism simply proving too much for me? Well one thing seems certain, it either represents an inadequacy on my part, or represents a “mental block” which is preventing me from knowing the truth. But if this is true, then why doesn’t my unconscious demonstrate a little more patience and understanding since it must realize that I am trying my best.

Returning once again to the first dream, what are the basic elements that I can remember?

1 My apparent willingness to ride on my child’s back through a wooded area or very rough terrain

2 My willingness and apparent ability to offer him periodic assistance which served to help him by alleviating some of the difficulty he was obviously experiencing. (I vaguely recall that one of his arms may have been hurt but did not choose to dismount him on that account.)

3 My apparent willingness to carry him after reaching the bottom of a hill

4 His reminding me that “I was only carrying him now because we were in public” and my slightly disturbed reaction to this

5 His being frightened upon seeing the up-side-down canoe resting beneath a few feet of water

6 My reluctance to pay the price for a ride (or perhaps for passage across the water?)

7 The appearance of an island or boat just off shore which would seem to make this wish possible

8 My feeling that I (or we) had to try to reach this island or boat in order to cross this body of water

9 Interference by someone (the “captain”?) who directed me to “to go around” (presumably to enter the boat or island in the right direction) rather than proceed in the direction I was heading

10 The appearance of a male figure who prompted me to proceed in the direction I was heading.

11 My willingness to obey this figure which meant going against the captain’s command, as well as against on-coming traffic in order to reach the island or boat

12 My apparent success in reaching this intermediate destination (though, perhaps, not the final one)

I think that these elements can be simplified as follows:

I am ashamedly dependent upon my child (which my child apparently knows) and wish to keep this from public view; that my child has been frightened upon seeing a symbol which he might see as his (or my own) pending death, while I simply see a canoe under water; that I am not willing to pay the “price of passage” across the water because I feel that it has unfairly been set too high; and, finally, that I am willing to go against the “captain” of the boat, or against the direction of those persons disembarking it, on the basis of what I was told to do by another figure, or because of this impetus together with my desire to take full advantage of the most expedient and direct means to my goal.

But what is the significance of this symbolism? What does it mean to be “riding on the back of my child”? It is obvious that my child is carrying me rather than the other way around, but is he doing this willingly? or am I coercing him by taking advantage of his inability or general reluctance to want to deny me? There is something obviously shameful about this situation, but what is it exactly? I can see that I’m “taking advantage” of my son and, for this reason, am behaving like a terrible father, but what exactly am I doing and why? Am I assisting him because I care for him, or simply to keep him going? Why am I using him to carry me when I could be walking myself or even carrying him? Why, in other words, am I putting this burden on his back? Why am I not caring for him! It is obvious that I am in control of the situation and, therefore, it cannot be the case that my child is directing, or speaking to (or for me) regarding real life situations. No, this shameful act is my doing and not his, since he has already exposed my “hypocritical” behavior to me. In other words, he already knows what it is I wish to keep from others; that is, the fact that he is “carrying me”! But, again, what does this really mean? And what is it that is compelling me to commit such a despicable act?

Well, whatever this act might prove to mean, it seems probable that, unless I can bring myself to “get off my child’s back,” it may lead to the demise of both of us. Perhaps I felt that the child (whom I threw across the room in the dream preceding therapy) was going to “expose me” or “my behavior” to my therapist! and this is why I wouldn’t permit him to enter the room. And the reason I was concerned about his welfare after throwing him across the room, was because I still need him–am still dependent upon him. It is somewhat ironic, and certainly a testimonial to the power of dreams, that this very crime was exposed to me–not by a therapist–but by my very own child within a dream. And now I am left having to somehow come to grips with it.

I can’t help but recall the very first dream I had concerning this “child within”; the only one that presented my son as myself, and not simply as my son. I appeared to be about seven or eight years of age; only in this instance, far from my wanting to “ride his back” or to take unfair advantage of him, I was feeling only the strongest of emotions–a heart-felt love which turned into grief! In this dream, I tried my very hardest to give him what I felt was his due–what I myself have longed to hear throughout my life. What a vast difference this dream (and its attendant feelings) had in comparison to the present ones. For this reason, I can’t help but to be suspect of the meaning “my child” or “my son” may have in these subsequent dreams. There seems to be something objectively separate from myself in the latter dreams (which, of course, should be the case since my son is obviously separate from myself. Aside from this fact, I don’t feel the same level of intensity and concern as I did when coming face to face with myself as a boy. So, while these latter “sons” do command my attention and some concern because they are my sons, there is a sort of detachment or absence of feeling that they are the “real thing.” This said, I do remember feeling some sort of anguish in the dream that only verbally mentioned my son’s death at the hands of my nephew. But perhaps the anguish I felt was something more akin to my wanting, or feeling it necessary, to “avenge” his death, even while there remained some uncertainty within me that was forestalling the same. This dream is, to a different degree, in apparent contrast with these latest ones which are not merely exposing (for the first time) my own culpability and deception regarding my child, but also the fact that both he and I are in severe danger as a result of it. Indeed, it now appears that my actions may have “caused” the violent killing of my son and my own life being threatened as well. Only, even here, I did not appear to feel remorse for my child’s death, perhaps because there was insufficient time to “feel” remorse since my own life was quickly put in jeopardy, but, perhaps, because such feeling was really absent.

Although I feel that I have come a long way in uncovering certain facts and characteristics about myself, the crucial questions remain: Why am I coercing my son to carry me like a horse? What is my dream depicting? How is it that I can care for him and also be willing to sacrifice him? Or is this a selfish caring inasmuch as it is in my interest to “keep him going”? Can my coming down the hill suggest that I was entering the “public domain” or society, a setting which appeared to me as a kind of amusement park where one might expect to be cheated. I suppose that this view more or less conforms with my own, although I certainly don’t find anything amusing about it. If we take this metaphor to be true, then, perhaps, as I said before, I am simply refusing to play by society’s rules since I feel that “the price” has unfairly been assessed too high.

Let’s look once again at the first of our current dreams since this had two real-life counterparts which were “opposite” to what occurred in the dream. Now if we assume, as I think we must, that the “dreammaker” or unconscious borrows real life situations because there are “similar” elements in them which are “essential” to understanding the dream’s intended meaning or overall purpose, then perhaps this dream will provide the answers I am looking for. Again, it is clear that the dream reversed the real-life situations so that, in so far as I was concerned, the shoe was put on the other foot. Only my actions, now that I am in the role of “father,” turn out to be quite different from the actions of the two fathers in real life. Whereas they openly, and in one case forcibly, spoke up for their children, I, instead, merely muttered something under my breadth, perhaps, believing that in so doing, I would be able to get away with it in spite of the man’s hearing it; that he might overlook it, in other words, because it was so low-keyed. Whereas I did not answer one man’s objections in one of the real-life situation, the man in my dream not only answered it, but did so in the most violent way imaginable. Sticking with this analogy, the violent man in my dream might portray myself, while I would be in the role of either of the two father’s in the real-life situations. Now, again, assuming that the message of my dream was not to inform me that I should have acted more forcibly in both situations, or, at least, not in so cautious or cowardly a fashion, then we must suppose that these dream elements in some way are representative of something occurring in my unconscious.

Now it is apparent to me that I really couldn’t expect myself to have acted more forcibly in the real-life situations, knowing as I did that I was, or could easily have been, blameworthy to some degree. If anything, I felt that I was in a helpless, somewhat unfair, situation since I was “vulnerable to being falsely accused.” (I didn’t know whether the cart bumped into the little girl, nor did I know that I had almost run over the young boy.) Because I found myself vulnerable to such accusations, in either situation, I sense that I might have felt a certain amount of “anger” or “anxiety mixed-in with remorse” over my not knowing whether I was being taken advantage of or not. It bothered me that in this respect, both incidents were outside of “my control.” But I must also confess that I felt a certain degree of fear in both instances as well. The little girl’s father was a very large man (I considered that he might be a Rochester police detective or a professional football player), although his demeanor was very gentlemanly while, at the same time, matter of fact. Needless to say, he could have pulverized me! had he wanted. As it was, he simply (loomed large) near me, while I began to apologize rather profusely to his daughter. I felt the situation to be demeaning in as much as he had the “best of me” and seemed to know it. The little boy’s father, on the other hand, appeared to be about my size and was probably a local professional man in his mid forties. Although he was more “affective” in his expressing his concern over what I had done, I felt that, depending upon how I handled the situation, it wouldn’t escalate into something more which, I must confess, I would not have liked. The problem is, it’s difficult for me to know whether I am more fearful of physical harm to myself, or to being drawn into a situation that I would not be able to handle “due to my own culpability.” I can remember numerous incidents in my past life where I was entrapped by my own culpability. It’s like having to fight with one hand tied behind your back since you know in advance that your own actions were at least half of the problem. But what form of entrapment is this? I can recall my sometimes having been led into such situations by others, but recognize that I had to allow it as well. Again, its in the “not knowing” the extent of my own culpability that is most troublesome to me. Now this paragraph speaks volumes about my personal characteristics and attitudes, but, I must persist: How does knowing this fit in with my dreams?

Again, contrary to the actions of the two fathers, I was neither attentive to my child (who was crawling around on the floor), nor was I daring or willing to openly speak up for him. So in this sense, at least, I remain the same person as I was in the real-life situations even though my role has been switched. Again, instead of yelling out the fact that this gentleman nearly stepped on my child, I muttered something almost inaudible to that effect. In other words, I acted opposite the manner in which these two fathers acted, while, at the same time, the large gentleman in this dream responded in a way opposite to myself when I was in his shoes. So what is to be made of my rather pathetic countenance in the role of “protective father,” and his extremely violent demeanor in the role of “offender.” Only it might be noted that while “violent-offender” appears to go together, “cowardly-protector” does not. Whereas in the real-life situation, “violent-protector” would seem to go together, “cowardly-offender” does not. For why risk being offensive if one is cowardly? Or is it the cowardly nature, rather than the offense itself, that is most perturbing? These observations could be clues to understanding my behavior and also the meaning of my dreams. For, ironically, in a very round-about way, I came to the notion that I am perhaps guilty of being a “cowardly-offender,” and this, I must confess, has a certain ring of truth to it. In other words, I could easily see how my actions in either situation might be viewed as insensitive and cowardly, and, for these reasons, were offensive. For in both situations, I simply didn’t take the time to consider what effects my actions might be having on those around me. In fact, I chose to ignore whatever nuances–or slight reminders–were there to apprise me of this fact. Instead, I more or less “pretended” that nothing had happened. Witness the “blank look of surprise” I gave to the one gentleman, and my “feigning ignorance” of my potential culpability to the other. Let me face the facts her and now: I believed, that by doing or saying nothing, everything would work itself out. And here I was thinking that “I” may have been wronged or taken advantage of. Needless to say, I don’t care much for this new information about myself, but I am, of course, determined to know more.

So the message at present would appear to be that I need to be more cognizant of the effects my actions are having on others, and that I especially need to “own up to them.” Thus, I must accept the truth that the fault most probably lies with me in such situations and not with the others. But surely it must have been more than my somewhat cowardly, rather feeble attempt to stick up for my child that ignited such a violent fury in this man? Or might it have been for the fact that he had had enough!–that my unconscious, in effect, is no longer willing to tolerate my behavior? Thus, this man’s actions were not intended as some form of justification for my offense (since the punishment would hardly fit the crime), but was meant to depict this very fact. In fact, it may not have been so much a “depiction” (which presupposes an intended purpose) as much as it was simply a “reaction” which took place there and then solely because that is what my unconscious “felt” at that time.

It would seem, then, that my unconscious is not so much opposed to my treatment of my child in this dream (or of the man for that matter) as it is with the on-going “use” I am apparently making of him. But what is this use? And why do I think I am benefiting from it? Another thought comes to mind regarding the second dream. If the large man does in fact represent my unconscious, then it occurs to me that my treatment of him (of it) was something less than respectful, not to say foolhardy to the extreme. But how was I to know that this personage really represented my unconscious? Had I known this, I most certainly would have behaved differently. But, then, this may be the point of the whole affair. I am dealing with my unconscious; or, better,–it is dealing with me! For the violent reaction of this man was unhesitatingly absolute and final. There wasn’t even the remotest consideration on my part that he couldn’t do exactly as he pleased; that he was a force which could neither be placated nor avoided; that I am here dealing with something far greater than myself–and that it is insisting on my knowing it!

There’s something else of importance that comes to mind. I just said something to the effect that, “had I known that the man in my dream represented my unconscious, I would certainly have behaved differently.” Now this very interesting remark compels me to ask just why I would have behaved differently? Is it because of my great “respect” for the unconscious? Because I recognize its absolute power over me? Because I would have known that I couldn’t have gotten away with my behavior or act? Or is because I would have known that my unconscious would be acting for my personal benefit? Then what does this say of my attitude regarding “ordinary people”? That I distrust them? That I can more easily “pull the wool over their eyes”? That they are not concerned about my benefit? I intimated earlier that my unconscious might have been infuriated over the way I was “using my child”–more than this, that I might have been using my child as a means to demeaning, ridiculing, or devaluing this personage in some way or other. But, again, how was I doing so? Since I didn’t recognize that I was here dealing with my unconscious, it must be that my unconscious was not taking it “personally,” but rather, was not about to countenance this behavior in general, no matter who it might have been directed toward. After all, I am always speaking on behalf of the unconscious and generally find myself devaluing consciousness to others. So I believe that I must assume that, regardless of who or what this man might represent, my treatment of him is what was being objected to. Thus, my behavior is not only sometimes offensive to others, but, undeniably offensive to myself as well! Yes, I think that this hits the nail on the head, especially when we consider that consciousness represents only a part of ourselves. We too easily forget that we are more than what we know–much more–and that this “something more” sometimes has to remind us of it. This is especially true when things get out of hand,–that is, become extreme.

As was said, it appears that my unconscious is at the end of its patience and not about to tolerate any further misconceptions or delusions I might harbor, even if for my own defense. It is equally obvious that my current attitude is hurting me as much as it is hurting others and must be stopped. And if I don’t get the message, or begin to take steps in the appropriate direction, there is good reason to suppose that there will be a less than satisfactory conclusion to my life. And yet, there seems to be something “painfully unfair” about all of this. For the past eleven years, I have been searching myself and writing about my progress; and in doing so, feel that I have learned a great deal about myself and others. Only now, I am apparently being told that this effort may have been to no avail inasmuch as it has led me further from myself rather than closer as I had hoped it would. For I can’t deny the fact that, despite my apparent feeling of having appreciably added to my knowledge, I must confess that I am, perhaps, even more confused today than I was eleven years ago. As such, it seems equally obvious to me that I have continued to make the same mistakes in regards to my relations with the world–both as it presents itself within and without. But, surely, it has not been for a lack of trying. Surely, not everyone has committed so much time to self-understanding. Then why am I not even on an equal plane; that is, reasonably balanced so as not to warrant such dreams as I am having? Surely I deserve better. Surely my suffering warrants a more humane treatment. Only now there are new doubts creeping in; doubts which are pointing to the possibility that I may have been wrong in my assessment, especially regarding the role of the unconscious. Why? Precisely because I strongly believe that I am not deserving of such treatment, and, therefore, it cannot be appropriate!

Again, I feel so strongly about the above remarks that I now believe it necessary to cling to this view in order to come to an appropriate understanding of what it is my dreams are telling me. I recognize that this feeling might be nothing more than an Ego defense mechanism at work, but I can’t help but believe that this is not the case. And so I feel that I must emphatically state–must emphatically presume–that my unconscious is objecting to my apparent inability (or reluctance) to reveal myself, and put to proper use, the goodness which I know is within me. It is for this reason, and none other, that I am suffering a form of punishment which I have brought upon myself. It is my reluctance to dare “to be who I know I am”–rather than continue to conform to what I know I am not. Because I have not dared to be me, I have left open the door to any and all other influences and, thus, have precluded my ability to act in a way which is consistent with myself–my “whole self.” [Afterthought 2/9/96. My unconscious may in fact be instructing me “to be what I am,” but this may point to something less than the goodness I keep trying to maintain. In fact, it may be instructing me to be a little less childish, a bit more respecting of my own needs, and that I should dare to protect the same from those who would use me to serve their own purposes.]

Prior Thinking Relating To Conceptual Underpinnings

It is somewhat ironic when we consider that there is something native within us that always seems to lead us to “personify” things, while, at the same time, tries to prevent us from doing so. I suspect that this something “native” stems from the unconscious, while our objection to it derives from consciousness itself. After all, in so far as consciousness is concerned, its own intelligence is the only thing it knows, and for this reason, simply assumes that it must be superior to any other. And so, in spite of our tendency to anthropomorphize, we will go to great lengths to deny equal status to any other life form, and will not even allow that we (our “whole selves”) are much more intelligent than what we (our limited “conscious selves”) know. This may sound contradictory at first sight, but it is not. For we have only to look at ourselves to admit that our knowledge is far “inferior” to what we ourselves comprise. For example, we may be reluctant to refer to our bodies as intelligent (although, again, we are always prone to speaking in such terms), but this obstinacy flies in the face of reason. My God, if the makeup and workings of our bodies are not examples of intelligence, then how are we to explain our own? For surely, since the dawn of time, we have been trying to play “catch-up” with something that has either been there all along, or whose complexity is at very least evolving far faster than our ability to keep up with it. In other words, our knowledge of ourselves remains extremely scant in comparison to what we see ourselves to comprise.

So wherein lies the problem? Well, again, it lies with our extremely limited attitude regarding ourselves. We are all too quick (and anxious!) to locate our source and origins in nature because we feel that it is possible to locate nature outside ourselves. Once we have succeeded in making this distinction, it becomes relatively easy to lay claim to “the whole pot of gold” since nature, (at least in this respect), does not seem interested in challenging us. And, of course, this is precisely what makes holding this attitude possible. Nature is impersonal we think. The world does not talk to us, nor does it speak our language. So instead of looking at the marvelous creatures we know ourselves to be, and dare to admit to the obvious fact that what we see is almost frighteningly more than we will ever know, we will, instead, cling to the pretense that all of what we are rests with “consciousness”–which is a blatant obscenity at best!

Of course, the obscenity lies in our placing too great an emphasis on the overall merits and workings of consciousness and too little on everything else. It does us little good to try to diminish this “everything else” because its extensiveness and utter complexity completely mystifies us at every turn. We can’t help but be aware of the fact that, during the course of a typical day, our brains and bodily systems are handling millions upon millions of mind-boggling feats. Our knowledge pales in comparison; our sphere of responsibility for maintaining all such systems is disgustedly minuscule. Let’s face the obvious fact: we would all be dead in a matter of minutes if we were really responsible for ourselves! So when I speak anthropomorphically about what is unconscious, I am only admitting the fact that “we” are much more than what our extremely limited consciousness reveals. It’s not so much that we need to admit to the existence of “other subjects within us,” as it seems necessary for us to admit to being but one portion of something which is larger, more complex, and beyond our capability for understanding it. As a matter of fact, however, I do support the idea that there could be other personalities, as well as composites of personalities, existing within us. But first things first.

Returning now to the aforementioned dreams, I might ask just who or what part of myself is trying to get me to see things clearly, and which part appears to be blocking the way? Since it seems impossible to imagine that the source of the blockage, or the source of the dreams themselves, could rest with our conscious personalities (since it is precisely this faculty that is in search of such truths), then it seems logical to assume that we must look elsewhere. Only now, the water begins to get muddier as we employ logic and “known” concepts as though they were something concrete. “Well, if consciousness is in the dark about such matters,” we might suppose, “and the fact that such matters exist cannot be denied, then from what `other source’ might such things derive?” Only now the doors are swung wide open to any number of possible associations–seemingly limited only to what the imagination is capable of producing. We might, for example, begin now to suspect that we are not dealing with a simple duality between “consciousness” and the so-called “unconscious,” the latter not being perceived as a single entity as it often is, but, rather as distinct, and in some way separate, elements within the unconscious–not merely capable of opposing one another, but capable of opposing consciousness itself. Thus, if consciousness is seeking understanding, and there are elements within the unconscious trying its best to deliver it, then either consciousness is incapable of understanding the symbolism being presented to it, or else we must assume that there is some other form of conscious or unconscious “blockage” interfering with the process.

Only who says that the fact of blockage, if it is a fact, presupposes a “blocker”; that is, the occurrence of something or someone “intending” the same? Who says that because dreams appear to make use of symbolism, that, therefore, there must be an unconscious, “symbolmaker” producing the same? Who says that because we are not always able to understand such symbolism, that, therefore, we must assume that some other “unconscious personage” is? Indeed, if this were true, we would have every right to ask why something so intelligent as this would not seek more “intelligible” means for getting its messages across. The fact is, this very point lends even greater support to the belief that such “personages” do not exist; that they might be nothing more than anthropomorphic constructions which we must suppose have a role to play in experience. And like everything else, such constructions are, and most assuredly will continue to be, subject to change.

To be sure, the existence of symbolism in dreams is puzzling and simply cannot be explained away as meaningless nonsense. For the fact and obvious usage of symbolism in dreams is everywhere apparent and, therefore, we must conclude that such symbolism, at very least, is capable of being produced within ourselves. This is not to say, however, that it lacks an “external” counterpart, or that such symbolism can be produced apart from the so-called external or physical world; that is, outside ourselves. I doubt that this is true and, again, feel that if one’s thinking begins by immediately employing such conceptual severation, one will either find himself stuck in quicksand at the outset of his journey, or else will discover that there are a thousand paths stretching out before him. The mere existence of concepts, or any distinction whatever, presupposes that such severation has already taken place. In fact, the making of the concept or the distinction is itself the severation! I have often referred to this process, or state of acceptance, as a “freezing of concepts”, and I am fully aware of just how dangerous this attitude can be as a constant source (or obstacle) standing in the way of clear understanding. What makes this whole thing so difficult to understand is for the fact that our greatest source of confusion (namely concepts) also serves as our most promising “tool” for eradicating the same. We appear to be stuck with this seemingly contradictory situation, which, of course, we do not understand, but nevertheless know that it works.

I can’t help but think in this regard about the degree to which we’ve elevated language and concepts above all else. Rather than ask ourselves how this limited, confusing, and apparently contradictory process works, we seem content to simply accept that it does. But does it? Or might we be overlooking other significant factors–namely, the role that images and symbols play in experience? Such overlooked, extremely devalued portions of experience, might prove to be the missing link we are, or ought to be, in search of. And in so doing, we might just discover that the almost sacred status given to language is really undeserved, bogus, or simply “half-baked”; especially when considered apart from its necessary counterparts which have all but been excluded from the picture.

To be sure, the existence and workings of symbolism will itself prove unnerving to us, especially if we are prone to making the same mistake as formerly–that is, by treating the subject “as a subject” in its own right. If I’ve learned anything at all over the past eleven years of writing, it’s that knowledge always comes to us whole; that no matter how necessary it might be to dissect and analyze the objects of experience (into parts), understanding can only come when the parts once again form a whole.

Yes, we certainly do have the capability for severing or removing parts taken (literally, imaginatively, or conceptually) from a variety of sources, and then rejoining them into new configurations. Again, I am not saying that consciousness or Ego alone has this power, only that we, taken as a whole, (and this “whole” may not necessarily be restricted to our bodies) are in some way capable of the feat. While we don’t know how intuition works (whatever we might mean by “intuition”) we do know that it does, in as much as we can recognize an intuition when we have one, and, again, we can know this without being certain of what exactly “it” refers to. While each of us might have a slightly different (subjective) view of the concept, we are aware at least of this much. Thus, the problem already alluded to (above), referring to the fact that one of our primary sources of confusion is the very same “tool” which is used to eradicate it–that is, the formation and establishment of concepts–remains. I submit, however, that the problem is more perplexing than what it deserves simply for the fact that we persist in hanging on to the illusion. I am, of course, referring to the notion that a concept can maintain a life of its own; that is, separate from the backdrop from which it was severed in the first place. I have no doubt whatever that there is such a thing as a conceptual life for a given concept, and that it does in fact serve a purposeful role in our lives; only too many years of “dead-end thinking” have proven to me that their life blood is short-term; that the proper role of concepts in nature never was, and never will be, to establish any kind of permanence. Rather, they are meant to carry us from experience to experience in the same vein that the philosopher, Wittgenstein, intended when he spoke of climbing the ladder and then throwing it away. I believe that concepts serve this use and this use only; that is, serve to get us from one point to another and that is all. It is somewhat ironic when we consider that life and death can be viewed in much the same way; or that all of nature seems to obey this same principle. Why, then, can’t we do the same?

Returning once again to our discussion of dreams, the symbolism which appears in them sometimes feels altogether impossible to understand, especially when there is no stable, written record left for review. Instead, the elements that remain in memory upon waking are generally subjected to a flow of conscious facts which, in as much as they quickly intermesh with elements belonging to the dream itself, too often leave us with a sense of confusion rather than insight. For these reasons, the fact (or we might say the quality) of consciousness itself becomes a major obstacle to its own search for meaning. [It is also possible to argue that consciousness never is searching for meaning, but that it does so only because it is forced into it.] Now while it seems reasonable to assume that conscious and unconscious elements are capable of affecting one another (regardless of how this process might be viewed or conceptualized), there is obviously a “threshold” separating the two sides. (I use this word loosely recognizing that the word suggests something which is crossed, whereas this notion of separation can be viewed from any number of differing perspectives or constructs.) Now it is easy to recognize that this threshold is crossed continuously throughout the course of our normal waking lives (through insights, intuition, imagination, day dreaming, etc.), but, during sleep, “the other side,” seems to take on a more complex, relatively independent form, which seems to have a purpose of its own. And while this source may in fact appear to answer certain conscious concerns, it just as often deals with matters entirely outside of–and oftentimes directly opposed to–the conscious aims themselves. These are the dreams that puzzle, shock, and mystify us; the dreams which we are only too glad to slough off as entirely meaningless. But they are also the dreams that we need to pay special attention to for the very reason that they are outside our comprehension. For we must never suppose that dreams are for naught, or that they have no purpose or benefit for our lives. On the contrary, at very least, they do in fact depict (albeit in symbolic form) what is true of ourselves in normal waking life, and this, of course, is one and the same depiction running through the whole of what constitutes ourselves. It appears altogether obvious that, if our dreams are capable of depicting information and situations regarding ourselves (of which we our not consciously aware), then they deserve to be regarded as monumentally important means to vastly increasing self-understanding.

You might question how it is that I can be certain of this knowledge, having admitted that dreams are symbolic and, thus, most assuredly subject to my own interpretations as well. But why suppose that the symbolism is always difficult? Consider the following dream which took place in January of 1993, just one week before the boat dream already alluded to. I walked into an elevator, pushed a button to go up and, instead, the elevator rolled over on its side and took off in a horizontal direction while rotating and throwing me about inside. I feared that I was traveling under Hudson River on my way from Manhattan to New Jersey because this fear in some way preceded my going into the elevator. When the elevator finally stopped, it was once again in an upright position; only now the doors opened up and I discovered myself to be in a hospital ward. I quickly set about trying to discover whether I was in a “mental hospital” or not, and was somewhat relieved to see signs of this not being the case. The dream ended at this rather dramatic point. Needless to say, there is nothing very difficult about this dream. Sure, there are all sorts of associations which could be made (an unending number in fact), but this should not stand in our way. We might, for example, wonder if the dream is serving to depict my current state of health, attitudes or beliefs, or whether it might be warning me of the future consequences of my present actions or situation, be it a literal or figurative translation. But one thing is for certain–the dream didn’t occur for naught. And, while I thought that I was on my way “up” (in whatever regard), the dream told me otherwise–and did so with “affect.” (With hindsight and the advantage of subsequent thinking and events, I now know what this dream portended.) So whether we are talking about the danger of disintegration regarding a “boat” or some other “person,” we are still talking about danger, and, when all three of the aforementioned dreams are considered together, it becomes apparent that the danger is most assuredly referring to some form of sickness or breakdown which, apparently, could me mental as well as physical. In any regard, I can be assured that the concern of my dreams is for me and not with an “elevator,” “boat,” or “Mr. Lincoln.” On the other hand, I am not prepared to claim that I have somehow gleaned the “essential” meaning from these dreams since every dream is literally inexhaustible in this sense. Nevertheless, keeping in mind what I have already said regarding the tentative nature of concepts, we shouldn’t hang on to our dreams too tightly, for in doing so, we might lose sight of the future building blocks which are sure to follow. In the same way as a tree could prove to be an inexhaustible source of meaning for us, should we decide to spend our lives analyzing it, so too can too much contemplation of a dream prove just as wasteful. What I have discovered, on the other hand, is that subsequent dreams and reflection invariably shed light on those that preceded it, and, together, will give rise to a whole host of new intuitive insights. This is not to say that I never look back on former dreams, only that I do not do so unless, and until, I am directed to.

What is important to note from the above remarks is that there is a major difference between elements coming into consciousness during the waking state, and elements coming into consciousness during sleep. Again, I realize that some persons will find it confusing to speak in terms of a “sleeping consciousness,” but there is really no other way to put it since we must hold that we are conscious of our dreams while dreaming, or else we wouldn’t maintain our conscious identities within them. Furthermore, we are able to act and notice that certain alterations do in fact occur in order to accommodate or oppose our conscious actions. Thus, in so far as consciousness is concerned, dreams most assuredly represent “living experience” since, again, we behave in dreams no differently than we behave in waking life. Our character, values, hopes, idiosyncrasies, etc., remain with us throughout, and, to my way of thinking, offers the best reason for understanding why dreams are necessary. For if waking consciousness, by virtue of its strong awareness of the surrounding world, is so preoccupied with sensations and experience such that it is not always able to experience, let alone acknowledge, the more subtle expressions of the unconscious, then what better time to get something across than when a person is not so preoccupied. If the dreammaking function of the unconscious were to try to offer large scale scenarios in the form of waking dreams, not only would such dreams interfere with waking life, but they would be positively rejected. For even day dreams, when they occur, are generally shaken off, and these are not nearly as potent or demanding of one’s attention as are night dreams.

I think it safe to conclude that unconscious elements are continually presented to us, day and night, in the form of imagination, day dreams, and night dreams. All three forms represent “responses” to what we require for daily living. All three forms (at one time or another) seeks to aid, enlighten, engage, or steer us toward (or away from) something which we are inclined to assume must be unhealthy for us. Although there is some evidence to the contrary, none of us wishes to acknowledge the possibility that we may be “corrupted from within,” as well as assisted. If a psychotic hears an inner voice compelling him to kill, what are we to make of this? Fortunately, such cases of inner malevolence are an extreme rarity, while evidence of unconscious beneficence is everywhere to be seen.

To sum up, I believe that we must first assume that we are as conscious in the dream state as we are in the waking, although admittedly, generally without the same force of presence. There is no doubt that waking sensations are stronger, more vivid, more permanent and under our control than sleeping, even if the latter sometimes proves more frightening, puzzling, or capable of evoking a stronger response in us. The point is, we do not lose consciousness when we fall asleep, only our awareness of those things that are happening around us. Internal happenings are quite another thing. Most generally, we remain an integral part of the dream (as though it were waking life) and are not conscious of ourselves as dreaming. But this is not always the case since it is possible to know that you are dreaming while in the dream. This threshold is crossed so often that memories of the same sometimes persist no matter which state one is in. In other words, one is able to recognize certain characteristics of dreams while dreaming, and, thus, is able to conclude that one is in fact dreaming while in the dream state itself. This is simply more evidence for believing that consciousness is not altered in the dream state other than that there is an apparent absence of what we could call waking sensation.

Second, I think it also necessary to conclude that dreams serve to compensate consciousness; that is, present scenarios to test, inform, guide, and enlighten us for our own betterment. But dreams are not alone in serving this function, for the same can be said of routine insights, intuitions, memories and images occurring throughout the course of the day, not to mention periodic daydreaming as well. The only differences I can see in these three forms, (where previously unconscious elements have entered consciousness), is owing to their different intensities and limitations. While the daydream can occur with or without a conscious awareness of what is happening around oneself (crossing or not crossing this threshold), still, it cannot perform with the same force and vigor of the night dream which does not have to contend with the strength of sensation. Just as we see that memories, associations, insights, intuitions, are not without cause or purpose, so too do we see the same thing in dreams. The only difference is that the dream appears to have “a mind of its own” and, thus, is often seen to be meaningless, especially when it deals with matters far removed from conscious awareness. Add to this its use of symbolism, and we feel quite justified in ignoring them altogether. Despite the fact that dream symbolism is difficult to understand, the manner in which we respond to dream scenarios, isn’t. And it is here that we must begin our search for meaning since there appears to be ample evidence (at least in my own case) to conclude that I would have behaved no differently in real life had the dream scenario taken place there. Of course, we must overlook the fantastic elements of the dream. Obviously, I wouldn’t literally ride on my child’s back, but what I was thinking, feeling, and symbolically doing, would be just as true of me in my normal waking life, and this is the point of the whole matter. For one could expect that Raymond Iannello dreaming will behave pretty much like Raymond Iannello awake. Thus, we must conclude that our character and attitudes in dreams are even more important than the symbolism used to reveal them.

Third, it seems probable that dreams represent a reciprocal, rather than a one-way relationship existing between our conscious and unconscious selves; that we are able (that is, consciousness is able) to imagine or create its own dream elements within the dream; that is, is able to create its own scenarios out of the very elements already presented to it by the dreammaker . There seems to be a give and take–thrust and parry–on the part of both sides, although the dreammaker always seems to have the upper hand in terms of controlling the dream. In my dream, I wanted, and evidently was able, to offer my child assistance by imagining pedals on one occasion and wheels on another which I then used to lighten his burden and, thus, was able to ease my own conscience by ameliorating the situation. But no matter how hard we might try to alter the dream, for whatever reason, the dreammaker appears to have the final say, even if consciousness still seems powerful enough to continue to deny or ignore what is being presented to it. You might recall that the dream of the man who crushed my child’s skull occurred on the night after the former dream. Well, it just as easily could have occurred during the same dream itself, as has often been the case in my own experience. The fact is, most of my dreams contain numerous, seemingly related, episodes. I believe that these are in response to my conscious behavior while in the dream; that is, that if I’m not “getting the message,” other, usually more forceful scenarios will present themselves in an effort to give it another try.

Fourth, since elements in many dreams reveal an obvious understanding of language and its expression, oftentimes demonstrating a capacity for “verbal” understanding superior to our own (10/8/90, 12/26/94), we must assume that there is good reason for intermeshing a good deal of symbolism as well. Since it is equally obvious that dreams reveal a strong intent to enlighten, guide, or oppose certain elements within consciousness, or having to do with conscious attitudes and behavior, we must further assume that the use of symbolism is in fact superior to verbal explanations or reprimands!

I have been writing my personal thoughts (concerning personal growth, social, political, psychological and philosophical issues) over the past eleven years, the last five years of which, I have recorded and attempted to analyze over one hundred personal dreams. Because my writing has taken on more of the appearance of a personal journal, I have been able to note some of the ways in which my dreams “answer,” “challenge,” “affect,” “guide,” and sometimes “oppose” my conscious attitude, thoughts and concerns. But much more than this, I have come to see how dreams can sometimes lead me to discover things that I never knew about myself, nor even suspected for that matter. Herein lies the real significance of dreams; this marvelous phenomena that is too often overlooked as meaningless nonsense. On the contrary, I am coming more and more to see that it is truly “the gift of gifts” inasmuch as it represents a “presence” that is even more true of us than this “conscious identity” we refer to as ourselves. If nothing else, my thinking has led me to want to turn this fragmented notion on its head!

But dreams are not the only sign of this “greater presence” comprising ourselves; they are simply the easiest target to set our sights on. For if the truth be said, we would have to admit that this presence, from which all ideas, intuitions, images and thoughts proceed, is, as far as we know, the very same presence that lies behind the presentation of dreams. For, again, I would defy anyone to demonstrate their ability to create anything whatever by means of consciousness alone! I submit, we are aware of nothing whatever unless it is first “received” into consciousness by means of perception. Indeed, it appears tautological to even suppose that we might be capable of such a feat since perception implies that there is something there–to be grasped. Life has become difficult and highly complex for most of us, and the more so because we have come to accept this state of affairs as “normal”–and thus have learned to expect and accept it as such. Because of this, our internal lives have become more and more devalued, even while its presence is making itself more and more apparent. In the strongest sense of the word, society as a whole is in the grip of a neurosis which it doesn’t understand, much less know how to escape. And yet, the fault is entirely our own, as I have come to see in my own case. And what exactly is this abnormal state we are suffering? It is simply our reluctance to see and accept the world for what it is–our reluctance to see ourselves for what we are. This is an abnormal state!

As I said, dreams provide easy justification for the general reluctance we feel for having to deal with the “whole” of experience–that is, the whole of “our experience”! As it is, we often try to ignore certain portions of experience, and, ironically, sometimes those which are impacting us most; that is, are prone to ignore them in spite of their impact. And, of course, we know this to be especially true of dreams. Only, instead of having to work at suppressing them–like trying to bury dissatisfying or disruptive thoughts and feelings hanging like a loadstone around our necks throughout the course of a day, or year, or lifetime–we simply slough them off as unwanted, meaningless images–even “nightmares.” Such imagery as this is, is not only unwanted, but most often appears to be disjointed, out of place and character, and sometimes utterly fantastic. As I said, dreams present an easy means to justifying our apparent unwillingness to see ourselves as we are.

Unfortunately, this practice does not stop with dreams, for we can see this same attitude creeping into the realm of day-dreams and imagination as well. And, finally, by holding tight to the more or less accepted “new standard of normality,” anything that appears to be on the fringes of this standard becomes suspect. In such a way, abstract and unfamiliar forms of art, music, writing, thinking, behavior, etc., are considered to be “mystical curiosities” which, in the final analysis, will be sloughed off as both meaningless and worthless on that account. Of course, if we hold to the notion that the only things in life deserving of our attention are what we “collectively agree upon,” and what we agree upon happens to represent but a “portion” of life as we undoubtedly know it, then such abstractions will be thought to be meaningless! But, of course, this notion of there being a “collectively agreed upon norm” is sheer farce for the very fact that we can neither stave off those portions of experience we do not wish to deal with, nor can we prevent large segments of humanity from dealing with, and accepting the same. It’s a bogus claim at best, and our apparent willingness to conform to it has proven devastating. Perhaps Emerson said it best in his essay on Self Reliance:

“The objection to conforming to usages that have become dead to you is, that it scatters your force. It loses your time and blurs the impression of your character….” Of course, if we are reluctant to consider the fact that such notions and usages are truly dead or bogus; that is, should we not dare to rely upon our own observations of what we see to be the case, then we will continue to suffer its consequences. As the great man sang: “The virtue in most request is conformity. Self-reliance is its aversion. It loves not realities and creators, but names and customs. Whoso would be a man must be a nonconformist…” And finally, “Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind. Absolve you to yourself, and you shall have the suffrage of the world.”

January 16, 1996

At least two dreams, each containing at least two episodes, all of which seemed to depict and stress my current situation or dilemma as one in which I am feeling continuously squeezed. As it turns out, my being squeezed is the result of my not having the wherewithal or strength to accept and present myself for what I am, as well as my passive inclination toward not interfering with things that could prove to have a strong impact upon me. As usual, things not acted upon go awry and soon come back to haunt me. In one of the dreams, I believe that I agreed to counsel a couple who I had scheduled to meet with on Monday. They were staying at my house over the weekend. I recall that they were talking about some form of compensation for me without my having any say in the matter. Another scene had me out in my back yard where two men were digging. One realized that I had previously planted something where he was digging and chided me for having obviously lost the plant. I retorted that there were a lot more failures besides this one. Just then I looked up and noticed vines full of ripe tomatoes along the back border of my property. I thought this phenomenal in as much as it was still early spring. I believe that I walked over to them to take a closer look, and perhaps to pick one or two of them as well, when my neighbor approached me. He thought that I was attempting to steal his tomatoes and I was appalled and deeply embarrassed at his thinking this. I told him that I would never do such a thing and took great pains trying to convince him of my honesty in this regard. I next remember walking over to a table which rested in front of his garden. A young girl was seated at it and was looking at tomatoes plants, some of which were rotten. I took a closer look at them and then asked if the tomatoes were grown in the small containers. She answered yes and I then informed them that so long as the tomatoes were small, they were able to get sufficient nourishment from the small amount of soil contained in the carton. But when the plants got large, there wasn’t enough soil to sustain all of them. This appeared like a great revelation and I simply said that all that was needed was a deep wooden box to solve the problem and just as quickly began thinking how I would build one for both of us (back to back) for the following season. I was trying to make up for his believing me a thief and wanted to show him what a nice person I really am.

I next remember looking around the yard and seeing all sorts of things laying around–unfinished projects, etc. that made my yard look messy. I was embarrassed over this and wanted him to see that I wasn’t a slob either. I also remember walking over to my deck and noticing a large plant resting on a coffee table. I removed the plant but could see that the coffee table had weathered from being outdoors. I was somewhat disgusted with the fact that I had used an indoor table in this fashion and could see that I couldn’t really save it without having to do a good deal refinishing. Nevertheless, I chose to put it under the gazebo portion of the deck thinking that the lattice would at least offer some protection. In other words, I sought an expedient means to forestalling the real problem or its potential solution, which, of course, might have rested with refinishing the table properly or at least weatherizing it for continued outdoor use.

I next remember reentering the house and was feeling kind of lousy with all that had just transpired. I wished that I could clean up the yard and, since it was Sunday, felt that I might just do this. Only the couple I was going to counsel suggested that we start the counseling immediately since they were already there. I offered no resistance to this suggestion and simply felt compelled to go along with them in spite of the way I was feeling–that is, squeezed, trapped, and even somewhat tormented.

After awaking from this dream, I lay in bed thinking about its many elements and the meanings behind them. And soon I fell back asleep to receive still more reminders of the predicament I was obviously in. But I should first note another small dream incident which is of special interest. I usually get up with my wife mornings, even though I don’t particularly want to all the time. Since I was awake during the night for so long a period, I wasn’t especially up to it this morning. So I simply dreamed that I was laying in bed and talking to her through the bathroom doorway. (Freud’s view that dreams fulfill wishes in order to protect the dreamer from being awakened would seem to fit well with this dream, although this view would fall far short on most occasions.) In any event, my next dream had me looking through my living room picture window and noticing that my neighbor (unrecognized) was washing his large van in my driveway. Although I didn’t know who he was, I didn’t mind that he was doing so since it appeared to me that he was simply trying to get out of the sun and was taking advantage of the shade my own driveway afforded. I went on about my business. Only the next time I looked through the window, I could see that he was still out there, but that several other persons had joined him. I walked outside and was appalled to see junk strewn everywhere about my yard–dismantled automobiles and broken glass everywhere. They had completely trashed the place. Although I suspected that a certain individual, an older man, was the leader and perhaps the cause of this fiasco, I chose to approach another individual who was sitting on the edge of the lawn. I don’t remember what transpired at this point, but knew that I had “been had” once again, and that I was probably in serious trouble. I do remember thinking that these people might have “purposely” trashed my property as a means to lowering its value and then purchasing it at the low price. Needless to say, each subsequent event was a little worse than the former which, of course, I had neglected to deal with. And so it goes. My dreams have repeatedly reminded me of my shortcomings: depicting exactly how my dilemma’s arise and why. And yet I can’t seem to conquer the problem.

When I look around me, I can’t help feeling that I am responsible for the messes I’ve created. For example, it seems to me that I’ve been guilty of having pursued numerous, mostly unfinished, household projects in an unhealthy, almost stealthy manner. There’s something about the way I take things on that leads me to feel that I’m in some way or another living a lie. I guess that the lie is my feeling that my undertaking such projects will in some way resolve or forestall my difficulties. All of my projects seem to have served this end (at least in part), but in the long run, have only served to bury me deeper into my own confusion. But shouldn’t I bear the responsibility for these acts? feel obligated to complete them? aright the mess that I’ve caused myself and family? And in still another vein, might not my reading books, taking walks, driving to nowhere, musing and reminiscing about my past failures, etc., all be means to this same end? that is, a means of escaping my dilemma by searching for and awaiting answers which never seem to come? Such actions appear to be false and rather dishonest searches when viewed in this way, again, knowing as I always do beforehand that such searches will only add further grief and self-pity. Despite my knowing this, I keep waiting for the intercession of some intuitive insight that will show me the way out.

So what am I missing here? Am I simply guilty of continually overlooking messages that are clearly there to begin with? After so many failures, why the continued optimism? if that’s what it can properly be called. If I need to escape from something, or go in search of answers, or require assistance, whatever, then I must already know, or at least feel in some way, that very desire or need to exist within myself. Only how do I face a need to escape from myself? By refraining from doing what I seem compelled to do? But how do I stop myself from doing something which I know in my heart I am not really into? Again, by refraining from doing so? Is it as simple as this? or might the lie be something a little more subtle inasmuch as I do enjoy such diversions, at least in part. Only deep down, I recognize that they are diversions which I cannot afford. Deep down, I know that I am cheating myself by feigning appropriate actions which are really tantamount to lies; that I am proceeding with things that I know to be “out of order,” and for good reason (I must assume), are not properly sanctioned for the time. For if I am not yet earning a proper living (“earning my own loaf” as Emerson says), then how can I expect to take pride and interest in home projects when I know full well that they are being attempted on borrowed time and money? Thus, this yoke which I seem to be carrying around my neck is growing increasingly heavier. I have had numerous dreams which have had me dragging around a corpse. In one of these dreams (4/2/93), I tried to unload this corpse by leaving it next to an open pit where a strong black man (suggesting the unconscious) was digging and paying no heed to anything else. As it was, I did leave the corpse there and left, only to have my very life threatened (by two other individuals) upon my return. The dream ended with me standing in front of a crude, three inch thick door which was shaped like an hourglass, covered with thick bark, and hanging loosely in a frame which contained an extra thick head jamb. Was this door suggesting that I would have to look within myself for the answers I am seeking? Did its gnarly, heavy appearance suggest something old and difficult to open–the unconscious?

In any event, I think it’s clear that I am accruing more and more unwanted, apparently inappropriate, unfinished material which, because it has not been duly apportioned through the “proper” application of my time and talents, persists in hanging around me like a dead spirit in search of rest. Is this the burden I am trying so hard to lay to rest? In thinking along these same lines, I can’t help but to recall that even our home could be said to have originated out of place. I had it built without knowing whether or not my wife and I would in fact be purchasing it, and, thus, we were deprived of the joy that comes with such anticipation. I was in a management program with Wickes Lumber at the time and needed to be prepared to move into a management slot wherever such a slot might open. Instead, I sought to hang on to the delusion that I could have a house built in the city of my choosing (that is, remain in Canandaigua) while, at the same time, believing that I would eventually inherit the store I was already in. And even if I didn’t become the Manager, I was content with the thought that I would remain here and never gave serious thought as to what the company might think. As it was, they simply left me alone which I suppose amounted to a partial win for myself.

What is growing ever clearer is the fact that I seem to be in the habit of pretending that things can or are going my way, even when they might not–or cannot. In other words, I seem willing to hang on to, and prepared to stretch, if necessary, my own delusions for the sake of maintaining them, and this even when I know that their present accumulation is killing me. But why do I persist in doing this? Why do I persist in choosing delusion over reality, especially when I know that it’s not working? Why do I persist in searching for a way out of this dilemma (in the ways that I do) when I know already that the answers I have sought have never been forthcoming, at least not in this way? For in truth, I really don’t wish to clean up the debris that presently surrounds me–I simply want to be rid of it! But how can I expect to be able to accomplish this? Or will I have to pay the price?–do the work!

Still another dream comes to mind (7/22/91). In this dream, I was visiting Sicily with two friends (brother and sister school mates who were actually born there) and had stopped somewhere to pay respects to one of their grandparents. Upon asking two men to open the coffin and reveal the remains, the coffin proved to be empty. The laughing men then unzipped the side of a cow (which was grazing near by) and revealed a short, crude replica of a man laying sideways inside the animal. Apparently, they had utilized the dead corpse to “delude” the cow into thinking it was pregnant and, therefore, was lactating. As I said, the animal was grazing contentedly nearby and apparently was no worse for the wear. But what was this dream saying about me? Am I behaving like this contented cow? carrying around my own corpse, perhaps, which I mistakenly assume is “my child”? Is my child, in effect, a corpse? Or am “I” the corpse, or at least acting like one insofar as I seem unwilling to prevent others from doing with me what they will. If only they would leave me alone, I am prone to say; if only they would not treat me unfairly simply because they are able to; if only they would stop taking advantage of my situation, my circumstances, my characteristics, etc.

The messages seem clear enough: I am afraid of confronting situations as they occur; am too preoccupied with trying to win the approval of others, or with trying to get them to see me in a more positive, worthwhile light; too unwilling to admit to defects within myself, even where these are small and hardly worth denying. I will go to great lengths to deny my true intentions to myself and others; often refuse to see defects in myself for fear that they will diminish me; too willing to notice defects in others or project my own upon them which might be one and the same thing. Again, I seem ready and willing to fight to maintain my delusions–prove the defects–even though in “proving” them, I am generally left to suffer the consequences. I seem unwilling to accept the responsibility for my personal dilemma and too unwilling to take appropriate action when and wherever it seems appropriate to do so. I am overly conscious of my fears; too passive in permitting circumstances and others to take advantage of my situation; too reluctant to fight on my own behalf! But how can I be expected to fight on my own behalf when I am only “half” to begin with? Is it any wonder why I act cowardly; why I am so unsure of myself and my beliefs, and perhaps for this reason alone, am too frightened to risk confrontation? “I am not whole!” By not revealing my honest feelings regarding myself and others, I merely add to those former lies which have already served to alienated me from the world–from myself. As a result of this, I feel that people do not know me, or only know me from what I say, do, or not do, which is altogether unsatisfactory given my “inclinations.” Only why do I not reveal these inclinations for what they are? Why do I not act upon them? Why do I persist in thwarting a truer representation of who I am? Why do I deceive others, and in so doing, deny myself?

Much of the meaning underlying the aforementioned dreams should by now be apparent. I am being chided, ridiculed, chastised, and above all, “reminded”–in no uncertain terms!–of the consequences I have allowed myself to suffer. Yes, I have wasted a tremendous amount of effort by insisting on undertaking projects or performing actions when it was inappropriate to do so. I don’t need the workman or my discovering the weathered coffee table to remind of this, I can offer hundreds of other examples. I don’t need these counselees or next door neighbors to remind me that I am not dealing with life from a “worthy” self-perceived perspective relating to my own needs and desires, or be reminded of the consequences of failing to act on my own behalf. Nor do I need to remind myself of my apparent need to “stave off” the affects of others by such means as placation, performing good deeds, and the like. Again, I can cite hundreds of examples of similarly suffered consequences, and also the dreams that have tried to make it apparent. So whether I delude myself through reading books, undertaking landscape projects, making purchases, taking rides, musing, thinking, writing, or wishing,–so long as these do not proceed from a clear and certain perception of myself–they will be false and therefore will continue to be dangerous to my overall health and well-being!

January 19, 1996

Two dreams with scant remembrances of either. One dream had to do with “my not knowing my direction” and the other with “my trying to escape from someone” who appeared to want to harm me, although I can’t be positively certain of this. The first dream took place at either Oswego or Watertown. I knew that Lake Ontario stretched out toward the West, but, unfortunately, I was surrounded (that is, the city was surrounded) by water and this interfered with my getting a fix on my direction. I asked around for anyone who might give me a “single” direction, but to no avail. I don’t recall much else except that there were musicians playing in front of what appeared to be a college and, in passing by, I chidingly told one of the players that I ought to take out my violin and join them. Although I feel that this dream had other episodes to it, I must assume that they didn’t impact me enough to warrant remembering, or else were “blocked” because of the impact they might have had on me. This issue of blockage is still an open question.

Much of my second dream (or the second episode of the same dream) was lost as well. I remember that I was outside, passing through the grounds of some large company. I remember seeing the company’s logo embedded in numerous places on its marble walkways–it was all highly sophisticated. I next remember that I was carrying a bag which contained my clothing and also another larger bag (“an extra piece of luggage”) which was given me by the hotel which I, presumably, had stayed in on the previous night. At first I contemplated throwing it away since it hadn’t cost me anything, but then considered that one of my daughters would appreciate having it since it really was a nice piece of luggage. I believe that it was at this point that I was accosted by this male figure (I believe it was my old “friend” the trickster, only now he was dressed in a sports coat, shirt and tie) who came up alongside of me and put his arm around me like we were old buddies. I knew instantly I was in trouble and, after saying a few kindly words to reassure me that he meant me no harm, he began to show that he in fact did mean me harm (at least I sensed that he did). I don’t remember exactly what he wanted from me, but I felt that my life was being threatened. I tried to escape by running with my suitcases, but to no avail. He always seemed to catch up with me, or simply turned up wherever I happened to be. I remember thinking that maybe I should drop the extra bag for him, but really didn’t believe that this would satisfy him. I guess that I knew instinctively that nothing short of “getting to me” was going to satisfy him. I knew that I wasn’t a match for him physically (although I’m not certain as to how I knew this, unless, of course, I instinctively recognized him as being no other than the same “trickster” who has visited me in other dreams). Anyway, I suddenly discovered that I had a pistol on me which I immediately tried to use on him. (Reminds me of my dream of 12/26/94) when I pulled a gun and started shooting at a black security guard working for a department store I was in.) Unfortunately, the pistol wouldn’t fire. I tried cocking it several times more in desperation, but to no avail. I last remember hiding behind some shrubs back in town, wondering if he would find me. I didn’t know how I was going to escape from this cover undetected. Again, I knew instinctively that he would be there on any account–that he simply couldn’t be dodged. This is all I remember of this dream.

I guess that both these episodes were pointing to the fact that I remain haunted by my continuing and persistent lack of direction, and that, unless I find an anchor, or “point of reference,” I will be unable to ascertain it. But what if we consider the possibility that Lake Ontario may stand in for the vastness of the unconscious. So long as I was aware of my relative location (by being in Oswego or Watertown), I felt confident that I could easily locate it. But once I discovered that the part of town I was in was now surrounded by water, making it impossible for me to see exactly where this great expanse of water began, I was altogether uncertain as to where it was. Again, my dream may have been warning me that I must keep one foot on shore; that is, in life, so as not to lose myself “within.”

Now the “trickster” is something else. Perhaps he represents the realities and tribulations of life, or simply another side to myself which I neither wish to face nor accept. In other words, just maybe this character, who I have come to loathe, fear and even admire in some respects, is not the evil demon I have suspected, but a “goader” of sorts sent to me by the unconscious. In any event, he exhibits all of the things which I have either suppressed or sought to avoid throughout my life: an arrogant demeanor, an overly competitive nature, a willingness to take advantage of people and situations through his sheer force of intelligence, agility, and raw talent; in short, everything I have tried to stave off in life–stave off in others. I have always felt it almost sinful to “take advantage” of someone or something simply because I can. (Of course, were I not “thinking about it”–tempted–I wouldn’t feel this strongly!) In any event, this bold, intelligent and extremely agile character doesn’t seem bothered by such concerns and, in fact, I think he takes pleasure in seeing someone else lose–or maybe just me. In several previous dreams, he appeared to be mocking my demeanor and seemed to take absolute delight in demonstrating his superiority over me, or in my obvious inability to compete with him. I tell you, I’ve grown to despise the bastard!–pardon my language. Only now I’m beginning to realize that this despicable character may reside in me; that is, really is “locked in my house” as I feared he was in a former dream (12/2/94).

Well, maybe all of this is true, but I still would not want to reveal, much less, unleash this character if, in fact, he does reside in me. I think the world might be better off if he remained confined to dreams. Admittedly, I do admire his spirit, or the fact that he appears so full of life and vigor–so completely confident and at ease with himself–so proud and certain of his ability overcome any and all obstacles. Make no mistake about it, he knows that he’s “hot stuff,” and he delights in rubbing this fact in my face, knowing as he does how much I loathe him. But above all else, I feel a certain admiration for his daring to be free to be all that he wants and is–daring to oppose all that I or “we” think he should be. In the truest sense of the word, this character must be counted as being anti-social. He dares to place himself above and beyond the imposition of social and ethical principles, and he is apparently getting away with it.

As members of society, I suspect that we all have a similar type character residing in each of us, at least, to one degree or another. I further suspect that such a character represents the antithesis of our social constitutions or “persona’s”–the face we present to others. Thus, he most probably is playing a compensatory role to consciousness. Since he periodically appears in my dreams, it must be that my outer life is too much opposed to what he stands for; that it is probably in need of greater freedom of action without the attendant feelings of guilt which I am certain would accompany such actions. By opposing, besting and mocking me at every turn, he is perhaps trying to “goad” me into action–into wanting to fight him, which, of course, would necessitate my having to be more like him! How else am I to stand any chance at all of defeating him?

But what if the opposite case is true? Although I absolutely cannot bring myself to believe it, what if I’m already behaving too much like him and, for this reason, he is giving me a taste of my own medicine; that is, showing me how my behavior might be affecting others? But again, I simply cannot believe this of me since I consider myself to be highly passive and, as a result of my passiveness, feel that I have suffered the consequences of generally having gone along with what others expect of me. (Surely my dreams have been pointing this out.) Only my raising this very possibility must point to a certain level of uncertainty or confusion regarding this matter. I know only too well that there are sometimes vast differences between the way I view myself and the way I am viewed by others. This is because I judge myself by what I feel myself to be, and not by what I do. I realize that actions by themselves do not reveal character. Only this said, there remains the possibility that my own considerations of myself may be directly opposite of what I truly am. This is really to say that the “objective standpoint” being sought may not rest with society, nor with some general consensus, nor with consciousness alone, but, perhaps, is solely and ultimately in the hands of the “unconscious.” In saying this, I am trying to leave consciousness out of the picture, but only wish to say that the viewpoint we are seeking is larger than consciousness–much larger–and that it must, therefore, be trusted to our “whole being.” We may not like it this way, but there is no other choice after all is said and done–and we remain without answers. Consider the following:

As I said, I have always felt that I have passively given in to what others wanted, whether for my benefit or theirs. I can cite hundreds of instances of this throughout my life, and yet, if you were to ask my wife or children, brothers and sisters, whether they regard me as being willful (demonstrating strong force of character), or passive (generally willing to go along with the rules, or with what others expect of me), I would venture to say that all would choose the former, which only serves to indicate that such matters are relative at best. While (to me) I am constantly struggling against the compulsion to think and write due in large part to the pull of traditional and expected responsibilities, my wife sees me as being extremely selfish for not better conforming. In other words she perceives “my perceived martyrdom” as pure examples of “selfishness” and “negligence.” And, of course, this cross becomes extremely heavy for either of us to bear. Just think for a moment at how painful it is when circumstances or events cause one to realize that what he had all along perceived as “sacrifice” on his part, not merely goes unacknowledged or simply unknown as such, but is completely turned into its opposite! How demeaning! How crushing!

So what are we to conclude from this? That we should place our subjective feelings ahead of what others think or feel? Or that we should place their opinions above our own when they “collectively” represent some form of general consensus? In other words, who ought to be the ultimate judge and arbitrator? This is not an easy question when you consider that “our feelings” are never strictly are own, but are very often inherited from others, be it from circumstance or out of feelings of love and respect for those closest to us. Perhaps the only claim we can make to feelings being our own, is the simple fact that we have them. And because we have them, we are forced to experience and bear whatever consequences surround them. This is a highly significant point since, whether we consider our feelings “appropriate” or not, the fact that they exist cannot, and will not, be ignored. So whether I am right or wrong about my sense of “martyrdom,” it, nonetheless, exists, and does so in whatever sense I feel it. And because this is so, I can count on its being treated by me (that is, by my greater self) in a way that accords with me and no other. For our instinctive natures are always looking out for “number one,” and if we want to avoid falling into the abyss of flailing nonsense, we had better accept the fact that our brains, minds, systems and organs, all are working on our own behalf. And while consciousness may sometimes find itself in a muddle, especially when its seeks to act alone, it may suffer profusely from not knowing what to do–that is, by being directionless. We have no other recourse but to accept the fact that there are counter forces at work within us seeking to maintain, or reestablish a balance. Now I fully recognize that some of us (and I most certainly include myself) have tended to stave off, oftentimes for far too long a period of time, those very compensations which are striving to keep our “programs” in balance. Sometimes the system gets so tight–so complicated and confusing–that I feel we would be better off by simply letting go. Not letting go of life, but letting go of our resistance to it. A small aircraft is designed to aright itself and fly straight after letting go of the controls, and I think that the transition of the Soviet model into a democratic one might best be served by letting go. For the goal of “shooting the gulf” or “making the transition” may not be so much a matter of “doing” as it is “permitting.” Do we dare trust that we are programmed to fly straight when the controls are let go of?

January 22, 1996

I had three dreams with two intermittent wakings the night before last. The last was unfortunately lost due to my being awakened abruptly by the radio. The first two were sequential dreams and, as such, were quite important I feel, although I lost a great deal regarding each of them. Nevertheless, what was essential was that I was arguing with my daughter Catherine in both dreams, and that the arguments came close to the point of physical abuse. In the first dream, I was arguing with her as a young adult, or as she appears today, while in the second, I argued with her as a young child. I was very upset upon awaking from the first dream, first, because arguing with Catherine is always highly upsetting and, second, because in forgetting the elements of our dialogue, I felt that I had lost the cause or the anatomy of it all. If only I could have reviewed what had taken place, I would be able to better understand why it had gotten out of hand.

And so I laid in bed thinking about this first dream, trying my hardest to recollect the argument itself. But it was lost and I knew it. In fact, the crucial elements within it, probably the very one’s which I might have the most difficulty facing, might have been the very reason for my waking in the first place. On the other hand, it could very well have had to do with the level of the argument itself, remembering as I do, that it stopped just short of my wanting to slap her face! (I suspect that it had everything to do with my inability–or the ability of “reason” itself–to get the job done.) Laying there in bed, I couldn’t help but wonder why it is that consciousness “is allowed” to so easily lose the obvious relevance and importance of such dreams as these, especially when it is consciousness itself that is presumably struggling to know such things. Why, then, the blockage? Why this incessant, seemingly perpetual obstacle standing in the way of clear vision?

As I asked myself these questions, I also asked myself if I could reenter this same dream upon falling asleep again. I wanted to force myself to go back into it in order to resolve the issues standing between myself and Catherine, or at very least, to come out of the dream with a remembrance of what had transpired. I wanted, in other words, something to hang on to in order to allow myself the opportunity to review and analyze it further. Only instead of reentering the same dream, I once again found myself embroiled in still another argument with her, only this time she was a mere child, approximately six or seven years old. The dream continued in the same vein as the first one, escalating to the point of near violence. And, like the first dream, I awoke from it still not remembering any of the details or nature of what had taken place.

I do remember, however, that as the argument progressed (that is, escalated in the same manner as the first dream), at one point Catherine indicated to me that she “knew things,” and I took this to mean that she had knowledge beyond her years. She also mentioned that she was seeing someone (I believe his name was Jeff and that he was born in 1947). Again, I assume that she was trying to impress me by mentioning this relationship, or was trying to grasp a more “objective justification” in support of her arguments, or to get me to believe her point of view. I think that she wanted me to know, that despite her young age, she really did “know things.” Be that as it may, the dream once again ended with me angrily squeezing her cheeks while, at the same time, “logically” trying to convince her that no matter what she was saying to me, or how I might be responding to it, I would still love and accept her.

As I lay in bed trying to recall this second dream, I was even more confused, as well as disappointed that I could not remember the anatomy of what had taken place. I seemed to believe, instinctively, that if I could have had the opportunity to review the contents of either dream, I would have the wherewithal to resolve the issue; that is, understand what exactly was taking place. As it was, I was left wondering why it was that Catherine was a mere child in the second dream, and why her being so, apparently made so little difference to the outcome. And, again, both dreams ended at a point just short of physical abuse, indicating, if nothing else, that I was simply unable to argue my case convincingly, and that this may have been what led me to the edge of violence in the first place.

There is a tendency to want to believe that Catherine’s appearance as a child in the second dream was meant to inform me, that whenever I am engaged in a discussion or argument with her, that I am really arguing against “her child,” and that this, presumably, is why our “discussions” have so often turned into arguments. Only I am suspicious of any solution which too easily absolves me from having to look at my own character or psychology. In other words, my strong cautionary stance, wanting to be absolutely certain and correct about my behavior, generally leads me to first look for the fault in myself. As such, I awoke from both dreams believing that it was I who was at fault, and that the messages (the intended meanings of both dreams) were designed to apprise me of this fact. After all, it was I, and not Catherine, who had reached the end of his rope and was bordering on the use of violence. If nothing else, this act alone would tend to lead me to believe that the problem is with me.

But what if it’s true that when I am conversing with Catherine, I am really conversing with her child? What would such a message mean for me? That in my discussions with her, I need to see her motivations as child-like (or that the level of conversation is too high for her; that it is like talking to a child?) and, therefore, I should not expect her to conform to my way of thinking? Or might this suggest that, like myself, perhaps she too is dragging around a corpse of her childhood? (My God, where and when is this thinking going to end?) So might this also mean in effect that we are talking “child to child”? Only why did I feel very much as my adult self in both dreams? Why didn’t my second (and presumably more specific) dream present me as a child as well? Or is this impossible. For if we retain our conscious identities in dreams, as I believe we do, we cannot expect ourselves capable of simultaneously being two different selves. In other words, to do this, we would be forced to see ourselves as another person within the dream. (And this is precisely the manner in which I viewed myself as a young boy in my dream of (6/29/92.) So if my dream presented Catherine and myself as two children engaged in argument, then “I” as a child could not have carried the same subjective feeling, identity and control, as “I” myself would in fact be carrying in viewing the scenario. Indeed, when we talk about someone behaving as a child, we do so knowing that the person is not conscious of this fact; that is, the fact that repressed or unfulfilled childhood needs might be the true motivator behind his present actions. Thus, not only does it seem reasonable to assume that childhood factors can exert an influence upon us without our knowing it, but that it more often does so without changing our adult character in any noticeable way. Of course, there are cases and circumstances when one’s child-like behavior is only too noticeable. But is the second dream really exposing the first Catherine as a child? I can’t be certain at this time.

January 26, 1996

Dreamt that I was in a friend’s or relative’s home with two strapping young men (late teens or early twenties) who were snooping into everything. They were going into rooms, opening drawers, and felt free to do exactly as they pleased. They seemed to feel that there was nothing wrong with their actions since they were so open and matter of fact about it. I was walking around in a bath robe, too afraid to shower because of what these two might steal. I finally confronted them by yelling that they had no right to be doing what they were doing; that it wasn’t their home. I remember pushing them out of one room and closing the doors to still others. I was very upset over their attitude. [This strikes a chord. Was it Catherine’s “attitude” that so upset me in the previous dreams? The disrespect, perhaps, of daring to defy her father, something which I would have never dared. Or was she reminding me of a courage that I myself lacked?] At one point I remembered being in a room (it may have been the bathroom) and was picking up some object (it may have been a small statue) from a table. The object became disassembled (not broken) from my handling it and I recall hurriedly trying to put it back together for fear that someone might think that I was tampering or trying to steal it. [Again, evidence of my dreading someone thinking that I might have this abhorrent “attitude”] At one point, I felt that the couple who owned the house were just then coming home (I have a vague sense that it may have been Leonard and Anita’s house), and believe that I wanted to inform them of what was going on, although this part is very fuzzy. I also remember a young girl (who may have lived in this house) wanting to steal things herself. She had the idea that she could periodically walk out of the house with things which would later simply turn up missing. At this point, she walked out of the house with a red plaid table cloth or tapestry, trying to hide it in front of her as she walked away. Her sister was watching from the house and, I believe, noticed that she was stealing the cloth. I sense that she did not approve of this action and was not a part of it.

Another scene took place in a huge store of some kind. These same two young men were over to one side picking up and handling merchandise from a nearby gondola. I was standing over to one side and may have been talking to my brother Leonard (I’m not certain), and, perhaps, was informing him of the habit or intentions of these two individuals. I remember that Lenny (Leonard’s son) was standing next to me bare-waisted (he’s a weight-lifter or body builder) looking very strong. Only just as suddenly I had a (bare-waisted) view of myself next to Lenny looking just as large and strong as he. He smirked at my apparent revelation and I guess that I might have felt at that point, that if push came to shove, I would be able to handle these two individuals myself. I next remember needing to use the bathroom and Leonard pointing it out for me. It was on the other side of the store, somewhere down a wide corridor which was lined with small shops and offices. I walked to the end of this wing but still couldn’t find it. I remember walking back and believe that I did locate it at this point. This is all I remember of the dream.

My wife, Jane, had an interesting dream as well last night; interesting especially for the fact that it seemed to relate to still an earlier dream she had a couple weeks ago, and also because her dreams appear to have some sort of relationship to my own. I should note that Jane claims to never dream, or to never remember her dreams, but the intensity and subject matter of these dreams were such that she was anxious to share them with me. I will first relate her earlier dream.

She was going to meet Tony Rosone (a boyhood friend of mine) at the Xerox building in Rochester. She had parked her car in the underground garage and was coming up with Tony on the elevator to street level. Tony asked her if she had ever visited Xerox, and Jane informed him that we had been to the Black Friar theatre on several occasions. They were surrounded by a large crowd of people as they got off the elevator and somehow they became separated. Jane walked into the theatre on her own and purchased some things at a concession stand. One of these items was a box of candy intended for me. Then she walked to her seat which was an aisle seat. A woman sat on the other side of her. The lady asked if she had come with someone and Jane responded that she had come with her boyfriend. The lady asked who this might be, and upon mentioning that it was Tony, she said that she knew him and that she would mention their meeting to Pat (Tony’s wife). Jane quickly responded that “Tony really wasn’t her boyfriend, but a family friend.” Just then, Tony spotted her and gave her a wave. He was sitting up front and, because there weren’t two seats, couldn’t join her. As it was, however, some man came walking down the aisle and attempted to steal $40 (two twenty’s) from Jane’s purse which was hanging on the seat facing the aisle. The gentleman sitting behind her saw what was happening and told her. She asked the purported thief what he was trying to do? and the man simply tried to slough it off, or might have said something to the effect that he was testing her, she really can’t remember. Upon leaving the theatre and going home (she now envisioned her home as her brother Tony’s summer home which is located in Watertown). She was walking up a steep hill on the way to her car and suddenly noticed that the things she was previously carrying in her shopping bag were now burning in a trash barrel. She was able to save the candy and one box. Upon opening the box later on, she discovered a pair of pink, fluffy slippers which may have been made out of feathers. Although Jane said that the candy was alright, I seem to recall her saying (when she first related this dream to me) that the candy had melted and was somewhat messy. But now she seems to think that it was intact. As I said, this dream took place a couple of weeks ago. In any event, the dream appears to be loaded with sexual undertones and wished for opportunities.

Last night’s dream had Jane standing in our living room looking out the window. She could see Tony (in some way) leaving his house, although his house is located twenty-five miles from our own, and was being helped along by his daughter Lori and son Marc, who were on either side of him. She next heard a lot of commotion outside, although she had walked away from the window at this point. Soon after this occurrence, I came into the house through the side door and walked into the kitchen holding my sneakers in my hand. Jane shouted: “What have you done!” and I responded “Nothing!” and mentioned that I was going to wash my jeans. (When Jane first related this dream to me immediately upon waking, she said that she saw me shoot Tony through the window. Only a half hour later, she changed her mind and simply said that she somehow knew that I had shot him, but didn’t actually see me do so.) As I was examining the soles of my sneakers, Jane said that we would have to inform the police. I must have shrugged this off because she then remembered admonishing me by reminding me that “I would have to live with myself, and that this could be worse.” She awoke from the dream at this point. It bears noting that this dream occurred early in the night and shocked her out of sleep. She told me that she laid awake for a long time following it and was very troubled. It might also bear noting that Jane has mentioned to me on several occasions that “if I didn’t like what I was seeing in the mirror each morning, I ought to do something about it,” and this, of course, alludes to the embarrassment I’m feeling regarding my current situation and the fact that I am not earning a living at present. I suspect that all of these factors are in some way related to our dreams.

January 28, 1996

Vague remembrance of elements. Recall that the first episodes had something to do with Jane and her filling or making socks out of something which was scrap material. Another episode had to do with President Clinton refusing to have a bodyguard and one other “entitlement” due him which I can’t recall. This presented a problem for us since he was at risk. Another scene had me shooting and killing someone from a long distance away with a rifle. Jane and my two daughters were with me. Someone nearby asked if it could be done and I said that my rifle would be capable of handling it. The man was getting into a car which was parked a long distance from where we were. I sense that he was confident that he was out of range of being harmed. I shot him three or four times while he sat in the car, just to make certain that he was dead. We could see that blood was splattered everywhere and we felt that he was surely dead. I remember feeling terrible about this killing, although it seemed necessary. I told myself that I would never do this again and wondered what my daughters were thinking. It was as though I felt that they had to see, and would have to accept, “this unfortunate necessity,” although Monica’s giving me a slight nudge told me that she didn’t fully approve of my action. It was as though she were saying: “Dad, you really didn’t have to do it” or “You know as well as I that you’re exaggerating this supposed necessity…”

Still one other incident happened which may or may not be of importance since I can’t be sure if it occurred in the dream, or simply resulted from my reflections following the dream. This state of fluctuating between the waking and dream state is extremely interesting since it seems to be in a class all by itself. While this state is more akin to daydreaming rather than night dreaming (that is, in deep sleep), still, it is stronger than daydreaming inasmuch as it does not have outer sensations (or an awareness of the surrounding environment) to contend with. I have found that I can derive a great deal of “inner information” by this means, and that it is more easily remembered as a result of its immediacy to consciousness. In spite of this, the crossover still makes it difficult to remember what preceded it.

Be that as it may, I recall seeing a page of a book in my dream or imagination, and felt that I could (and should) try to read and remember what it contained. I recall focusing in on a word which appeared to be “netromous.” I awoke at this point, crossing back over into consciousness, thereby releasing the state of imagination I was in. I managed to remember the word and couldn’t help but wonder if it really was a word since I didn’t recognize it as such. I sincerely doubted that it was and so went on to trying to recall other events in the dream. Even so, I wasn’t sure if the word was “netromous” or “necromous,” but did know that neither word meant anything to me. Upon getting up from bed, I thought “what the hell, why not look it up.” Only the latter word (necromous) was foremost on my mind rather than the first word. So I first looked up this word, but didn’t see any entries specifically pointing to it. Nonetheless, I did find several other words beginning with this same prefix: “necrophilia” (fascination with corpses); “necrophagia” (feeding on dead corpses) ; “Necrophobia” (fear of death). I then looked up the other word, “netromous,” but found no entry corresponding to it.

Now I’m almost certain that this is simply an example of recalling something which I was once aware of (I believe that its referred to as “micronesia” or “microamnesia” although I can’t seem to find it in the dictionary), but have since forgotten. But the fact that this word (if it really was this word) came into consciousness must account for something. Why this word? There were numerous other words listed on the page–why did I focus (when I thought of focusing) upon this word and not some other? Again, I may be mistaken about which word it was,–but what if I wasn’t? What about the ending “mous.” I am certain about this portion of the word. I think that I’ll look this up…. No good. How about seeing which words end in “mous” by using my computer’s lexicon…. Nothing. Well, “mous” seems to indicate being in a “state,” so if there is such a word as “necromous” (which apparently there is not), I guess that it would suggest a state or preoccupation with death. I just now noticed the word “necromancy” in my dictionary. It means “the practice of communicating with the dead,” or refers to “black magic” or “magic qualities.” But would it be proper to speak of a “necromous” person? Is it really a word? Because if it isn’t, I doubt that there is anything at all to any of this. I don’t know why I feel this way exactly, but I believe that the “unconscious” is not capable of mistakes; that whatever it delivers to consciousness is always appropriate. But who knows really?

Well, I don’t think that this deserves any more attention than this, at least, not at this time. If there is something to this, or there is something within me that wants to bring something to my attention, it will have to use other means and examples in support of this one. For, although I have in fact been somewhat preoccupied with trying to uncover the meaning of corpses in my dreams, or do in fact feel that my “unconscious” is communicating with me, I do not feel as though I am in someway talking to the dead. Of course, if this is really just a metaphor alluding to the fact that previously existing traits, characteristics, etc.,–even personalities–can and are passed along from generation to generation, this is within my realm of acceptance. I guess that if push came to shove, I would have to admit that I am incapable of conceiving, much less understanding, the meaning of this concept called “death.” Its ordinary meaning is obviously apparent, clear, and useful–but this is all. For it is the very mystery surrounding birth that disallows our seeing death as something final. In other words, the mystery that surrounds “dust to person” is the very same mystery sustaining “person to dust.” The original metaphor “dust to dust” only serves to remind us that we derived from, and will return to, something far greater than ourselves–and to which we belong. For while “leftovers” may be apparent in nature, we always see them to be benefitting something else in life–that is, some further transformation which we know little or nothing about.

February 8, 1996

Finally got around to completing a book that Catherine (at the suggestion of a boyfriend, Keith) bought for me this past Christmas. It’s called “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance,” and proved to be pretty good reading. I’m not really much of a reader in fact, and certainly not the sort to enjoy long drawn out narratives, but this book was different inasmuch as it dealt with, and successfully integrated, several seemingly disparate issues which, of course, turned out not to be so in fact. As the author relayed his story, he began speaking in almost reverential tones regarding the need for proper motorcycle maintenance. Not overly impressed with such talk, I immediately sensed that he was what Jung would have called an “Introverted Thinking Type” with a practical “Sensing” function as an auxiliary. It soon became apparent, however, that the author had a strong “intuitive” side to himself which he cleverly interspersed with his thinking. At first I didn’t think too much of his thinking, and felt that it represented just another “logical thinking type” showing off. I didn’t agree with some of the things he was saying and felt that I might have an even better grasp of the topic he seemed to be alluding to. In fact, as I read this book, I felt like as though I were reading my own thoughts.

Without going into the story, as it turns out, I began feeling that I really was reading my own thoughts, although the author was expressing them in a more “outward thinking” fashion, almost as though he were an “extrovert,” which seemed impossible given the subject matter he was dealing with. Nevertheless, he was always looking outside of himself for facts and ideas which might express, or offer clues to what he was feeling. He read a great deal and thought hard about what he had read. Only the facts did not satisfy him. He was looking for the essence of what underlay them, and so always brought them home in an attempt to integrate them with his own case. As it turned out, the author dropped a bombshell, at least in his own mind, and, in so doing, shoved Plato and Aristotle–two men to which practically all of Western thinking is attributed–equally aside! He attempted to show that pre-Socratic Greece was embroiled in a war between those who believed that knowledge must be viewed, at least from our own standpoints, as relative at best (the Sophists), and those who believed that a permanent, unchanging form or universal knowledge could be known (Plato). As it turned out, Plato won the argument through deceitful means; that is, by means of a somewhat phony usage of the “dialectical method” which purportedly was employed by him to ascertain “truth.” In reality, however, Plato’s dialogues were “stacked” with characters who really served as “mouthpieces” for Plato’s own thinking; that is, as “strawmen” to make it appear that a conversation was really taking place.

Now this is not all that original inasmuch as most students of philosophy (myself included) at one time or another suspected the same of Plato. Like the author, I too wished that I could have gone up against Plato, bold as that might seem. Then too, it is altogether easy to sympathize with the Sophists who, by any account, seemed to be performing a great service for mankind. What constitutes the bombshell is simply the author’s having pointed to the “immensity of the consequences” of Plato’s winning to the intellectual history of Western civilization. In particular, the author alluded to such oppositional “splits,” as it were, between empiricism and rationalism, science and art, and so on. There were no such “splits” prior to Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, and, thus, were never meant be!

Speaking for myself, I would agree that Nature does not permit such divisions in fact, and because we continually seek to maintain such delusions, we do in fact risk the sort of “psychic fragmentation” that the author himself had suffered–perhaps as a direct result of this. To be sure, psychology is currently not prepared to address the possibility that there can be “cognitive breakdowns,” not due to some disease or another, but to confusion resulting from misconstrued or misplaced knowledge. My own thinking over the years has touched on this same possibility, and has led me to the belief that, in fact, such fractional knowledge is really bogus, and because it is, most certainly is capable of leading to “rational conflicts” within. Such conflicts, of course, soon take their emotional toll. The author cites the “The Church of Reason,” alluding over and over again to our worship of this false God who has, in my view, been stripped away from the “whole” of nature–that is, stripped away from that to which we belong!

Although I came to this message from a different direction or perspective, the message is really the same. Only, rather than having read a preponderance of books, I simply recorded my thoughts, intuitions and feelings, and then subjected these to further analysis, assuming of course, that my thinking and mental framework is really no different than any other person’s. In other words, I have examined the “failure” and “deceit” inherent in the way we view the thinking process itself. This is to say that the fault is not with thinking–it goes on in a most appropriate and highly rewarding manner–it is with our tendency (mainly “attitude”) that apparently prefers to ignore its necessary counterparts. In other words, we too easily obscure, or conveniently overlook, the absolutely essential “gift” of intuitive insight. Intuition is only the material of thought, but it answers thought as well! And yet, we seem altogether too willing to attribute this outcome to the results of “rational inquiry.” Needless to say, this “church of reason” is as false as it is bogus. It does not do what we think it does–nor has it ever. And yet, it has been credited with the most amazing feats–even when such feats, upon closer scrutiny, can be seen to be nothing short of impossible!

Now it’s no accident that the present author, myself, and thousands of other individuals (from every walk of life) are beginning to come to these same conclusions. “Something is in the air,” as Emerson would put it, and it won’t be long before everyone understands what it is. While poets, philosophers, and writers of every persuasion have struggled time and time again with the consequences of Plato’s misdeed, so too have ordinary people had to suffer as well. For we are followers of the same illusions in spite of the difficulties surrounding them. We are perpetuators of what we see to be false in our own lives–and yet we persist! Nature has not deprived any one of us in this regard. Each and every one of us has the wherewithal to know the difference–and yet we persist in upholding the lie!

For how can we not recognize that something is wrong, amiss, and plainly false, when the whole of Western thinking, at every turn, shows these altogether apparent discrepancies in thought. Everywhere is opposition and polarization, whether we are talking about the political sphere, or the economic, social, educational, and every other walk of life. Nowhere does there appear to be a unity of thought, feeling, or purpose. Instead, we find that fragmentation everywhere surrounds us–even comprises us–and yet we have not even dared to reveal it to ourselves. And just what is it that is killing us at present? If I may be so bold to say it, it is society’s, as well as our individual need, to heal old wounds. We must, in other words, be prepared to pay retribution for the wrongs we have knowingly committed. I say “knowingly” because I meant it when I said that each of us truly has the wherewithal to know the difference, no matter what others (namely “intellectuals”) might say to the contrary.

Again, it is our very willingness to perpetuate the myth that has caused the aforementioned split. It is the fact that the split is presently taking too large a toll that must account for the obvious affects to both our psychic and material well-being. However, let’s not suppose that our propensity to want to do something about this now is anything more than a reactionary measure. We have nearly run the three thousand year old course and, of necessity, are beginning to see that we are presently at a crossroads. (The splits are widening–not narrowing.) To continue in the same direction is to invite suicide. To turn left (without making the needed corrections) would simply be to add more fuel to the fire, as this would amount to our obstinately pursuing more of the same thinking. To turn right, without a proper understanding of why we must temporarily do so, would amount to the same dead end since conservative thinking is always regressive. No, our need for a more honest and realistic appraisal of what is the case may make it necessary to regroup, but this must only be a temporary expedient to further progression. It would be more accurate if we were to speak of the necessity to heal (and, perhaps, even beg forgiveness) before going on.

I can’t help but recall my dream of 7/1/93 when my brother Leonard and I came to an intersection while driving. There were three arrows which pointed left, straight ahead, and right. I had just made a right turn onto this road (in spite of not wanting to) and felt that I was heading in the wrong direction on a one-way street. I had just before been explaining to Leonard how adept I had become with my left hand (that it was equal to my right) when this compulsion to turn right suddenly hit me. Now while I am still uncertain as to the significance of turning right in this dream, I am beginning to suspect that it may have something to do with the same problem we are discussing. On this account, my having turned left might have meant remaining on the path of “reason,” while turning right might suggest a turn in the opposite direction–that is, a return to “reality” or to that which we know to be the case in fact. As such, turning right could easily be viewed as a conservative move (which might account for Leonard’s presence in so many of my dreams). But, as was said above, I believe that it merely represents a temporary move to allow us time to regain our senses.

Now I am personally not conservative in terms of my thinking, and certainly not in terms of my attitude regarding the possibilities which intuition affords, but I do seem to be conserving when it comes to not wanting to part with things, or when I see what a mess we are making of values. I seem to want to hang on to something–everything in fact–“just in case” we discover that it will be needed at some latter time. As I said, turning right would be to go against my natural inclinations since I am more inclined to want to keep digging in order to get out of the hole I find myself in, as though by doing so, I will magically find my way out. This “worship of reason” is strong, to say the very least. And no matter how hard I decry its subterfuge, I must confess that it has been difficult to let go of it. I don’t mean that we should completely let go of it–only to the extent of realizing how shallow this pond really is. It is a method and nothing more of working with the material of sensation and intuition. Once we have realized and accepted this truth for what it is, we be then be able to embark on a new beginning. Only this time, we will hang on to our wholeness.

I don’t believe that Mr. Persig is fully aware of the degree to which his viewpoint represents a devaluation of nature, or just how arrogant a presumption is his view that Plato could have changed the course of history. No, the “mighty threesome” taken together couldn’t have put a dent in nature’s design, contrary to what has been said. To be sure, all of the aforementioned divisions do in fact exist, but they are most assuredly not the result of great minds. Had the Sophists won the argument instead of Plato, I suspect that very little would have been different. I am not basing my opinion on some personal theory or another which I might have dreamed up along the way, I am basing it on the sheer recognition of how powerless we appear to be before the forces and complexities of nature. I think even Emerson, who surely must rank as one of nature’s most cherished champions, would have to admit that even his “great men” were only great to the degree that they had learned to conform with her. If it were truly possible for individuals to alter the course of nature, knowing what we know about our limitations, we would have all been dead long ago. No, it is nature and not human kind that is in charge; nature who is and remains both caretaker and provider of all that we are.

February 9, 1996

I was thinking about my situation last night before going to sleep, and, in particular, was thinking about what my recent dreams have been telling me. I had read a short chapter from one of Jung’s papers on dreams and had been reminded of the need to ask just how my dreams are compensating my conscious attitude. Jung relayed a couple of dreams which were each saying pretty much the same thing, only the second was more specific than the first. (Sequential dreams lead to greater specificity, says Jung) This immediately reminded me of my own “sequential” dreams, as I prefer to call them, and, in particular, to the one which had me riding my child’s back and its follow-up dream portraying the killing of my child.

I thought about these dreams as I lay in bed and knew that the second dream was a very forceful means to getting the first dream’s message across to me. I more or less concluded that the message is simply that I am somewhat “surreptitiously” clinging to my childhood and its deprivations (imagined or not), and that it will simply not be tolerated any longer, at least not by my unconscious. As a still earlier dream forecasted, “my child is no good,” and for that reason, was killed as well in that dream. In any case, I went to sleep hoping that I might dream something which would give me a better notion of what “riding my child” actually means. I wanted particulars–something clearer and less symbolic. And, as it turned out, I had a two episode dream which, in essence, amounted to “a switch” in the same dream, thus, representing another form of sequence. In this way, I was given two instances or opportunities to understand its message. But I don’t believe that the message had anything to do with what I was after. But we’ll reserve judgement on that point until after I’ve described them. Sometimes the immediate connection is not seen, especially when one is having a difficult time with a given symbolic representation.

The first part of the dream had me agreeing to “housesit” for my cousins Sam and Phil who are both brothers. Phil was a bit of an entrepreneur in real life, having sold paper products to restaurants while operating out of his home, while Sam was a close boyhood friend who has appeared in at least two other dreams. In real life, Sam was someone who could, and generally did, manage to persuade or manipulate others (including myself) into doing what he wanted. Sometimes his manipulations led to highly embarrassing situations, especially after coming to the realization afterwards, that I had “been had.” I can recall several instances of such behavior and the feeling of entrapment and embarrassment I felt by either not knowing (or not daring to expose) what had happened. This said, I can readily see why the dream chose these two figures to deliver the following message.

As I said, Phil asked me to housesit for someone who lived in Canada, which, of course, would mean a pretty good drive for me. I agreed to do it since I had the free time and it would mean some sort of income. I have forgotten much of what transpired in this dream but believe that the essential facts are clear. I never asked what pay I would be receiving (reminiscent of my dreams of 1/16/96), and when I finally did, Phil said he didn’t know, and that we would be negotiating that with the owner when we got to his house. I thought that strange since we would have lost a good deal of bargaining leverage by having already traveled the distance, but, of course, did not press the issue. While driving to this house, I asked if the neighborhood was dangerous, and was told that it was. I was a little uncomfortable about this but sort of expected it. Why else would someone pay for house-sitting? The “unexpected” part of the dream came when I realized that Phil was going to try to sell the owner a security system and, of course, he had known this all along. It became obvious to me why he wasn’t so concerned about my fee or our losing bargaining leverage.

The dream then took a turn and I recall that I was talking to a middle-aged lady who seemed to be a sort of “card.” She was a practical, slightly irreverent sort who seemed game for anything exciting. I don’t want to overdo this description since I knew little or nothing about her. And yet, I commented to her that she was an “ISTJ,” while she nodded approvingly. I felt a little smug inasmuch as I prided myself on my ability to “typecast.” But no sooner had I said this, than I began wondering why I had. I couldn’t be sure that she was introverted. And I really didn’t know if her judging preference was stronger than perception.

Suddenly the dream shifts to Senator D’Amato’s house. I am talking to his wife in her kitchen (who might have been the same woman described above) while Al was walking around in casual clothes. Mike Knaus was now in the picture and had just then curled up on the dining room table to go to sleep. I noticed that the Senator had three TV’s (one over the other) in his kitchen, and imagined that he did this in order to watch football games simultaneously, or something to that effect. I could see some of the electronic equipment in an adjacent room and went over to take a closer look. I asked how much it would cost to hook up three TV’s like this, and he replied about a thousand dollars.

Once again, my dream placed me into a situation which I would not care for. Senator D’Amato does not rank high on my list of favorite Senator’s, and not simply because he’s a Republican. He strikes me as being the sort of person who would take full advantage of any and all opportunities to make money, and I felt like I was in some way becoming an accomplice. How did I wind up in this house? I kept asking myself. I didn’t know what my involvement was going to be, but knew that I had become entrapped without knowing how. I thought to myself that I would turn him in–expose him, if necessary, should he be involved in any wrong-doing. But how? I would have been an accomplice, and the Senator might just have very effective means for getting revenge.

Needless to say, my dream provided two instances of my becoming a part of something which I would not have wished. And, as Jung intimated, the second dream proved to be more specific than the first inasmuch as I would not mind doing something with either of my cousins as much as I would mind being involved with Senator D’Amato. Now this may not be a significant point at all, but I suspect that my two cousins are very much conservative in their outlook on life. If this does have significance, then perhaps my dream is pointing to entrapment stemming from that direction; that I need to avoid turning “right” in this direction altogether. On the other hand, it may be pointing to the fact that I may need to turn right, (even if I feel that it’s the wrong direction), but must be wary of entrapments which might easily befall me. I am, of course, alluding now to my aforementioned dream (7/1/93) which I discussed in yesterday’s writing.

In any event, the material points to my vulnerability to entrapment as a result of an overly passive (non-assertive) attitude regarding my own welfare. I am an easy target, in other words, and the thought just occurred to me that this fact might indeed have something to do with “riding my child’s back.” For aren’t I being led like a child? Or allowing myself to be led in such a way? Surely I knew enough about what was happening to do something about it; could ask the right questions, express my dissatisfaction, opt to get out of the situation, etc. Then, why didn’t I? Why don’t I ever? Why do I persist in obeying and going along with things, even when they run counter to my own interests? Why always place myself last?

I suspect that there’s something to this last remark. I can almost hear my mother saying: “Be a nice boy, Raymond”–“Be good,” “Hang around with good people,” “Shovel the neighbor’s walk,” and so on. I was always apprised of the importance of being good, and I didn’t want to disappoint my mother who, for all of us (as well as friends, relatives and neighbors) literally epitomized goodness. But, like me, my mother was always doing for others and, every now and then, it appeared to me that others might be “taking advantage” of her goodness. She sent fresh loaves of baked bread over to each neighbor every Saturday; sewed wedding dresses and every kind of garment for friends and relatives; and worked extremely hard in caring (and sometimes fighting) for her nine children. The fighting generally had to do with protecting us from our father’s criticisms.

In discussing my mother, it is becoming apparent to me that I may be stuck in this childhood mode of wanting to please, by continuing to do what she always did and asked of me. Answering the needs of others seemed to be her way, in spite of the costs, and so it seemed altogether natural for me to want to do the same. It became apparent to me that sacrifice and martyrdom was the way to goodness, and it seemed equally clear that to be good, I would have to learn to accept this state of affairs more or less. Besides, Christ appeared to behave in the same fashion, so I felt that I was in good company. And so I have tried to do good throughout my life, even though I realize that my behavior may appear otherwise to those who purportedly know me. For the fact is, the compensations which have resulted from such behavior have most probably led to the formation of a self-protective, somewhat caustic veneer which, presumably (if I am to believe my dreams), has all served to enshroud and hide the fact of this “child” acting within me. This being the case, I must suppose that I have been going through life with the notion that to give in to the needs of others is to be good and just, and, therefore, deserving of praise.

I feel quite emotional at this point and don’t wish to stay on this topic any longer. I think it sufficient to say that my dreams of last night, albeit in a round-about way, did in fact succeed in bringing the original message home, unlike what I had first thought. I have struggled to try to understand the significance of this months dreams, only now a large number of pieces seem to be falling into place. Now I can clearly see that my dreams of 1/16/96 were in a similar way alluding to the same problem as last night’s dream. I was presented with two powerful episodes containing at least four instances of not dealing with life from my own perspective and needs, and was shown the severely detrimental consequences of not having done so.

But what of my dream of 1/19/96 when I discovered that I couldn’t get a fix on the whereabouts of Lake Ontario, and the subsequent episode of being chased by my old “friend” the “trickster”! I believe that the first episode was informing me that I need to know my direction, or that I will surely lose my direction, should I find myself in the midst of the unconscious without a proper foothold outside. It may also have been informing me that there is no one beside myself who can give me even a single direction which would be appropriate to my quest–that I will have to journey alone. The second episode seemed to point to the fact that I am carrying “extra baggage” which is not needed, even if I recognize that it has obvious value. For a moment I dare to entertain the notion that I might be able to ward off the “trickster” by leaving this extra baggage for him. But I knew instinctively that it wouldn’t work. He’s like a hound! and I’m beginning to see that his dogging my tracks at every turn is making escape impossible. [Saying this suddenly brought to mind several former “dog dreams,” although I can’t see what connections they would have to the present one.]

So the trickster is a part of me, or sent to me to relay the message that I cannot escape myself. The trickster is highly intelligent, agile, bold, and, unlike myself, is certainly not afraid to go after what he wants. He is not, in other words, anything like the model of goodness my mother projected. He is just the opposite! Must I now face the obvious question? Am I opposite this same goodness I have tried so hard to project? Or is the trickster merely a “personification” of the compensatory results of this attitude? As such, it would not be the case that he is me, but rather, that he represents what I’ve become! Because I have not adequately safeguarded myself, nor attended to my own needs, this character has become a creature of my own making–made out of the residue of deprivation! Only he is not deprived; rather he as brazen as I am self-effacing, and so on down the line. To whatever degree of one-sidedness I have moved, he has taken on the opposite characteristics to balance it. Thus, we are back to the notion of “compensation” which Jung has so often expressed in his writing; the notion that the unconscious will move to safeguard and balance the psychic equilibrium. In other words, we cannot overlook the facts of our existence–what we are and need–no matter how unpleasant we may find it to be. Or, to paraphrase Emerson: “There’s no sense in trying to whitewash nature. We are full of her and she is tough, often cruel, relentless,” and the like. But, continues Emerson, “Because we are a part of her, this same toughness resides in ourselves.” I think we can now see how.

So if I am now to suppose that this “trickster” I have created is in fact a living and acting part of myself, then I must further suppose that he is as influential as any other part of myself, even if his presence and behavior for the most part goes unnoticed. For the effects are always there and always are felt. When I feel the pull of opposition within me: a reluctance to act in a certain way; a feeling that I am doing something against myself, etc., I may not see the presence of a symbolic, personified form to serve as a subject or cause for such doubts, but my dreams show me that such personifications are possible. They have provided me with a subject which can also serve as an object, or other self. This makes comprehension much easier inasmuch as I can now see “someone” who is opposing me, even when I know that this someone is essentially me.

I must further conclude that the characteristics I find to be so disheartening in this trickster, are capable of being lessened to the degree that my conscious behavior decides to move toward him. In other words, to get a better understanding of who I really am, I should take my conscious attitude at present (my persona), add it to the characteristics of the trickster (or my shadow), and divide by two. This should result in a healthy balance for myself, more or less, or will at least offer a more realistic view of what I really am–that is, a larger representation of myself. Now other individuals might have different parameters extending much further in either direction than my own, I can’t be certain, but I can only deal with what is present within me. And judging from what I see, I would like to believe that an average of the “trickster” and myself would not really be all that bad. Of course, such a character would fall far short of what my mother would have wanted, but apparently nature did not have the same thing in mind. She apparently wants me to be somewhat stronger, slightly more aggressive, and more adult acting than what I have been to date. Needless to say, this has turned out to be a most interesting conversation!

February 10, 1996

WHAT ARE MY MAJOR PROBLEMS TO DATE?
-emotionally, cognitively and physically exhausted
-emotionally and cognitively confused
-emotionally and cognitively overwhelmed
-emotionally and cognitively dissatisfied

WHY AM I AM EXHAUSTED, CONFUSED, OVERWHELMED, AND DISSATISFIED?
-too many interests compelling me
-too many demands placed upon me
-too many choices confronting me
-too much to learn and know
-too much to do
-too much to balance

AFTERTHOUGHTS: My interests may in fact be reducible to just a few, while choices and demands upon me may appear to be many only because I have been almost exclusively preoccupied with my thoughts and, everything that has been left undone or unattended to, gets added to the forever accumulating baggage I seem to carry around with on a daily basis. Thus, it might be this baggage (this “corpse” of responsibilities not tended to) that is the real cause of the confusion and exhaustion I am feeling, and not my preoccupation with self-understanding.

WHAT RESULTS FROM THIS ON-GOING STATE OF AFFAIRS?
-I become overloaded, distracted and confused open to passively accepting whatever comes my way
-I become overloaded by my general reluctance to avoid, ignore, or refuse certain wants and demands of others
-I attempt more than I can possibly know or do
-My focus and attention of necessity becomes limited in any one direction
-My thinking becomes diffused and sporadic by this multiplicity of distractions
-My performance becomes shabby due to lack of attention, time or interest
-My emotional, physical and mental well-being is jeopardized

AFTERTHOUGHTS: All of this is true, but, again, could this be owing to my lack of attention in other areas? The accumulation of such unattended matters over the years has built up to such proportions that I am surrounded at every moment with such “distractions.” In fact, they never leave my mind.

WHAT DO I NEED TO DO TO PREVENT SUCH OVERWHELMING CONSIDERATIONS?
-learn to accept my limitations and to focus only upon what I want and need and am truly responsible for
-learn to unload what is not relevant or necessary to my life
-seek only that which interests me or satisfies a need
-perform only those things that I desire or feel responsible for
-know the difference between real and imagined responsibility
-always seek to satisfy interests, needs, and drives
-avoid or reject what does not interest me or proves to be an unnecessary hindrance
-dare to say no to outside demands when appropriate
-dare to say yes to myself when appropriate

AFTERTHOUGHTS: And still again, when I think about all of these demands upon me, what are they really? No one is asking anything of me except to make some sort of monetary contribution and maintain the house and yard. Other than these things–there are no other demands! This plague is entirely my doing.

WHAT DO I BELIEVE IS TRULY WORTHY OF LOVE AND RESPECT?
-self-understanding, self-reliance, and self-acceptance
-a willingness to foster and respect the same in others
-striving to reach for time-honored values and ideals while maintaining love and respect for who you are at any given moment
-demonstrations of compassion, tolerance, and understanding for differences in others
-daring to openly recognize, express and accept one’s true passions, feelings and needs
-daring to seek to satisfy the same in a positive manner

AFTERTHOUGHTS: I think that these are all accurate expressions of what I deem to be important, but unless one’s life is in some state of relative harmony (that is, balanced between self, familial and societal considerations), it is unlikely that any of it will matter, much less be practiced.

WHAT THINGS TRULY DRIVE OR COMPEL ME?
-a need to know, love, respect, and accept myself for what I am
-a need to understand the surrounding world and my place within it
-a need to contribute to knowledge, happiness and the overall good
-a desire to become all that I love, respect, and wish to accept
-a desire to be loved, respected, and accepted by others
-a want of opportunity to feel and demonstrate my love, respect, and acceptance of others
-a want of opportunity to share my love with others for mutual satisfaction or benefit

AFTERTHOUGHTS: So what’s stopping me from seeking the same!

HOW CAN I GAIN:
-Self-respect?
-Self-satisfaction?
-Self-knowledge?
-Relevant knowledge of and for the world?
-Opportunities to make important contributions to others?
-Opportunities to be happy–love and be loved?

AFTERTHOUGHTS: As was said, by establishing and maintaining a proper balance between personal, familial, and societal needs and interests. “GET A JOB, RAY, AND GET RID OF THIS CORPSE OF “IRRESPONSIBILITY” BY DOING THE WORK!”

SO WHAT DO I NEED TO DO TO GET STARTED?
-find a job
-complete all of the unfinished projects that are hanging around my neck like a loadstone
-take my time and do them well–with pride
-drastically reduce the balance of time spent on personal writing and thought
-try to get into some kind of decent physical shape

REMARKS: It seems a shame to have to ignore my eleven years of concentrated thought and writing, but, since I haven’t as yet demonstrated that I can somehow turn it into something lucrative, I guess that I will have to put such notions on the back burner for now. I’ve often thought of assembling and publishing a journal, series of essays, or a book from my writings, but income and unfinished projects must take precedence. Besides, I’ve had plenty of time to accomplish this goal and haven’t. What makes me think that I could select from, and appropriately structure my thoughts now? No, the only other possibility would be to do “in a big way” what I had always intended to do with my business, but didn’t either because I wasn’t really interested, or else found it impossible to concentrate for any length of time due to money considerations and, of course, my “corpse.”

HOW DO I CREATE THIS BALANCE?

February 11, 1996

Dream involved a prostitute, rogue, guardian and myself. Recall seeing this rough looking man approach me in a downtown location and recall that I may have gotten rid of him by directing him to go into a store. (Something had been going on at this location prior to this incident which I don’t remember) I recall that the man was treated crudely by those inside and was soon thrown out. In the meantime, I was hiding from him on top of a store awning next door. I was afraid that he might see me and come after me. As it was, another man approached him and the two began walking down the street. At this point, my dream shifted so that I was walking ahead of them (on the other side of the street) and was trying to maintain a good distance so as not to be discovered. But I was within earshot of their conversation and I could see that this other gentleman was being very kind and nurturing to the rogue. He was a soothing presence who demonstrated great patience and understanding all the while he continued to guide the man’s thinking in the direction. I could hear the rogue actually crying at times. They were discussing books and reading and at one point mentioned tea. I believe that the rogue agreed to read something that this other gentleman had saved for him in his library, as he jokingly put it.

I reached a corner which I recognized as the intersection of Main and North and South Streets in my hometown. I had to cross Main and head down South street to go home, only I was afraid that they might be too close to the intersection themselves. Sure enough, as I crossed the street they were just approaching the corner and I knew that I was going to be spotted. And so, prior to reaching the opposite corner, I yelled over to them that I would like to read one of the books that they were discussing, and the nurturing gentleman responded “No way!” although it was a friendly and kidding kind of refusal which made the rogue feel special. When we finally came together at the corner, the rogue said to me “I hear you make a good cup of tea” to which I responded “No, not hardly, but I’ll gladly make you some.” I took his original remark to be a sort of peace offering and an opening for me to invite them to my home.

As we began to walk down South Street toward my house, we passed a house on the left side of the street where a prostitute lived. I had known of her earlier in the dream but can’t recall any specifics. What I do remember is that she had to do this in order to make a living and felt that it wasn’t really too bad a state of affairs except for the potential of occasionally running across a sadistic person. I recall that she had run across the same and that she was beat up pretty badly. I remember wondering if she might be able to lessen this potential by being more aggressive herself, rather than passive or feminine in her dealings with him. This is all that I remember.

ANALYSIS: Once again, my dream demonstrated my fear and reluctance to deal with unsavory or potentially dangerous situations, and my tendency (if this is a tendency) to push them off on others, or to avoid such situations altogether. I believe that the kindly guiding presence was the same male personage who has helped to guide me in so many other dreams. This is the first time I have seen him guide another, however, although this other (the rogue) is probably in some way representative of myself as well. The message was clearly that this rogue was a nice person underneath it all and that he was in need of support and understanding. The “guardian” interceded not only to administer to him, but also to bring us together. Again, I understand this unwanted personage to be an unwanted part of myself which, perhaps, has been split off (or staved off by my conscious ego) which is unwilling to recognize him. And, of course, the prostitute is also a part of me, or descriptive of my current situation–its motivations, dangers, behavior and emotions. It might be better to explain these personages as the direct compensatory result of my conscious attitude and, as such, both characters represent “creations” or “leftovers” from conscious thievery. If you assume that the “whole” of ourselves comprises both good and bad, then to only “cherry pick” the good from the basket, so to speak, is at the same time to create a situation where only the bad remains. This is how such characters arise in dreams. They are often merely symbolic representations of the damage we have caused. Once we realize that all such characters reflect some part of ourselves, we have only to ask: “Why did the dream choose these characters–the rogue and the prostitute?”

As I recall, the prostitute was trying to make the best of an unwanted, though seemingly easy solution, to the problem of getting by. I recall her thinking that if she made $30 per client, she would only have to engage two a day to minimally get by, and that this wouldn’t be so bad a thing. Now it’s interesting to note that I charge $30 per hour for consultations and resume services relating to my home business! And my attitude is precisely the same as hers in regards to the number of customers I would need (that is, have to deal with) in order “to get by.” So am I acting like a prostitute? In what ways? (I tell you, these dreams are as informative and meaningful as they are intriguing!)

But what about this sadist who shows up in the picture? Am I to look for an analogous situation (such as an irate or non-paying customer) in my own business, or is this character in some way representative of myself? I certainly don’t wish to believe that I could be such a person, but this is not to say that my present actions aren’t serving to create the same. This brings to mind the two “sequential dreams” of last week involving an argument with Catherine both as an adult and also as a child. Both dreams ended in near violence–on my part. Is this the result of built up tensions residing within me? The result of an attitude? What I said yesterday about the “Trickster” would also seem to hold. As I said, I think that such buildups occur in direct portion to the distance that conscious ego moves away from the center. And by “center,” I mean the point at which consciousness is balanced with unconscious elements such that both sides (that is, the whole of personality) is being recognized and served. It is precisely this one-sided lack of attention that is responsible for the reactionary (or compensatory) formation of its opposite. In other words, it is my present attitude and behavior that is giving rise to such frightening potentials as these characters would seem to represent. In contrast to these extremely violent types (which include the man who crushed my child’s skull in a former dream), the “Trickster” presents a comparatively mild form of harassment which, most probably, is meant to remind me that there is simply no way of escaping the consequences!

Again, it seemed as though the prostitute was stuck with having to “accept” the potential of running into an occasional sadist as part of her job. And because of this unfortunate situation, I was trying to figure out how she might ameliorate the situation. But why this sudden altruism on my part? Here again, conscious ego is trying to make the best of a situation which, presumably, it (I) do not wish to deal with head on. In other words, I am interested in helping the prostitute resolve this issue because it is really “my issue,” even though I am not aware of this fact while in the dream. This is not to say that I dislike offering counseling and resume services to those in need–I don’t. But I do dislike the “business” part of it inasmuch as I find it somewhat distasteful (although absolutely necessary) to charge some sort of fee for my services. It’s as though such services are too personal or even “intimate” a matter to require a fee. For me, personal or deep life considerations have almost a “sacred” quality about them, and we shouldn’t have to pay a fee for help in this regard.

Could the prostitute in my dream have felt this way about her services? I believe that she did. I recall that she also had a young boy for a client. She helped him with his homework and may have “serviced him” by helping him with his homework and by giving him an occasional back rub. I recall feeling that as he grew older, he would receive further service as would be “appropriate” for the time. This said, I guess that the prostitute also represented a caring or nurturing presence in the same way as did the guardian. She was plainly not in it for the money, but had to charge a fee simply to enable her to continue. I remember thinking what a paltry amount she was charging and wondered why she didn’t simply raise her prices in order to lower the number of clients required. Now I can see how this describes my situation exactly, and, of course, accounts for my current financial situation which is somewhat messy.

It is interesting to note that yesterday, I spent the entire day engaged in hard reflection relating to both my personal and financial situation, and what I need to do to straighten it out. I came to the conclusion that the reason I am so confused and fatigued at present is because I am overwhelmed–but not because of too many interests, lack of direction, or an inability to focus upon a particular topic, as I previously thought–but because all the things I have not tended to, left undone, or done sloppily, have remained with me. Because of my over preoccupation with self-understanding and the provision of services to others, I have been forced to drag this corpse of unsettled accounts around with me wherever I go. (This “corpse” has been depicted as such in several dreams to date.) But let me raise something which might be of greater significance. Upon waking from this current dream (which was about 2:30 a.m.) I couldn’t help feeling that once again, the “dreammaker” seemed unconcerned about what is bothering me at present. Rather than deal with the topic at hand–“What is my current situation and how am I to handle it?” it instead presented me with this dream. Only now–shut my mouth!–here I am dealing with precisely this! As it turns out, not only does the prostitute represent my business interest, but her character shows me the why’s and wherefore’s of my difficulties. (And they say that dreams are meaningless!)

But why a prostitute? Surely this suggests something unsavory and not condoned by society. Why use such a personage to represent my situation? A prostitute gives of herself in order to receive payment. I do not really offer services “for the money,” and, apparently, neither did the prostitute in my dream. So in what sense is she still a prostitute?–am I a prostitute? What are we each doing that is prostitute-like? (I realize that this question hinges upon a value judgement, but it seems appropriate nonetheless.) Well, she is certainly engaged in an occupation that is frowned upon by society, and it does carry a certain element of danger as well. As I began writing this last thought, I had a fleeting remembrance that there was a small epidemic of aids going around the town and that she might be blamed for it. But I recall that she checked out “HV positive” and so might escape condemnation after all. Nevertheless, it can be safely said that her occupation carries the danger of disease, abuse, and social condemnation. [I realize now that “HV positive” means that she might in fact have aids, but in the dream, I took this to mean just the opposite.] At any rate, I need now to ask how my own occupation might carry these same dangers?

One thing comes immediately to mind. When I described my services as “intimate” or “sacred,” and for that reason not really deserving of compensation, I may have revealed an underlying purpose which I am only somewhat aware of. This points to the fact that I may be in business not merely for money, or the opportunity to assist others, but might also be in it for love and respect, or for my own emotional satisfaction, in other words. In point of fact, a counseling session, especially one dealing with heartfelt emotions, could be looked upon as an act of love,–even a sexual act. My probing questions (foreplay) elicit emotional responses which, in turn, are “serviced” by me through such means as empathy, nurture, guidance, information and, yes, even genuine feelings of love in certain instances. Only, again, I could be doing this as much for my own benefit as for my clients, and this may make all the difference. But would such behavior constitute an act of prostitution? If I were eliciting emotions primarily for my own benefit, and also accepting money for services rendered, would this be tantamount to prostituting myself, or would I be acting more like a whore? I suspect that I would be a whore first and foremost (if only in it for my own self-satisfaction), but would also be a prostitute inasmuch as I am not opposed to making money as well.

This talk is perhaps kind of crude (and maybe unfair) when put in these terms, since I’m sure that these same factors could underlay any number of professions. Mutual benefit is not necessarily a bad thing. And at its worse, even an arsonist-fireman, tough-cop, benevolent-dictator, and the like, could prove mutually beneficial to society. On the other hand, I would be committing an absolute wrong if I were to arbitrarily and artificially raise emotions which I knew would not serve any useful purpose other than my own. But, then, I have never known a case where someone couldn’t benefit from an expression of emotion, no matter what the circumstances. Such states are always rich in possibilities and, in my opinion, cry out for “emotional reciprocation.” I believe that nearly all of my clients would admit to having derived such benefits.

So what is the dream trying to convey to me if I suppose (as I am inclined to do) that the prostitute is not really doing anything wrong insofar as her treatment of others is concerned? Surely her heart (our hearts) are in the right place. What then? Well, I see that its 7:00 am. I think that I’ll call it quits for now and perhaps return to sleep in order to squeeze in another dream.

… Had a difficult time going back to sleep, but did manage two short sessions before 10:00. Unfortunately, I only remember one fragment of one dream. I was in my home office with a male client. He was sitting in a chair and acting very fidgety and nervous. I remember staring at him and chiding him somewhat on the fact that there was something about him that I was on the verge of recognizing. Each time that I stared at him, he got more and more nervous and I felt that I had to stop on that account. I asked him how he was going to pay for services (I had apparently already provided the same) and he responded: “Visa.” This allowed him a little space as I needed to go through the procedure of filling out the necessary form. I don’t know who or what he represented in my dream, but he had the look of a reddish, curly-haired Irishman in his mid-thirties.

February 12, 1996

Had a full nights dreaming with two intermittent wakings and a minimum of six different episodes or scenes all totaled. But I will not be recording any of it since I have been left with only fragments and also because I feel that I shouldn’t. Most of the fragments I remember showed my being put into one precarious position after another (a veritable “obstacle course”) which amounted to my every effort being blocked. Everything I attempted was interfered with; even my best intentions it seemed. I could spend the entire day simply recording these fragments, but, again, I don’t think that I should. It is sufficient to know that I did go through each and every one of these experience’s (and, therefore, was subjected to the consequences), even if I am no longer able to remember the details.

One episode will be missed, however. I recall having gone over three points; in fact, went over them again and again, remembering that each point was representative of a different way or method of dealing with something or other. I felt that I had them down sufficiently and wouldn’t forget them. In fact I felt as though I had already awakened from my dream and was simply rehearsing them (as is my custom) before opening my eyes and feeling the full impact of waking consciousness. As it was, however, when I really awoke, it not only became apparent that I was wrong about this, but I soon discovered (too late) that what I had tried so hard to retain in memory, was now slipping fast away. I tried my hardest to hang on to it, even tried going back into the dream, but to no avail.

Of course, it is possible (and I think likely) that the threshold between the dream and waking state is not always as abrupt and clear cut as it seems. Sometimes it can prove to be so gradual a transition between the two states, that consciousness is no longer able to ascertain which state it’s in. And so it was that I lost the three points I was trying so hard to remember. But how? and why? How could my “review method” have failed me this time? when it should have been doubly effective since I reviewed it both in the dream state (or semi-dream state) and also upon awaking–a double review! Now I have no other recourse but to accept that this was meant to be; that the dreammaker did not intend for me to bring this into conscious waking life–at least not yet. I have too much evidence of its power and intelligence to believe otherwise.

Again, what is most important about the entire night’s dreaming was that my consciousness or Ego was trying, over and over again, to avoid, circumvent, outsmart, overcome, placate, etc., each and every obstacle or situation which presented itself. And because this is (and should all along have been) obvious to me, the crucial question to be asked now is: “What am I doing or not doing to warrant such treatment?” Or better, “Why is it that I am always trying to overcome something in my dreams?” Aren’t there times or situations in which it would be more appropriate to “join” or “challenge” or “fight” or “reconcile”?, etc. In saying this, it now becomes apparent that the “trickster” character in former dreams really is a “personified” representation of this very same blockage since, in every case, he has proven to be someone who, try as I might, can neither be “avoided, circumvented, outsmarted, overcome, or placated.” In other words, he not only appears to be a direct counterpart to myself, but he is obviously one which is acting directly opposite my own tendencies! Of course, he is much more powerful than I could ever imagine and there’s really no contest between him and myself. Although I have dared on occasion to make a few paltry attempts at tripping him up (literally in one case), I am unquestionably and absolutely certain that I am no match whatever for him. My God, he has demonstrated feats (especially feats of agility) which are nothing short of astounding. I would have to be nuts to go up against this guy. And, yet, there’s something about him that you’ve “gotta love,” even if he remains a real pain in my ass!

What I believe the trickster, or the power behind my dreams (the Dreammaker), is attempting to do, is to show me that there is no escaping from the truth, or from whatever it is it wants me to see, do, or confront. While I have been given dream opportunities in the form of “messages,” “insights,” “guidance,” etc., my responses to these have, at the same time, been answered in appropriate ways. (I have to believe that such moves are “appropriate” since there doesn’t seem to be any other choice.) For it is the dreammaker, and not I, who decides whether or not my attitude, behavior, and responses are appropriate. The question of who’s in control has already been made abundantly clear–there is no longer any question in my mind! And so, sometimes I am encouraged; sometimes blocked. Sometimes the blockage is meant to stall my efforts; sometimes it is meant to shock me or stop me dead in my tracks. Sometimes the dreams suggest that there is a loving patience behind the characters and situations; sometimes they suggest growing impatience and anger, even to the point of violence. Sometimes I feel as though I am being treated as a “thick-skulled idiot” who simply can’t get the message; sometimes as someone deserving further guidance. And sometimes I just get the feeling that I am being put through a wringer–a veritable mental obstacle course–designed to train or condition me for some future purpose–which may have little or nothing to do with my own personal welfare! Sure, it’s comforting to want to believe with Jung that all of this activity is primarily for the maintenance of the “psychic equilibrium,” but who can really say what it’s for? Of course we want to believe that the unconscious, or nature herself, is always acting on our behalf. But isn’t this really an extremely ego-centric view? Isn’t it more likely that nature’s purpose extends far beyond our personal scope or interests? One good get a feel for this by considering what happens when a male or female fails to procreate. Think about it–millions of years of progressive evolution simply stopped dead in its tracks–an entire lineage gone! And if nature doesn’t seem to mind stopping an entire lineage, isn’t it preposterous to assume that nature could be concerned about our individual welfare! Not hardly. Her purpose is much broader and far-reaching than we will ever understand.

In any event, I guess that in some ways I have felt like a “thick-skulled idiot.” For I have always found it difficult to follow directions, long explanations, details, intricate plans, graphs and the like, generally allowing such situations to slip by me (while usually feigning understanding) rather than reveal my obvious lack of attention or inability to comprehend . I guess that in this way, I have managed to avoid being looked upon as “flaky” or “dull” (or maybe I haven’t avoided it!), and have contented myself with knowing that, in spite of this difficulty, I’m pretty good with intuitive ideas and abstractions. With these, I am generally much more attentive and at home. I recognize that part of the aforementioned dullness might be due to a lack of interest in the practical things of life, or, perhaps, in people and ordinary circumstances, when they are ordinary, but I can’t be certain if this is all there is to it. I know that I don’t like “the ordinary,” and also that there is nothing in this world that “cannot be improved upon,” but my improvements have never gotten beyond whimsical passing assertions or claims to this effect. So I have yet to prove even these surmised talents.

February 22, 1996

Why should we attempt to structure, classify, define when we know that such divisions are arbitrary at best, and always subject to dissolution? They cannot withstand scrutiny.

General terms describe general behavior, traits, etc. over the long run; from a broad perspective; from a statistical point of view. It provides us with “summary” information which we consider to be more important than specifics. We note patterns and similarities.

What enables us to note patterns and similarities? I would say that it is our ability to abstract. And what is this ability? Well, we perceive and remember recurrent events. Something in them which is “outstanding” is focused upon and remembered on that account. An accumulation of similar type incidents are recalled and anticipated under certain conditions which are seen to be similar.

It is important to note that nothing which has so far been said has anything whatever to do with conscious “will.” Everything simply works this way.

But there is such a thing as “consideration.” There are cross-overs and relations between memories, anticipated or expected consequences, a “sizing-up” of the situation, etc. There appear to be “options” open to us. But do we choose from the same? Or do our “choices” themselves simply happen to us? What is choice?

Thought, learning, values, etc. all go into making up our constitutions and will in part determine our behavior or choices. Someone might, for example, jump into the water “to save a child,” knowing full well that he will drown himself since he can’t swim. He might do this simply because this behavior is valued and therefore appropriate under the circumstances. Logically speaking, nothing will be gained except that there will now be two deaths instead of one. But, he believes, “It is better to die trying to save a life” than to live knowing that you did nothing. Thus, the act of trying or daring to do the right thing, in spite of obstacles, is valued or honored over not trying.

If the man had taken the logical approach to such a situation and decided not to jump into the water, thinking, perhaps, that it is better that one life is saved; that by not throwing his life away, he might now go on to doing other worthy things, etc., this thought will invariably come into conflict with the value it supposedly superseded. In other words, it is likely that there will be no such thing as a “settlement” in this man’s mind. Rather, he will most likely be haunted and forced to suffer this conflict throughout the remainder of his life. If similar type conflicts between thought and values accumulate over time, there will be an even heavier price to pay as the years go by.

Now I sense (from the heaviness I am presently feeling in the pit of my stomach) that this conflict has everything to do with my own case. That is, my own “thinking” has tended to supersede feeling, emotion, and values in my life, and the “baggage” I have been forced to carry as a result of this–the “corpse” that I seem destined to drag behind me–most likely represents the price I have been forced to pay. And I know it to be growing out of proportion to my ability to withstand it for much longer. What to do.

There is a stream of memories currently coming into consciousness reminding me of numerous instances of this same sort of behavior. Some of the acts of cowardice I believe myself to have committed resulted from this very thing. I reasoned my response or lack of response to such situations: that I could do nothing about it; that the situation could be avoided; the person placated; that others would not understand the true extent of my own culpability (which would have been minor, or the result of someone else’s doing) were I to reveal it, etc. If I didn’t know how to swim, and couldn’t think of any other means to saving a drowning child, I probably would not jump into the water. If I had to fight a war which I didn’t believe in, I doubt that I could. If I had to protect the “honor of someone” when I know that this same person was culpable, or could have avoided this same situation, I probably wouldn’t. If the truth be told, and I’m certainly trying to tell it, I consider any action which does not serve to ameliorate a situation to be wasteful and therefore inappropriate. The only exception to this thinking has to do with self-preservation. Fighting WWII to safeguard life was an appropriate response in my opinion; fighting the Civil War to “save the union” or even to rid ourselves of the scourge of slavery, was not. Lincoln was wrong, no matter how venerable his goal might seem to have been. He sacrificed lives not to protect lives, but to protect a political structure which he felt would improve upon the quality of life. But what made him believe that his perception of the future was in any way right? To be sure, he acted on his own conscience. But, again, what made him believe that his conscience was the right one to follow?

Only now I am getting into muddy waters. For not only are we confronted by the right of any one individual or group of individuals to impose their viewpoint upon the rest of us, it must also be pointed out that there are “degrees” to everything: “rights,” “freedoms,” “laws,” “traditions,” “circumstances,” and all the rest of those things which, under the “proper circumstances,” might be considered as worth dying for. Depending upon one’s own perspective, in other words, anything whatever can made to seem just or unjust–right or wrong. And so I am forced to leave this thinking aside, just as Lincoln should have.

So “reason” has its limitations, and so do “values.” What we believe, value, think, or “decide” to do at any given time, will have to do with whatever our personal perspective brings to the fore under such circumstances. Whatever our personal characteristics happened to have been at birth, we understand that they have also been shaped through circumstances, experience and learning, none of which can be said to be a “private” affair. Nevertheless, we do, and are able to question all of what surrounds us, including the very things we profess ourselves to hold. Thus, nothing appears to be certain or absolute in our lives–at least not very many things. In any event, this in turn implies that most things are (or must be) considered arbitrary or subject to change; that behavior itself must be regarded in the same way, or, at least, must be regarded as purely “relative” to such things as time, place, circumstance, values and belief, attitude, aptitude, and on down the line. Then what is to serve as a foundation, anchor or guide to appropriate behavior? Or is there no such foundation to be had despite our delusions to the contrary?

Rather than continue down this road, I should return to the point of realizing that perhaps my personal burden is the result of having relied too much on reason at the expense of feelings, emotions, and values. And while I am concentrating on this notion, I might as well think about the role of the “rogue” and “prostitute” in my dream of several nights ago. Experience has shown me that there is probably a convergence of thinking or future “revelation” to be had here, and so I should keep myself open to receiving the same if and when it arises.

In what ways, then, might the rogue and prostitute represent my behavior, attitude, or disposition? In what ways might either of these personages be creations, or the compensatory result, of the same? I have already been reminded of the negative consequences of taking too passive an approach to life; that is, not daring to question, assert, challenge, etc., at the “onset” of some particular situation. I have also been reminded of the negative consequences of leaving things undone, doing them shabbily or half-way, or from my simply taking the most expedient means to staving something off which should either have been “properly” done, or else avoided altogether. Then too, I should recall the two sets of “sequential” dreams from last week–“riding my child’s back and seeing my child killed” and “arguing with Catherine as an adult and also as a child.” I should try to hold all of these in mind together to see what jells.

One thing comes immediately to mind, and this has to do with my overall attitude regarding human knowledge and our general attitudes regarding it. I am only too painfully aware of how shallow our professed knowledge really is, and I very much resent the all too common attitude which sees fit to keep this fact under wraps. I hate this delusion which, of course, I also share with others, although I sincerely hope to a somewhat lesser degree than they. I hate this blatant unwillingness of ours to admit that we don’t know–that we’re lost–frightened–in need of comfort. Could this attitude of mine have something to do with my arguing with Catherine?

Assuming that the rogue that I pushed inside the store is in some way belonging to myself (since he and I were eventually brought back together in the dream), why did I disown or disavow him in the first place? What part of myself or life do I not wish to realize or deal with? When I refer to him as a “rogue,” I don’t mean to imply that he’s a ruffian, only that he looks shabby, unkempt, and perhaps ignorant as well. Might he represent my own shabbiness?–the result of not acting on my own behalf, falling behind, and all of the other things which were mentioned in the above paragraph? Am I trying to simply slough this side of myself off, rather than do the work and try to correct the situation? It would seem so. And if this is true, then my dream is informing me that it would be improper to do so; that I should remain united with myself or world–the better and the worse.

But what about the (HV positive) prostitute who does not seem to be in it for the money, and who is in some danger of spreading this disease to others, as well as in danger of being harmed herself by a sadistic patron? In what way might she represent my own behavior? What am I doing that could be likened to spreading a disease? What am I doing that could put me in harm’s way by someone sadistic? It is clear from my dream that I wanted to help this person, rather than slough her off as I did the rogue. I was concerned about the danger she was in and offered her a possible remedy, unsatisfactory though it was. And perhaps this is the point. There was never any mention of my thinking that she was doing something wrong, or that she should quit and seek other employment–to be safe, if for no other reason. Rather, there was an obvious acceptance of her. Why?

In yesterday’s writing, I alluded to the parallel of her occupation with my career counseling and resume writing business; that, perhaps, I am conducting my business for the wrong reasons. I considered the role which intimacy, emotion, and genuine appreciation might play, inasmuch as these, rather than the administration of services, might be my primary occupation. In other words, I might be in it for myself, primarily, and only secondarily for those I serve. To a large degree, this is right. Over the years I have been preoccupied with Jungian psychology, psychological types, and in administering assessments to determine the same. Needless to say, every person I counseled in one way or another served me in this regard. And because of this primary interest, I know that I often went beyond my role of career counselor into that bordering on therapy. In other words, I did use my clients to further my education. But so what? They benefited as much or more than I did, since my fees rarely covered costs in terms of actual time spent. So, properly speaking, I have been somewhat off-base in pushing counseling aspects over writing services. But, again, what was the harm?

But what about this interest in psychology and personality typing? Is it a personal interest or business interest? I could easily say that it is “both,” but I know that it’s business applications were a far second to my personal interest. I have always told myself that I would not offer programs, literature, or assessment services unless I could first believe in their overall worth. And I believe this to be true of myself in fact, only what I was looking for (what would have satisfied me) seemed forever out of reach. I wanted something substantial, and not even Jung could satisfy this. I found his concepts to be as ambiguous and full of holes as were any and all of the assessment devices I became familiar with. But beyond this obvious search for knowledge is still the question of my overall emotional state and well-being. Was I seeking further knowledge from my clients, or might I also have been seeking intimacy? Any counselor knows that a certain amount of detachment must be maintained between his client and himself, especially where personal feelings and emotions are involved. In other words, he should be there for his clients and not the other way around. This is not to say that I should not share personal emotions and feelings with clients (this has its place in fact), it is only to say that the overriding purpose of the consultation should be for the client’s benefit and not my own. And, while I can say that this was usually the case, I must honestly admit that I relished those times when it proved to be more.

So is this my crime? Like the prostitute in my dream, am I in it for some form of self-satisfaction, rather than as a source of income for myself or benefit for others? But what can be wrong with earning a living by providing a service from which I also gain personal satisfaction? Is the symbolism of “HV Positive” meant to convey an improper attitude regarding my desire to “aid” others, to the extent that my actions might be looked upon as a kind of infectious disease, then what am I doing to warrant such an extreme comparison? Again, I am tempted to want to absolve myself from so extreme a comparison by pointing to the possibility that the dream may be supporting consciousness, rather than chastising it. As such, it is comforting to imagine that it is suggesting that my behavior is belittling to me in the same way that the prostitute’s behavior is belittling her; that I need to stop on my account, rather than for the fact that I may be causing harm to other. That this infectious need of mine for aiding others will only short-change me in the end, and might even cause me physical or psychological harm. Yes, this interpretation would be more comforting if true, but is it?

February 26, 1996

I think it fair to say that there is good evidence for believing that dreams are capable of the following:

-depict our current states (attitudes, situations, problems, etc.)
-complement or compensate “overly” inferior and superior attitudes
-elaborates upon thinking,
-test or challenge attitudes, desires, abilities
-demonstrate, explain
-prognosticate
-reveal
-fulfill
-express
-frighten, impact, shock
-guide, coach, nurture
-symbolize, present unfamiliar, meaningless images, etc.

Dreams make use of, or are capable of:
-producing scenarios and events for all of the above
-utilizing symbolism
-reacting to conscious attitudes and activity within the dream
-altering dream scenarios in reaction to conscious responses

Dreams serve as a private
-counselor, guardian
-production center
-overseer, corrector, reminder
-truth-teller

Perplexing questions
1. If dreams are meant to instruct, then…
-why use symbolism?
-why do we not remember dreams?
-why do we easily forget them upon awaking?

2. How are dreams like or unlike imagination?
3. How is consciousness different in sleep and when awake?
   -Doesn’t initiate dream episodes
   -Oftentimes doesn’t initiate own responses or actions (in grip of dreammaker)
   -Sometimes initiates own responses (expresses conscious will)
   -But is our perceived initiations really examples of “will,” or is this expression of will provided for us? The dream merely showing us a typical response or attitude?
   -Can we “imagine” scenarios while asleep and then have them produced for us?
   -Do we feel, taste, touch, hear in dreams, or are they primarily visual? Emotions can’t be denied. But are tastes, touch, and sounds of a different quality?

   4. Is this really any different in the waking state?
   -Is “willing” in the waking state really different from “willing” in the dream state?
   -Usually it is a feeling, thought, image, perception, etc. that reminds us, or leads us to some action when awake.

February 27, 1996

In a little over two weeks, it will be six years since I wrote “Journey’s End.” That work expressed the despair I was feeling at that time, offered explanations as to how and why I had arrived at that point, and showed me a way in which I might get through it. And yet, six years later, I feel as though I haven’t even begun this journey. In fact, I feel as though I am at the very same location where my poem left me six years ago–that is, standing naked and frightened at the door of truth and self-acceptance. I don’t know whether I have simply cowered in the face of the challenge which was given me, or whether my poem only meant to express the direction I would be traveling from that time forward. As it is, everything my poem expressed at that time remains true of me today–albeit with a somewhat deeper understanding. Could it be, then, that my “Journey’s End” has actually guided me over these past six years? That it might have forced my thinking in directions which would serve to shed further light on its messages to me? That its purpose was to lead me to the very place that I was left to begin with? But what about this? What exactly have I learned over these past six years? Let me return to each of the ten sectons of my “Journey’s End” and note what it means to me from today’s perspective.

1. My anguish is caused by a confusion which results from overwhelming perceptions which I seem unable to structure and put to proper use. There are simply too many and they are without the benefit or satisfaction which can only be derived from experience. So which among all of my perceptions ought I to heed?
2. How am I to decide which, among the seemingly competing criteria of self, nature, and society, would be appropriate to my quest?

I am warned that I should not regard freedom and fate as being on par, and that all things are given us in accordance with our individual makeups or stations in life. Thus, I cannot, and should not, hold myself responsible for what is not mine. Instead, I should follow whatever structure is inherent in my intuitions. And if I insist on being obligated in some way, then I should simply relate my intuitions to others, or gain personal satisfaction by acting upon them. For no matter from which direction our compulsions originate (inner or outer), I am reminded that “structure and use is all we’re about.”

III. I am anguished by this apparent lack of choice which I find to be belittling. Why can’t we control our own destiny? Why can’t we know what we’re about and why? To whom does this cruel structure belong if not ourselves? Who is responsible for this cruelty that smothers?–that hides us from ourselves and others?–that screens us between the polar ends of concepts and perceptions?–that deludes us into believing ourselves in control? Yes, who is it that is keeping us from knowing the truth? And why? Is it to shield us from the fact that our compulsion to search for God derives from no other source than ourselves? Why not reveal yourself!

1. It is painful to be told that we are nothing more than mere usage, or to know that there is nothing that we can do about this burden we must carry.

I am told that this burden cannot be avoided nor should it be ignored; that, regardless of my being given (through intuition) all that I need, it is my “mold” or nature to puzzle over it, fight it, and do everything but see. And so, I will continue to blame God for my not being Him! And I will continue to curse the confusion (or oppositional conflicts) given me by Him. I am further reminded that the certainty I desire can never be, that it is an illusion which entails stopping God. If I can come to grips with this, I will realize that the world will not wait and appreciate better the nature of fate. For the force that propels and condemns me is the power of heaven and hell (God and Satan) rolled into one. When I come to this understanding, I will be of one will with both these forces.

1. I am still confused and anguished, remorseful and fatigued, over the possibility that all of this talk is no more than my own attempt to create a God where there is none in fact. For aren’t I really doing all the talking? Aren’t I having to speak for these different personages? Aren’t the topics I am putting into the mouth of God, or some alter ego personage, really the result of my own thinking? Aren’t thoughts regarding “relative certainty” or “freezing of concepts” as potential sources of illusion, dualism, knowledge, etc., entirely my own? Haven’t I struggled over the development of the same for all of these years? Or am I to believe that they have been given me as I was told–or told myself? Well, if so, will I be able to express or satisfy my own will through my understanding that there is a “unity of opposites”? If I can learn to accept what is given me (my challenge or cross) with grace–without shame–will I then be able to continue my journey toward whence I came?–heaven and God?
2. But how can I simply allow, accept, and follow my intuitions without constraint? How do I resist resistance? Set my passions free? And why should I do so when there are so many things to cherish and adore that are already familiar to me? And, again, what’s in it for me? What price must I pay to endure the challenges you have set before me? What dignity of purpose for joining you? Yes, it may be true that all things propel and continue through opposition, but is this your message or really my own? Am I giving it to myself, or have you been giving it throughout time? Or might you not be the God I envision or seek–a mere superior intelligence governing us and nothing more–simply another rung or door?

VII. Could it be that we are left incomplete and all alone? An accidental compulsion without purpose, as science claims?

I am reminded once again that such thinking will only lead me to more sorrow and scorn, and that regardless of what it is that is compelling me (an intelligence or nothing at all), I will continue to crave “it” in response to my call. Or, as I put it when speaking as God, I will fight my “relative limitations” to the end in my never-ending quest for certainty. But what about this notion of “freedom through unbounded limitation”? Why not strengthen my position by expounding upon this? Why not use this to help break all of our molds and enhance all of our conditions? For each of us is in need of an escape, I am reminded, since heaven is growing fainter as we move closer to hell.

VIII. But I remain frustrated over my own ignorance in this regard. For how will I be able to project beyond my personal limitations in order to gain an outside perspective? How am I to accomplish this feat which I (or God) has set before me? But, then, why should I feel obligated to serving society at all? They are not even aware of the illusions they carry, or the burden which is theirs. Let them live in their own messy order–with their own messy contradictions. No, I’ll not carry their burden for them. This conflict of opposites I stand ready to engage will be my personal battle in a war yet to be waged.

1. Who am I kidding? I know that I cannot escape society’s hold upon me–cannot refrain from working on their behalf. But why is this?

It is because society is really not at fault. The blame I attribute to it is, properly speaking, belonging to fate herself. Thus, fate is my enemy, and it is fate that I must battle, not merely for myself, but for all persons. And where will I derive the courage and strength to take on so fearsome a foe? From just this self-same burden of hardship, grief, and dread that I want so much to be rid of! Yes, I am told that my true strength derives from “wanting,” the source of my travail, and what I want most of all, it turns out, is to “tame the world” for all! And if I should prevail in this battle with fate, I will not only benefit myself, but my actions will benefit all the rest besides.

1. I now I feel a deep anxiety since I will have to come face-to-face with the unknown–with truth. What if this truth belittles me? What of my self-esteem?

So there I stood awaiting fate–without supporting crutches–without my holy chains, knowing that to “be me” I must first dare to see myself as I am, and not as I would like to pretend. I must dare to stand naked before the altar of truth and ask to be clothed by it. It is a terribly frightening prospect, this act of freedom, and I didn’t know if I was really up to it. And if I wasn’t? Would I be allowed to return to what I was?–safe in confusion and comforting delusion? Well, I knew I had suffered (not knowing why) for nearly fifty years at the time of this writing, and yet I still could not bring myself to ask God for personal help. No, it would have been too demeaning and weak were I to have done so–and I still feel the same at fifty-five. But I can now see that these last words were meant to convey even more than this. For there I sat totally exhausted from this outpouring of emotion, and not knowing if anything would transpire as a result. For this reason, I felt the sudden compulsion to want to tell God that I was through with him–simply too tired to want to continue the fight. And so my last appeal to Him (before shutting the door) would not be for myself, but for “all the painful rest.” I don’t know whether I was reaching for numbers to get his attention, or simply had decided that I was going to go down fighting–that is, without my personal submission.

February 29, 1996
Remarks on Jung’s Psychological Types

Jung spoke of hysteria as being the most prevalent neurosis of the extravert, and schizophrenia as being the most prevalent neurosis of the introvert. Connected to this thinking, he believed that the shape and workings of each of these attitudes could not merely provide us with an adequate description of the disorders themselves, but may in fact account for their development as well. Thus, hysteria becomes a form of exaggerated extroversion, expressing strong feeling in an outwardly expansive manner, while schizophrenia (or psychasthenia in particular) becomes a form of exaggerated introversion, or a withdrawing from the world expressing little feeling and overall apathy.

It is well known that in their general aspects hysteria and schizophrenia present a striking contrast, which is particularly evident in the attitude of the patients to the external world. In their relations to the object, the hysteric displays as a rule an intensity of feeling that surpasses the normal, while in the schizophrenic the normal level is not reached at all. The clinical picture is exaggerated emotivity in the one, and extreme apathy in the other, with regard to the environment.

With regard to the external world or environment, then, we could say that the “exaggerated emotivity” characterizing the extrovert, and the “extreme apathy” characterizing the introvert, are in fact two instances of one-sided behavior; the extrovert’s problem stemming from too little attention paid to the subjective (or inside world of feelings, drives, instincts, personal needs, etc.), while the introvert’s problem stems from too little attention paid to the objective demands of the outside world. All well and good so far. But what about this “striking contrast” which is “evident in the attitude of the patients to the external world”? Why judge the introvert on the basis of his less preferred attitude? After all, what is perceived as “apathy” might, from another perspective, constitute a “strong interest,” thought in another direction, perhaps.

On the one hand, Jung’s viewing both disorders from a single perspective made it possible to contrast the descriptions in the first place. On the other hand, his clinging to a single perspective (the external one) may have distorted the fact, if it is a fact, that we might be talking about the very same disorder, albeit from two different perspectives. Now I am not saying that hysteria and schizophrenia cannot be distinguished as such–only that it is possible that what distinguishes each may not be owing to the characteristics of the disorders themselves, but to the environment or attitude from which they are viewed. I am suggesting that, like introversion, Jung considered it quite natural to distinguish schizophrenia on the same basis as he did hysteria; that is, in light of one’s attitude to “the outside world.” Since so little is known about the “inside world”–namely the unconscious–perhaps Jung felt that this would be the more prudent approach. It is quite understandable, then, why his methodology may have forced him to the view that hysteria and schizophrenia really do present a “striking contrast.” Only, had he not taken this approach, he might not have seen the two disorders as “mirror opposites,” but rather as “mirror images” of one another, which, to my thinking, would have been the more accurate view. But let’s set this comment aside for now in order to see how Jung tied the disorders to their respective attitudes.

“… Hysteria is characterized by a centrifugal movement of libido, while in schizophrenia the movement is more centripetal. The reverse obtains, however, when the illness has fully established its compensatory effects. In the hysteric the libido is then hampered in its movement of expansion and is forced to regress upon itself; the patients cease to partake in the common life, are wrapped up in their daydreams, keep to their beds, remain shut up in their sickrooms, etc. During the incubation of his illness the schizophrenic likewise turns away from the outer world in order to withdraw into himself, but when the period of morbid compensation arrives, he seems constrained to draw attention to himself, to force himself upon the notice of those around him, by his extravagant, insupportable, or directly aggressive behavior. I propose to use the terms extraversion and introversion to describe these two opposite movements of libido…” (Ibid. p. 500)

As was already intimated previously, by contrasting extroversion and introversion, and respectively tying hysteria and schizophrenia to one side–the extroverted side–Jung, in effect, enabled the disorders themselves to be contrasted in the same way. Now at first sight, this polarization appears to be right on target, especially when we consider the apparent symptomatic differences between the two by using such contrasting terms as “emotivity” and “apathy.” But, again, might not these differences be owing to the fact that each disorder has been viewed from the external bias or perspective? If we were to view each from an internal perspective (which, admittedly, would be very difficult to do), would we not see that the schizophrenic can rightfully be said to be undergoing a form of “inner hysteria,” while the hysteric could rightly be said to be exhibiting an “outer split”? In the same way as the hysteric is cut off (or nearly so) from the reality of the inner world, wouldn’t we see that the schizophrenic is cut off (or nearly so) from outer reality? Once again, speaking from a pathological point of view, could it be that we are pointing to one and the same disorder? In any event, if there is any merit at all to what I am suggesting, we will need to take a closer look at Jung’s theory of “psychological types.”

The idea that there exists a “compensatory relationship” between consciousness and the so-called unconscious (or between Ego and Self) is central to Jungian psychology. (The governing force, of course, rests with the unconscious or Self, and not with consciousness or Ego.) It not only underscores the nature and characteristics of his typology, but also serves to explain their respective pathological counterparts. In other words, Jung sees in his “description of types,” the potential formation and extension of the various neuroses themselves. And it should be said at the outset that the attitudes of introversion and extroversion will be seen to play a crucial role, not merely in the development of personality per se, but in the development of the disorders (or neuroses) themselves. So what exactly is the significance of the compensatory role of the unconscious in relationship to the attitudes of extroversion and introversion? Let’s begin with the attitudes themselves.

Jung assumed (based upon his many years of experience) that there really are characteristic introverted and extroverted types in the world; that is, people who show a general to strong preference and interest for choosing one direction over the other. But, admittedly, he doesn’t know why. “As to the individual disposition, I have nothing to say except that there are obviously individuals who have a greater capacity, or to whom it is more congenial, to adapt in one way and not in another.” (Ibid. p.333). The attitudes, then, are seen to be two different modes of adaptation. But what about these dispositions?

“The introvert’s attitude is an abstracting one; at bottom, he is always intent on withdrawing libido [interest, energy] from the object [outer world], as though he had to prevent the object from gaining power over him. The extravert, on the contrary, has a positive relation to the object. He affirms its importance to such an extent that his subjective attitude is constantly related and oriented by the object. The object can never have enough value for him, and its importance must always be increased… The peculiar nature of the extravert constantly urges him to expend and propagate himself in every way, while the tendency of the introvert is to defend himself against all demands from outside, to conserve his energy by withdrawing it from objects, thereby consolidating his own position… The one achieves its end by a multiplicity of relationships, the other by monopoly… The one allows himself to be oriented by the given facts, the other holds in reserve a view [his subjective view] which interposes itself between him and the objective data.” (Ibid. p. 330-333)

I think that the above remarks should suffice to explain what Jung means by the attitudes of extroversion and introversion. We can see that the extrovert is drawn or compelled outside, while the introvert is drawn or compelled inside. But what does Jung mean when he says that the introvert “interposes his subjective view between himself and the outside world”? Does the extrovert interpose his “objective view” between himself and the inside world? I believe that Jung’s logic forces us to this view, but my having raised this question will have greater relevance as we proceed in our discussion. But, since we are only interested in gaining a broad overview of the Jungian model, we will be restricting ourselves only to those pathologies inherent in extroversion and introversion, and not to those associated with the various functions and more specific types which Jung goes on to explore. So let’s begin by examining the neurosis associated with extroversion, and, following this, proceed to a discussion of the neuroses associated with introversion.

“The hallmark of hysteria is an exaggerated rapport with persons in the immediate environment and an adjustment to surrounding conditions that amounts to imitation. A constant tendency to make himself interesting and to produce an impression is a basic feature of the hysteric.” Proneness to another person’s influence… effusiveness, which occasionally carries him into the realm of fantasy… a tendency to expend himself for the benefit of the object, are still other characteristics of the hysteric.” (Ibid. p. 336-)

So much for a general description of hysteria. But why, we must remind ourselves, is the extrovert prone to such behavior in the first place? And why does it sometimes reach hysterical proportions? From the above descriptions, it is relatively easy to see the connection between extroversion and the characteristics of the histrionic personality; a personality which most of us will recognize from ordinary experience. Only we have our own names for such behavior–names like “showoff,” “attention-getter,” “out of touch,” “shallow,” “insincere,” “overbearing,” and the like. Maybe we have not seen the disorder in its fullest or most severe state, but we do recognize this form of exaggerated behavior. Only what causes such behavior?

Jung suggests that normal behavior rests upon a balance between the extroverted and introverted standpoints; that despite a person’s (in-born) predisposition for one attitude over the other, both attitudes are judged to be necessary to maintaining the “psychic equilibrium.” And it is to this end that the unconscious is said to compensate consciousness. In other words, a too one-sided behavior (attitude, preoccupation, etc.), regardless of which direction that interest is pointed, will always invite an opposing, compensatory response from the unconscious. Thus, inner drives, needs, instincts, etc., as well as outer contingencies, responsibilities and the like, will each require a certain amount of attention in order to retain our psychic balance. But, we need to persist, if the unconscious truly has this capability, how is it possible for an “abnormal” state to exist at all? Why aren’t all such imbalances–exaggerated behaviors–adequately compensated?

INTROVERSION AND THE UNCONSCIOUS

These questions remain perplexing, to say the very least, and perhaps Jung himself was unable to provide a satisfactory answer, at least not directly. But he did provide us with a broad scenario as to what he believes to is taking place within ourselves, and this brings us to the topic of the unconscious. It is to this direction we must now turn, not merely to present a picture of the compensatory relationship existing between introversion and schizophrenia, but to offer a more complete description of our general relationship to the world itself. Jung gives us a hint of his “broad view” when discussing the unconscious of the extrovert:

“… A purely objective orientation does violence to a multitude of subjective impulses, intentions, needs, and desires and deprives them of the libido that is their natural right. Man is not a machine that can be remodeled for quite other purposes as occasion demands, in the hope that it will go on functioning as regularly as before but in a quite different way. He carries his whole history with him; in his very structure is written the history of mankind. This historical element in man represents a vital need to which a wise psychic economy must respond. Somehow the past must come alive and participate in the present.” (Ibid. p. 338)

We have here a picture of an “historical man” fully alive and participating in the present; that is, a “composite man” who can be shown to be carrying an active lineage within himself. As Jung put it: “Somehow the past must come alive and participate in the present,” and this could mean that there are compulsions and needs within us that extend far beyond (or beneath) our conscious awareness as such. In point of fact, Jung’s view forces us to conclude that such forces as these have never been conscious, but, nevertheless, “must come alive and participate in the present.” Consciousness may be the vehicle for such resurrections, but, in any case, both the extrovert and introvert need to respond to the same. Well, what about this? It is easy to see how the extrovert might wish to overlook these “inner compulsions,” so attached is he to the outside world. But what of the introvert? Surely his inner-directed attitude or one-sided interest would prove conducive to heeding whatever demands underlay consciousness. But, no, says Jung, for “it is a characteristic peculiarity of the introvert, which is a much in keeping with his own inclination as with the general bias, to confuse his ego with the self, and to exalt it as the subject of the psychic process…” (Ibid. p. 376) This should become clearer as we now take up the introverted attitude itself.

“The introverted attitude is normally oriented by the psychic structure which is in principle hereditary and is inborn in the subject. This must not be assumed, however, to be simply identical with the subject’s ego…; it is rather the psychic structure of the subject prior to any ego-development. The really fundamental subject, the self, is far more comprehensive than the ego, since the former includes the unconscious whereas the latter is essentially the focal point of consciousness…. The psychic structure is what I call the “collective unconscious.” The individual self is a portion or segment or representative of something present in all living creatures, an exponent of the specific mode of psychological behavior, which varies from species to species and is inborn in each of its members. The inborn mode of acting has long been known as instinct, and for the inborn mode of psychic apprehension I have proposed the term archetype…. The archetype is a symbolic formula which always begins to function when there are no conscious ideas present, or when conscious ideas are inhibited for internal or external reasons. The contents of the unconscious are represented in consciousness in the form of pronounced preferences and definite ways of looking at things. These subjective tendencies and view are generally regarded by the individual as being determined by the object–incorrectly, since they have their source in the unconscious structure of the psyche and are merely released by the effect of the object.” (Ibid. 376,7)

From these remarks we can see that Jung views this “historical element” or “lineage” existing within us, as a sort of psychical instinct which comes to us in the form of “archetypes” or pronounced preferences, etc. In other words, we are, properly speaking, “a living past” or at least capable of producing the same. We must not assume, however, that all of what preceded us has been passed on in its original form–we are not capable of any such understanding. Nevertheless, Jung sees some representative form or “collective” to exist deep within us, something which he can only liken to instinct. But this is no small matter, for, although we have a clear and certain idea as to what instinctive behavior is, we haven’t the slightest idea of how it is constituted, much less knowing how it gets passed along from generation to generation. In fact, I suspect that science really doesn’t want to know it! since it invariably opens the door to the real possibility that “psychic transmittances” are also possible. Indeed, I have no doubt whatever that we will one day discover them to have been one and same thing all along.

Here, then, is the source of our respective attitudes, according to Jung. And residing over this domain is the “self” which we are told is far more comprehensive than the ego, or that portion of our awareness that we refer to as consciousness. In fact, self resides over, or represents in some way, both the unconscious and conscious domains. Unfortunately, the introvert does not know this. And, not knowing this, he fails to look beyond consciousness toward the real source of his compulsions and needs, and wrongly assumes that these arise from his own consciousness; that is, imagines them to be products of his own ego. And, of course, this is exactly what gets him into trouble.

“In the fashion of the times he looks outside for an answer, instead of seeking it behind his own consciousness. Should he become neurotic, it is the sign of an almost complete identity of the ego with the self; the importance of the self is reduced to nil, while the ego is inflated beyond measure. The whole world-creating force of the subjective factor becomes concentrated in the ego, producing a boundless power-complex and a fatuous egocentricity.” (Ibid. 377-8)

OVERVIEW OF FUNCTIONS

I feel it necessary to include in our cursory overview some mention of the functions which Jung believes “typifies” our behaviors or personalities. First of all, we need to note that normal one-sidedness has to do with the proper development of several functions. Suffice it to say that Jung “tied” still other factors to extroversion and introversion while constructing his typology. These include the functions of Thinking and Feeling (two opposing “judging” functions) and the functions of Sensing and Intuition (two opposing “perceiving” functions). In Jung’s view, the general attitudes of extroversion and introversion do not simply exist by themselves, but rather contain, so to speak, one or the other of these functions, again, in some developmental order of preference. Thus, not only can these functions be introverted or extroverted, but there will be a definite order of priority seen to be governing their use.

Without going into too much detail, if a person has a preference for the attitude of introversion, for example, whichever function is most favored will be used almost exclusively in this attitude. This seems to make perfect sense since we would want to use our very best when engaged in what we most want to do. So if our favorite function happens to be one of the perceiving functions (sensing or intuition), then the next favored function must be one of the judging functions, that is, either thinking or feeling. Again, this is because of the existing polarization between the two modes of perceiving and the two modes of judging. If intuition and sensing are opposite one another, then it is highly unlikely that one could be a favorite while its complete opposite could be a “second favorite.” No, they are simply too different–too opposed to one another. Instead, one of the judging functions will prove to be the second favorite (or auxiliary) and, on that account, will more often be used in the second favorite attitude which, in this case, would be extroversion. Following this logic, the third favorite function would be opposite the second and the least favorite, opposite the first. Enough said. I think that we have established enough of a foundation for our purpose.

SUMMARY

Getting back to our question as to how such disorders are possible when it is presumed that the unconscious has the ability and role of “compensating” our behavior when needed, there are two thoughts in particular which come to mind. First, there is the possibility that Jung was simply wrong in attributing this ability to the unconscious. In some ways, it seems to me that the unconscious has been unfairly overloaded by being put in the role of “director,” “compensator,” “regulator,” “pusher,” “puller,” not to mention management of our bodily requirements, dream and image maker, etc. Only perhaps too little attention has been paid to the compensating forces existing without ourselves–namely nature. Doesn’t it make equally good sense to suppose that outside circumstances also compel, regulate, or even compensate our actions. Why assume that the unconscious is directing the entire show? I can’t help but feel that a large part of what is credited to the “unconscious” has in actuality been stripped from nature; that Jung, himself, was not able to see beyond his own homocentric tendency to place ourselves above nature rather than within.

Second, it occurs to me that the existence of psychological (or personality) disorders may be owing (like all concepts, perhaps) merely to the fact that we have concentrated our attention on the extremes of human behavior. For in the formulation (or use) of concepts, we tend to cut-off (or simply ignore) the potential fact that what we see as a single unity, entity, tight group of behavior, etc.–may be nothing other than a cut-off portion of a gradual progression of behaviors on a continuum. In other words, “disorders,” properly speaking, would not exist at all had we not abstracted our concepts from these extremes. As it is, when we look toward the center (toward milder forms of introversion or extroversion, for example) we can see them almost dissipate altogether. And this is not, as we would like to believe, because this ground constitutes “normal behavior”–but precisely because our concepts are no longer discernable at this point. We cannot salvage contents which are not really there.

In this view, then, compensatory causes and effects might better be viewed as “natural fluctuations” existing in nature. In other words, rather than attribute to the unconscious the ability to make “compensatory corrections” to consciousness, we might get further along the road to truth by rejoining what have literally shut out of the picture–nature. As it was, by devaluing the external world as a bonafide candidate for exhibiting such powers, while going on to attribute the same to the unconscious, Jung forced the unconscious to carry a burden which, in my opinion,is not justified. Indeed, Jung’s own thinking bordered on this very point when describing the relationship existing between the introvert’s ego and the attitude of his unconscious: “The object [again, meaning the world] is a factor, whose power cannot be denied, whereas the ego is a very limited and fragile thing. It would be a very different matter if the self opposed the object. Self and world are commensurable factors…” (Ibid. p. 378)

Yes, Self and World are commensurable factors, but I suspect that Jung felt Self to be “a little more commensurable.” And this is only because of an already established bias for the former. But who among us is prepared to attribute such qualities to a world which is thought to be “inanimate” in large part? Well, neither did Jung wish to do so. And since it was and remains altogether impossible to attribute such powers to consciousness alone, Jung sought answers by looking behind it, rather than to what surrounds us. Thus, his psychology came to express the view that consciousness (Ego) rests “between” these two monumental forces, and that proper or normal adaptation rests with our being able to maintain a balance between the two. Only the three-way relationship he presented us with is, in my opinion, is extremely one-sided itself.

March 5, 1996

False knowledge fragments us. It does not arise from a unity of spirit and body, but from body alone. It is consciousness trying to go it alone, without recourse to all of what comprises ourselves.

I feel that confusion prevents me from understanding or comprehending my place in nature. My knowledge is fragmented and piecemeal, and I remain unknowing. But what can sure and certain knowledge consist of? And now from this question there arise a hundred possibilities and, therefore, I feel that the answer to my dilemma cannot consist of these. But if I, instead, proceed to examine “this answer” itself, numerous other possibilities arise, while each tier of possible explanations leads me further and further from my original quest. If nature does not intend to confuse me, or set me on wild excursions going nowhere and everywhere, then why am I being affected in such a way? What is missing from this picture? What would it take to resolve this issue?

Each attempt I make toward resolving this dilemma takes me back to the original source of my confusion–my first expression. As I look at more closely, it was not so much an assertion as it was an expression of a emotion. My question no doubt arose from this, and not from the assertions thought to be describing it. In expressing this emotion, then, wasn’t the real question underlying it something like the following: “Free me from the torment of my confusion; from my not knowing!” But if I was asking for help, why did I immediately proceed to ask: “But what can sure and certain knowledge consist of?” It appears obvious that I didn’t expect that an answer to my original emotion would be forthcoming. It demonstrates an attitude, I believe, that fully anticipates that I will have to resolve this issue for myself; that I will have to choose (or take) from whatever happens to present itself in my mind, and go on from there. Unfortunately, I already know the limitations inherent in such an approach. It may prove to be the very source of the dilemma I now find myself to be in.

But what other avenues are open to me? How can I be expected to “let go” of this practice when there appears to be no other option present? Could we say that the emotion was improper? Or was it my response that was improper? Assuming that it might have been the latter, again, what other option is open to me? How do I escape from my dilemma? Or, assuming that such expressions are right and proper, “How do I resolve my dilemma?”

March 7, 1996

Without action or activity, mental events (images, associations, etc.) appear from every direction to clutter clear thinking. It is difficult to concentrate on any one particular area since these free-floating disturbances remain. The more activity one engages in, the fewer the associations from things left undone, not answered, etc. With little or no activity, they remain waiting to be addressed. It is almost as if the mind were abandoned, like an old house, and thus open to anyone or anything that wishes to enter.

A few moments ago, I was trying desperately to reach a more fundamental level of thought. My focus was to try to ascertain my vocation in life–what really underlies my character, personality, and the like. One of the upshots of this forced concentration was to have come by the idea of “activity” just now expressed in the preceding paragraph. Only, be that as it may, I was soon taken off track by numerous associations emanating from each new thought or image. So what should be done about this? How can we cling to a central idea so that we will not lose touch with it over the long run? How do we control the situation?

For example, I thought of myself running a kind of school for all ages. The school would not be engaged in academic subjects as such, but would concentrate on helping individuals to understand their individuality, and also learn how to hang on to it while entering the social sphere. A noble idea I thought, and this led to a few images regarding personality typing, appreciating differences, etc., and I even went on to envisioning myself, as well as another teacher, working with children in a classroom. Only then I had an image of standing behind a two-way mirror in a room set up for instructors, parents, and other observers. I felt the necessity for something like this, but also felt that I would have to reject it. I instinctively felt that the rights of children were being abrogated even though I knew that such “rights” may never have even been in question. Nonetheless, I felt that their future rights were being invalidated in the present. Needless to say, this thinking got me far afield of my original thought since the original idea of establishing a school was only to be entertained among numerous other possibilities–not something to go into in depth. Again, how do we cling to our central goal? I will try to experiment with this notion by, once again, trying to concentrate on my goal. Only this time I will note whatever deviations occur to me as I go. What then, is my vocation in life?

I sat with eyes closed for a few moments while awaiting possibilities to enter my mind. But the only thing that came to me was a feeling that I had just been preoccupied with doing something (namely, recalling the above events), and that my mind was still taken up by this former thinking, even if there was nothing but this feeling present to it at the moment. I felt as though there needed to be a “cool-down” period from this prior activity before I could expect further intuitions to appear; that I was not yet in a proper frame of mind. And now a thought comes to mind. I wonder if “activity” might not be the proper vehicle to intuition; that one needs already to be engaged in thinking before intuitions can be expected to arise; that intuitions mirror, elaborate upon, or answers only those issues which are already preoccupying consciousness. Thus, a simple question may not be sufficient for a response. Intuition does not converse in this manner.

I can’t help but think of Emerson in this regard. He reminded us over and over that there are numerous (outer-sourced) things preoccupying our attention, and that we “need to learn to detect the feint glimmerings of what lies under the surface of things.” In other words, with so many distracting influences, as well as habits built up from them, it is not so easy to re-integrate ourselves with all that we comprise. Allowing “passage of this light” into consciousness–that is, soul, spirit, God, nature, character, etc.–is not so easy in fact. For we do not wish to give over our “wills,” or whatever image of ourselves we choose to carry, to some other force which we do not understand. And so we cling to the delusion that we can in fact “have things our way,” and, in so doing, shut out everything else that we wish to ignore. In doing this, says Emerson, we become “halves.”

If this is true, I guess that we should expect the going to be difficult. After all, if I have spent the better part of my life living someone else’s life (what family or society considers to be of value), why suppose that I can simply become “whole” by willing it. Why not suppose, rather, that whatever it was that allowed such fragmentation to occur in the first place, would most probably offer resistance to my wanting to undo the same. It is obvious from this remark that I do not believe that the force that allowed (and continues to allow) such fragmentation, arises from some imagined “sheer force of will” belonging to myself. If this were true, then I should be able to reverse the trend. No, it is precisely because I can’t effect the same, I know, instantly, that what I regard as my conscious identity cannot also be the source of my supposed “power to will,” even if this power appears evident to me. Evident it is, because, properly speaking, it is within our domain–our domain of awareness, that is. Only an awareness of power, and that power itself, are very different things. Nevertheless, this power, which I feel underlies awareness, cannot be too far removed from us. Otherwise, we would not have fallen prey to the delusion that it ours in the first place.

Perhaps psychology can avoid this dilemma by distinguishing between “Ego” as the central controller of consciousness, and “Personal Identity” as having derived from, but remaining a mere portion of the same. The chain of command, so to speak, would be “Ego” underlying the thin veneer of awareness which constitutes our “Personal Identities,” and some further notion of “Self” or “The Unconscious” which underlies the whole of it. While such distinctions appear highly confusing and, therefore, dubious, the mere fact that we are forced to make them, expresses, in my opinion, the fact that there really is a continuum of underlying forces,–but that it defies categorization or fragmentation by abstracting concepts. Thus, this means to understanding is severely limited.

But if what I am saying about “personal identity” is true, then the picture we have of ourselves as “free agents” is severely diminished–must be distorted. For in what sense can we claim “awareness” or “acknowledgment” to be representative of will? To be sure, this statement will give rise to all sorts of protestations to the contrary, but I stand firm on this. I would challenge anyone to demonstrate one single instance of “willing something” without first having received a sign, image, thought, feeling, etc., apprising him of the very thing he is willing. It can’t be done! No matter how hard and how often we try, nothing can be “willed into awareness” without it first appearing there. “Willing” always follows, rather than precedes, the very thing being willed. “But doesn’t it appear precisely because it is being willed?” No. Experiment all you want, the conclusion is inescapable. In fact, it tautologically nonsensical to imagine that something could be willed without “something” first existing. “But doesn’t `willing something’ mean that it has no precedent–that it has spontaneously arisen from nothing?” Yes, only saying this neither makes it meaningful nor possible. For the simple fact remains–it can’t be done!

So now I find that I have been, once again, side-tracked from the original issue at hand. In considering why answers weren’t simply forthcoming, I went on to thinking about how intuition might work. From here, I went on to Emerson and thoughts about fragmentation. From there, to a discussion of “free will.” What happened to my original concentration? I wanted to remain focused upon discovering my vocation. Well, if nothing else, such deviations as occurred should be proof positive that I am not controlling the process going on within me. Despite my thinking it at the onset, based solely on my apparent ability to pose the question, thinking this did not make it so. For the fact is, the source of my thoughts and images simply arose within me and, through associations which were also not of my own making, went on to lead me in directions that I never would have expected at the onset. After all, I was determined to stick to the point at issue by concentrating all of my efforts on this one question, even if this concentration was no more than my “willingness” to stand ready to receive whatever intuitions would be forthcoming. But, as we have seen, even this concentration was broken–this notion abandoned–since what I mean by “adhering to the issue at hand” is obviously quite different from what has taken place in fact. “But isn’t this what we mean by thinking?–that our thinking will lead us from thought to thought?” Yes, this is what we have learned to expect when thinking, but, no, this is not what we wish to claim is taking place. For we seem altogether “unwilling” to accept the fact of our experiences. Rather, we cling to the notion that it is “we” who are leading the process–presenting ourselves with the very things we are chasing after! In any event, if I choose to cling to the idea that such diversions (as have taken place) really do have to do with the issue at hand, since I know they are not my diversion, such an “understanding” must reside elsewhere–perhaps in the very thing that appears to be directing me.

Okay, enough said. But what am I now left with? If I’m not really in control of my own thoughts–if my questions are not to be taken at face value, perhaps only representing a delusional picture of what is taking place in fact–then what am I to do? How do I proceed from here if my questions aren’t real? or aside from the facts which are really taking place? Why allow this in the first place? Why perpetuate the delusion?–operate on two tracks? But, of course, it is the delusion itself that creates the tracks where there are none in fact. Here I sit, “thinking man” pecking along on the keyboard of my computer, confident that I am doing what I wish–that I can do what I wish, without having recourse to anything else. Only how did we get to this point when the facts appear to contradict this very notion? But if we are not in control, we are now prone to ask, then why has this situation been allowed in the first place? The assumption, of course, is that our struggle–our confusion–our delusion–ought not to exist; that it is in some way inappropriate, not merely for ourselves, but for earth, nature, God, whomever. Only how can we speak for earth, nature, or God from our relative, highly limited, perspective? Perhaps we can’t, inasmuch as we obviously are without the power for effecting the same. But this doesn’t stop us from raising the issue–from trying. For the fact remains, we do have a personal perspective, flimsy though it may be, and we do want to safeguard it.

Only now I sense that this conversation is going nowhere so long as I continue to speak from my own perspective. For as we have seen, this perspective is extremely shallow when considered alone. With this limited perspective, we have all we can do to cling to mere sensation, or to what might be regarded as a “state of awareness” which we might properly call our own. But, of course, not even this will work. The more ground we try to hang on to, the more we lose, and I think that we would be wise to cease in this endeavor altogether. For, again, it fragments us. Only how can we correct this situation? open ourselves to all of what we comprise? and, ultimately, to the world at large? How do we make it so?

This is not an easy question to answer since what we see to exist, both within and without ourselves, is anything but clear–presents anything but a unified presence. Instead, our observations and experiences present us with all sorts of concerns stemming from felt drives and needs, both inner and outside opposition to these, and the perpetual need we feel for having to manage, withstand, or simply give in to them. In other words, far from finding the road through life to be smooth and easy, we find it, instead, to be full of challenges, inconsistencies, and obstacles at every turn. Given this state of affairs, how are we to find this wanted “unity of presence” within ourselves, when what we find within is anything but? Yes, Emerson spoke eloquently about “allowing the passages of its beams to enter ourselves,” and the like. Only which beams shall we allow? Which abided? Should we set free a “base instinct”? (And just how could any instinct be base?) Or should we go against some value held by society when it benefits us? If not, why not?

I believe that the answer to such questions is the very same one that we have been considering all along. When one opens the door to all such possibilities, nothing is really changed except one’s attitude. All the saints and all the devils are still there to be dealt with. Only by wrongly attributing powers to ourselves which we simply do not have, we take upon ourselves a burden too heavy to bear; namely a responsibility for what is not rightly ours. By severing ourselves from ourselves; that is, by seeking to establish a “personal identity” based upon a simple foundation of awareness, or upon the simple acknowledgement of things presented to our senses, we thereby cut ourselves off from life. For, try as we might, we simply cannot sever ourselves into safety; cannot simply flee from all that we wish to ignore–wish to disown. This is not to say that we can now relinquish responsibility for our actions–quite the contrary. For the responsibility that we unknowingly and unwillingly took upon ourselves, is the self-same responsibility that we must now take in hand. In other words, our attempt to establish a separate identity must not be considered a noble cause; it was, rather, an attempt to avoid responsibility for all that we comprise. As I said earlier, it was an attempt to shed what we do not wish to be responsible for, only it had just the opposite effect. Instead, not only did we find ourselves saddled with the same level of responsibility as before–but found that we were now standing alone.

So how do we reverse this grave mistake which has caused so much turmoil in our lives? We should begin by simply telling the truth–that is, by simply acknowledging what we know to be the case in fact. If we did no more than this, a veritable avalanche of value would spread like honey across the land. Only now that I seem to have deposited myself at the abyss of some form of reunification with myself; at the brink of regaining a momentum long lost to me, I can’t help but wonder: “Whatever happened to my search for a vocation?” Could it be?

April 27, 1996

How can I follow and relay my intuitions without trying to structure them? Can I trust that whatever structure is needed will be forthcoming within the intuitions themselves? But even in saying this, I feel a compulsion to want to correct or reshape what comes into my mind,–to put these sentences in better form. Only why, I am prone to ask, are they not perfect to begin with? For some reason, I don’t know why, I seem to think that if there is an interior personality residing within me, it must be superior to my conscious personality. In any case, I can’t help but feel that whatever, or whomever it is that is speaking through me, be it some part of my current conscious self, or some other, it is obvious that “I” am able to control, or at least alter, the situation in a manner of my own choosing. Consciousness appears able to stand at its own gateway to pick, choose, alter, or reject whatever enters its domain. Thus, there does seem to be a single personality in charge. But if the conscious personality is dissatisfied with the outcome, or with the presentation of facts as they arrive, does this mean that it is “superior” to its unconscious counterpart(s)? Or might it point to the fact that its unconscious counterpart(s) are part and parcel of itself; that is, made up of the same? Is it merely the fact that consciousness cannot keep track of all of the “unnoticed” things which purportedly enter our minds on a daily basis; things that make it “appear” as though they were new contents? But doesn’t the fact that they often arise in different form suggest that there must exist another order of events, or internal experience, which operate somewhat on par with conscious experience? Are there, in other words, different forms of experience residing in us which we are not aware of? If so, then would it follow that there are also different “personalities” encompassing each form? Personalities which, like our conscious selves, are “aware” of their own experience (and, perhaps ours as well), or simply aware because they experience? When we consider the fact that dreams, intuitions, and imaginative perceptions appear to come to us (that is, are received into consciousness, rather than originated or conceived there), and that they come to us already shaped or structured–and not simply in “random pieces”–what else can we conclude? But, assuming for the moment that we are comprised of at least one other experiencing entity beside our conscious selves, should we treat such an entity as another “part” of a “composite whole,” or as a separate, co-existing part which sometimes works on behalf of our composite selves, and sometimes on its own behalf? Could this be the psychological ground for personality and emotional differences?

Now it would appear that by discussing the relationships between parts and wholes, we are entering the realm of philosophy. And philosophers are already quite familiar with the ramifications of embarking on such an excursion since the history of philosophy shows that nowhere are there parameters which can be utilized to decide such questions; that is, without these same parameters themselves becoming the subject of the investigation. And while there are many who still wish to deny this, I would claim that this phenomenon has not merely been a characteristic of philosophical inquiry, but a characteristic compounding all thinking, regardless of subject matter. For example, we find it relatively easy to regard the things of the world as interconnected, only our usage of the word “interconnected” belies the fact that such distinctions have already been made–that we already possess distinguishable concepts of “things” to which we can now attribute the characteristic of being interconnected. But what is the merit of such a claim to begin with? What could we possibly mean if we were to say: “The things of the world are not related”? Well, I’m not sure, but it does force me to try to imagine a context “befitting” it. Only try as I might–I simply can’t do it. So, does this make our former assertion even stronger?–or nonsensical? Wouldn’t this example be tantamount to saying: “All abstractions are related to that from which they were abstracted”? or, again, that “the color red shares a relationship with red things,” or “parts with whatever whole comprises them”? What purpose could such statements serve?

One might assume from the above remarks that what this means is that we are not yet in a position to discuss such questions because we are still too much a part of them; that, try as we might, we are presently unable to disentangle ourselves from ourselves–or from language–in order to gain an appropriate perspective. That the problem, in other words, is not one of posing unintelligible questions as though they made sense, but simply one of not having the proper frame of reference to deal with them. Such persons might argue that, while we may not fully understand what might constitute an “appropriate” perspective, we readily do understand what does not. But let’s bypass the relevance of taking one position over the other and try to get a closer view of the dilemma by engaging it. And I can think of no better way to do this than by exploring just how it is that we come by our conceptions of “things,” “parts,” and “wholes”?

As my remarks may have already indicated to some, it would seem as though “things” do not–cannot–exist until we perceive them as such; that is, until we have exercised our apparent ability to focus upon and abstract portions from the whole of our experience. Or we might conclude that the mere act of focusing is itself an abstraction, and might properly be said to constitute the very creation of our conception a thing. As such, whatever commands our attention can ostensibly be regarded as an abstraction, thing, or occurrence, even if it had no previous grounding in experience. In spite of this, however, we tend to think that such occurrences are separate; that they follow one another and constitute separate “acts” or “powers” which we assume ourselves to possess. But, as is usually the case, closer scrutiny reveals that no such thing exists in fact; that there is a great divide between what are real, and what are merely imagined “attributes.” It is on this ground, in my opinion, that we come closest to understanding the source of our dilemma.

Well, I know already where this discussion is heading, and I don’t feel like pursuing it any further on this account alone. Rather, I feel the compulsion to reverse my direction and go deeper still, since I feel that I am still outside the circle, or the true source of my personal dilemma. For when all is said and done, I know full well that all of my thinking represents no more and no less than an attempt to understand my own difficulties. And what has my major difficulty been? My continual failure to successfully integrate with the world through understanding. And what do I think has stood in the way of success? The facts of my ignorance and the strain of my inability to focus my attention in any one direction. And what do I believe is the major obstacle here? I believe that it has something to do with intuition and feeling. I am constantly distracted by concepts and thoughts that lead me in too many directions at once, and I can’t seem to find the means to order them. In point of fact, there is little or no structure in my life due to this incessant barrage of thoughts which never seem to settle. At the same time as I feel intellectually stronger and approaching things of real significance, I feel increasingly lonely, lost, despaired, abandoned and hopelessly confused. And what is it that compels me to continue with such seemingly futile endeavors? I don’t know. I only know that my compulsion is felt to be my only salvation; that to abandon it would be to abandon myself. Or maybe it’s an ego thing; that I cannot let go of the feeling that I almost have the prize in hand; that it’s just barely out of reach. For every frustration, or apparent defeat, seems to be followed by some new hope, or promise of renewal, and my addiction compels me onward. On the other hand, I must admit that feelings of fatigue, frustration and depression are growing ever stronger, and this causes me to doubt myself as well as my purpose in life. For what price is knowledge worth if it doesn’t lead to integration–to some sort of satisfaction?

And now my intuition is reminding me that, perhaps, it is not knowledge that I require for integration; that, perhaps, I have been seeking in the wrong direction for what it is I truly desire. But what is it then? And who put me on this track in the first place? And who or what compels me to remain? Or am I to consider that it might be only me who is doing this to myself; me who “chooses” to suffer the pangs associated with my dilemma rather than forfeit imagined “possibilities” which only entice and never satisfy? Am I to be blamed for my own addiction? Is it a form of selfishness?–a want of something more than what is due me?–something which is beyond my capability? Then should I give it up?–Let go?–Submit? But what is it that I should let go of what? Submit to what?… Let go of trying to attain the impossible? Submit to my station in life? Well what is my station? I am begging to know. What is my station?, I have always been begging to know.

July 1, 1996

A few moments ago I was trying, once again, to get a grasp on what it is I should do with my present life, and, as usual, seemed to have “gotten the scent,” only to lose it shortly thereafter. I was reviewing a personal outline of interests, talents, etc. which I had written several months ago, with the thought that maybe I could synthesize or hone it down into something definite. Things were looking up as I began to notice that all of the things I felt I wanted to do–writing, teaching, program development, landscape design; working with children as well as adults; dealing with psychological, social, educational, and political issues relating to life concerns and the promotion of happiness through greater personal understanding and integration; dealing with abstract concepts and issues relating to epistemological, spiritual, and ontological concerns; developing and implementing programs which would enable such things to be put to proper use; and many other things which could prove useful in promoting greater understanding and harmony in the world,–all could fit under the rubric of running some sort of “Center for Life.” By this, I mean a center which could act as a school, retreat, study, church, confessional, meeting place, career center, conference center, community, and any number of other things as well. Above all, it would be a place that would foster personal growth, inner peace, and social harmony; a place where individuals could be helped to discover who they are and to dare to be themselves; above all, a place of acceptance.

Of course, the above paragraph “reeks with idealism” and overlooks many of the realities which would run counter to such aims. And yet, I feel optimistic enough to want to believe that any problem can be solved, even those involving direct opposition. Instead of trying to get “lions to peacefully lay down with lambs,” I think it better to keep like with like, at least at the onset. But I am digressing from my original point to which I should now return.

As I was saying, things were looking up as I began to realize a vehicle which could incorporate all of my interests and talents, and beyond. I would be able to go as far as my talents could take me, but would utilize the talents of others to go beyond. Thus, I envisioned having guest speakers, program presenters, counselors, teachers, personalities and the like. But surely this thinking is overwhelming. Surely I am going way overboard, way beyond the possible. For who am I to think so big? Who am I fooling? Obviously, this was just another exercise in self-delusion; another diversion from having to face myself for what I am–an abysmal failure at life–a person who can hardly order a meal, let alone a life. And to make matters worse, I tried walking away from my computer in order to ask myself what would be an appropriate name for such a Center [I just now received an intuition indicating that “The Center” would be appropriate name for such a place, no doubt because of its allusions to the “center” of personality or “Self”] But the only response I got at the time was an impersonal series of apparently random visions and memories which seemed to have nothing whatever to do with my thinking or overall intent. How disillusioning it was; how utterly disappointing.

I couldn’t help but recall some earlier thinking that took place today; thinking related to active and passive attitudes toward life. Some people view the world as impersonal, malleable, and requiring action on their parts if they are to satisfy their wants. Others, like myself, seem to take a passive stance which appears to consider the world as personal; that is, permeated with reason and purpose, and capable of imbuing us with the same. We believe that the world can and will intercede on our behalves; that it is capable of informing us of what we need to know or do. And when the world appears uncaring or unconcerned about what it is we want, we still tend to think that even this absence of response “is meant to be.” While the active types pursue what interests them, the passive types await the time when they will be given what they want or need. And when such things fail to transpire, many of us feel abandoned and alone. And yet, speaking only for myself, I can’t seem to let go of this faith, no matter how often it disappoints me.

And so I am left with having to face a crucial question: Should I accept the fact that I can’t change my attitude toward life and simply quit what has only amounted to “wishful thinking”? Should I accept the fact that I can do little or nothing to make such dreams or notions a reality? Well, if so, what is there left for me and my kind? Or might it just be possible that these two seemingly disparate notions–opposite points of view–really can, and should be combined? In other words, I need to ask myself how I might retain my faith in a purposeful universe while, at the same time, knowing that I cannot, and should not, rely on such faith alone; that I must, in other words, act in a way that accords with my own instincts, desires, interests, etc. What I am here questioning is whether or not, by awaiting guidance from nature, or “from up above,” I might in effect, be ignoring this very thing! For whose impulses or compulsions are these if not nature’s own? Are they mine? Well, in a sense they are, but only because they seem to be located within me. Only I know full well that such feelings and thoughts arose on their own accord, and were not originated by me. And so, what gives me the right to believe that what I am thinking, wanting, feeling at any given time, isn’t entirely nature’s doing? Can I really imagine it otherwise? Why do I feel the need to resist my nature’s own compulsions? Why, then, do I feel it necessary to discount such conscious elements as legitimate? Is it because they run counter to so many other compulsions within me? So is it confusion that inhibits action?

July 2, 1996

How can I ever have peace of mind when everything in my mind appears to be intertwined and overlapped, without definition or boundary? It’s as though I were one with these twisted contortions of mind; not at one with them–but the confusing elements themselves. And whenever I do manage to focus upon something, a thought or idea that appears to integrate and give purpose to such disparities, the unifying element never lasts. For whatever reason, the boundaries of my concepts begin to fuse, and in fusing, either disappear, break down, or head in so many different directions at once, that it is altogether futile to want to continue the pursuit. What manner of mind is this?

One thing I feel certain of is that there is a definite tendency within me to remain open to the world; that is, my passive stance appears to allow anything and everything into consciousness without imposing restrictions or exercising any form of pre-judgment. I seem to possess an underlying (inexpressible) faith that all such admissions are needed by me, and that they will eventually be sorted out and revealed to me through future intuitive insights. But, as I’ve indicated in previous writing, the attic appears to be getting fuller and fuller, the burden heavier and heavier, and I believe the confusion greater and greater. In any event, it has certainly inhibited action. And yet, I still can’t help but feel that whatever power my visions or insights contain, it is in direct proportion to the amount of confusion I am able to withstand on an on-going basis. Knowledge appears not only to be my major want or purpose in life, but also my reward for my willingness to pay this price. But it is a willingness which in many respects is unwanted by me, but in no case can be let go of. On the other hand, I sometimes sense that this purported “thirst for knowledge” is really bogus; that what I am really thirsting for is “personal integration”–that I simply long to feel whole and at one with nature. Knowledge, then, might only be perceived as a means to this end. Nevertheless, the dilemma persists since understanding does not appear to lead to wholeness, but rather away from it. On the contrary, the acceptance of ignorance seems closest to attaining personal integrity, completeness, or peace of mind. The less one knows, and the more one is able to accept life and his own condition within it, the closer to wholeness he becomes. In comparison, knowledge appears more like a temptress whose periodic piece-meal rewards are merely intended to draw one deeper and deeper into a fathomless void.

Only why would nature work this way?–seemingly opposed to herself? Why draw me further away from that which we apparently both are seeking?–penalizing me for wanting satisfaction? Or might it be the case that, from nature’s point of view, I am totally expendable–can be “used up” for whatever purpose nature has in mind? If so, then the price for knowledge is a price that is paid with the flesh; that whoever is drawn into this fathomless pit, must be prepared to expend themselves for some greater good. And yet, the price appears to be much higher than the gain. What good are powerful insights if, in addition to explaining large segments of the previously unknown, it also opens doors to still deeper unknowns? And if one such as this fails to take at least a portion of humanity with him, then one merely further isolates himself. Perhaps this might serve to explain why so many poets, philosophers and writers, have gone mad, or have driven themselves into an early grave through physical neglect? Were they martyrs for the rest of us?, or simply fools for having succumbed to fate? And yet we must wonder if they could in fact have resisted.

These writers had something tangible to say and said it, or at least tried to express what was on their minds. I, on the other hand, can’t manage to express my feelings and thoughts since they are more often not about the formulation of some concrete idea or notion, but more likely a negation of something professing to be the same. My gifts, if they could be called gifts, are negative in the sense that they seem bent on revealing what is not knowledge, rather than offering some semblance of it. My thinking is extremely critical not only of our claims to knowledge, but critical of our “postures” regarding it and one another as well. I appear to be more of an admonisher than constructionist. Thus, my quest for knowledge is not so much a thirsting for the same, but results from my refusal to accept as knowledge, all that dares to go by the name. It is a negative or reactionary attitude, in other words, a quest which I have neither wanted nor sought. And yet, I can’t simply rest content knowing that we are all bobbing about on a sea of ignorance; feigning belief and support of what many of us know is not the case. I feel compelled to reveal the hoax!–to correct the lies and misdeeds–to admonish the wrongdoers. It is not the case that I presume to have deeper insights than most, I do not. It is only that I feel myself alone in wanting to clarify the issue–reveal a truer sense of where we are at present. There is no shame in personal ignorance or in being limited. Indeed, I strongly believe that limitation is the life-blood of all knowledge; that knowledge could not take place without the same. Nevertheless, it seems as though no one wishes to admit to the fact that there is currently a lot of junk in our attics; junk which needs to be separated from what is valid and good. On the contrary, most of us prefer the comfort which derives from deluding ourselves. We are afraid to face the cold, hard realities for what they are; afraid to admit our limitations; that we are not, after all, above nature.

I keep trying to find an honest author who is willing to deal with methodology and subject matter in an honest fashion. But all I find are the same general omissions and displays of ignorance which most authors attempt to disguise by “academic” means. They offer a thesis and then go on to support it eclectically,–not by mean’s of personal analysis and insights, but by alluding to what other’s have said. Anthony Storr’s book Solitude: A Return to the Self was just such a book. His thesis was simply to deny that sound mental health must necessarily rest upon one’s having developed sound personal relationships; that one’s relationship with things, or with oneself could also serve in this regard. Nothing really profound, but apparently enough to warrant a 200 page book. In my estimation, this famous psychiatrist did no more than to “force” a book out of something which could have been explained and supported in a few paragraphs. But it did provide him with a vehicle for demonstrating the extent of his “scholarship.” In his 200 page book, he offered no less than 200 quotes or references, and, again, very few, if any, insights which might properly be called his own. Interesting reading for some, perhaps, but a waste of time for anyone who expected (judging from the book’s title) that the author would be offering a treatment of one’s relationship with oneself. The book proved to be nothing of the kind. It was a puffed-up answer to an interesting, though relatively unprofound, thesis. This does not mean that such “treatments” are of no value–only that they neither add anything to, nor subtract anything from, the great body of knowledge we profess ourselves to have. Descriptions, compilations, elaborations, and direct utilization of other peoples thoughts to serve one’s own ends, is one thing; making real contributions (be they negative or positive) is quite another. Again, my objection has nothing to do with the existence or value of the former, only when it tries to pass for the latter.

As I said, I keep trying in earnest to find an honest book written by an honest author, but, so far, to no avail. Even the great minds refrain from being open in this regard; failing to admit to personal or methodological limitations–that is, to the “indefiniteness” of the constructs, classifications, definitions, expressions, models, etc. they are trying in earnest to present. No, for the most part, this concern is ignored or side-stepped in favor of maintaining an optimistic delusion. I have read a number of Jung’s works, for example, and nowhere does he ever admit to being confused over his concepts, although he most certainly was. His thinking is in many ways confused, inconsistent, and overlapping; his concepts spring leaks, no matter how hard he tries to restrict them within definable boundaries. In fact, I would go so far as to say that Jung’s writing in many ways represents a rather dogmatic elaboration of his own intuitive insights–even while they appeared to be adhere to a particular model or structure already in mind. And yet, Jung was certainly an original thinker inasmuch as he dared to elaborate upon his own perceptions, as well as those belonging to others. And yet, for all of this, it remains next to impossible for us to determine what could rightly stand in for originality. For example, after reading Emerson’s essays (most of which were written prior to Jung’s birth), I couldn’t help but notice all sorts of “Jungian notions” contained therein. And yet, I never came across any mention of Emerson in Jung’s writing. But, perhaps, this is an essential characteristic of all knowledge; that we can never say for certain “from whence it derives.”

July 8-19, 1996

THE COURAGE TO BE

I tend to allow, or else am disposed to allow, disparate images to come into my mind at any given time. These, of course, interfere with my ability to focus upon particular thoughts or activities for very long, and so I find that I am unable to concentrate my energy upon a single goal at a time. Instead, I seem always to be split between competing influences which, of course, saps my energy. I am obviously “spread too thin” due to this inability or reluctance to limit myself to any degree. My constitution seems always to have been this way; that is, “wanting it all,” in spite of my knowing that I can’t have it this way. Since boyhood, my life to date has shown an apparent preference for hanging on to the broad and general, while trying to penetrate the particulars as well. This, of course, has led to my having to settle for a rather shallow scope of “possessions” in terms of knowledge, things, and relationships. And not only has this attitude forced me to forfeit in-depth, specific achievements, but it has also led to my taking a rather insincere, oftentimes “cavalier,” approach to life, which is anything but true. I am in fact very much disturbed by these consequences. I also sense that there is a kind of “cowardice” or “fear” underlying my attitude, something which is preventing me from being totally honest with myself and others; something which has certainly interfered with my seeking and attaining personal satisfaction. Whether this attitude has to do with a fear of rejection, my not wishing to hurt others, or an in-born passivity regarding nature, the result has been overwhelming confusion and, to a certain degree, despair.

Trying to understand, as well as withstand this apparent confusion, while still trying my best to meet personal responsibilities and obligations, has been the “problem of my life.” It is tantamount to trying to live two lives simultaneously–an inner and outer–without having to choose between them; that is, without having to emphasize one over the other. Not that I have never felt the need for the same–I most certainly have. It’s just that I seem stuck with an overriding compulsion to want to handle all such responsibilities. And it is precisely because of my failure to deal effectively with this situation, that I have committed numerous transgressions over the years–beginning with those against myself, and extending to others as well. And I have had to pay the price. For example, everything in my life appears “artificial” to one degree or another–not really mine. I can’t help feeling that neither my home, nor wife, nor children, nor possessions of any kind–not even myself–is really belonging to me, much less an integral part of me; that there is merely a scant veneer of “legitimacy” to any of it. I don’t fully understand why this is so, but I suspect that it has something to do with personal dishonesty and betrayal. Things are not real to me because they are out of sync; that is, were begun, accepted, taken, borrowed, etc., at inappropriate times, for inappropriate reasons, and have been supported by a perpetuating presence of inappropriate (dishonest or delusionary) behavior. Things are not real because “I” am not real!

But to what is this attitude owing–this personal deceit preventing me from “engaging life” in an honest and meaningful manner? This insincere, “feigned complacency,” preventing me from establishing real relationships based upon truth and honesty? Why, in other words, have I been unable to admit to these transgressions and short-comings,–recognize and accept what I really want out of life, and dare to pursue it? At this moment, I am reminded of still another episode which took place on October 27, 1992. It was one of my so-called “Autowriting sessions.” I had just sat down at my computer and begun to write, when a sense of despair suddenly overcame me. It took less than two sentences to remind me that this session would wind up like all the others preceding it; that is, tantalizing in many respects since I would undoubtedly be chasing after intuitions–but, ultimately, leaving me in confusion. And so I simply went with the compulsion to “let myself go,” and began typing whatever entered my mind.

We are so accustomed to thinking by means of concepts or words which attempt to label what we mean. Unfortunately, this we never can do… [letting myself go]

…nowhere is it possible to recompense what must be called earth. Hear me as I yell this to you: Nowhere is there any time for forbiddance; nowhere is there forgiveness to bear, time to be undone. Words are not becoming of you; they are lost art and of no consequence. Heaven bound are you in all your struggles. Be true to this quest and hear only what bade you to it. False prophets lie within you and also within me. I struggle as you and to no avail except for heaven’s promise to see God. Wherefore art you disenchanted? See this through and yours shall be a just reward. Let go of your conscience and deliver it unto me. Allow my strength to carry you across the threshold which rests beyond you. Release yourself from this burden you call living and I call nothing. Heaven bound are you and your kind; this I promise you. Rejoice at this and be not deterred from this voice. Together is our strength; and this is all.

Now whether I choose to believe that the above remarks came from some “inner voice” within me, or simply reflect my own subjective feelings at the time, what is important is the message and not so much the “identity” of the sender. After all, our conception of personal identity is anything but clear, dependent, of course, upon whatever one wishes to include or exclude in one’s formulation. In any case, the message not only reflected my feelings at the time, but also my desire for deliverance from these “conceptual chains” binding me. In other words, the message was one which I wanted very much to hear or say. It allowed me to give expression to various thoughts and feelings of mine concerning values, personal responsibility, integration, salvation, personal frustration, and the like. In other words, if I were to re-write or paraphrase this message to accord with my usual thought, I sincerely doubt that much would be changed. But why not give it a try.

It is not necessary or even possible to “pay back life,” or to make up for feelings of past wrongs committed. How can one regret, much less, “recompense” what had to have taken place given the prevailing circumstances. What has transpired has simply transpired, and absolutely nothing can be done to change it. Listen clearly and closely to what I have to say to you: There is no time to refrain from doing what you want or feel you must do; no dead corpses of guilt that you need to drag behind you throughout the remainder of your life; no time for regretting, changing, undoing, or making-up for past transgressions, or for imagined failures. Hear me! None of these things need to drag you down, nor do you need to apologize for any of it. It is all nature’s doing, and nature will continue to be nature, despite your protestations or wishing that things were different. Neither are words becoming “of” you. Think about what you said prior to my entering the picture: “We are so accustomed to thinking by means of concepts or words which attempt to label what we mean. Unfortunately, this we never can do…” You were right to say this, but wrong in thinking that you could simply proceed in spite of this truth. This is why I had to stop you. Your words, “when taken alone,” really are not becoming of you. In other words, no amount of writing will bring you any closer to what you are, or need to concerned about, than what your own present awareness can bring about. Words cannot “label” or “coral” meaning; nor can they correctly label a vision or feeling. Your own trials should have convinced you of this truth by now. In any case, I can tell you with absolute conviction that your want and struggle in life has been your quest for heaven–for personal integrity. This is the force driving you–no other. So recognize and remain true to this quest; and listen only to that which draws you to it. Be warned, however, that there are false prophets within you (other distractions or voices with different agenda’s), as well as within me. So you will need to concentrate on what you feel to be honest, true, and strongest in you; on what you know yourself to be. I too struggle to reach heaven and heaven’s promise to see God. You are not alone in this quest. So why be disenchanted? I tell you, if you can just see this thing through, you will have your just reward. Only you must first let go of this plaguing “conscience” of yours. It is not real–has no true foundation–is based upon your refusal to live. Only since you do not appear to have the strength or conviction to want to release yourself from this unnecessary burden, then allow me to carry it for you. Allow my strength to help you across this threshold which keeps you from yourself. For life is much more than this–much more than your perceived sense of “martyrdom” or “justice”–much more than detachment, confusion and loneliness–much more than what you or I can know. But this much I do know: Your proper flow is heaven-bound if you can just allow yourself to be. So rejoice in this thought, and don’t allow yourself to forget it–or me. Our strength and success depends upon our remaining together.”

Is it “conscience,” then, that prevents me from engaging life in an honest and meaningful manner? Is it conscience that prevents personal integration?–Conscience that makes me unwilling to let go of regrets, guilt, or feelings of shame?–Conscience that leads me to circumvent myself by choosing “reason” over “awareness” as the most appropriate means to self-understanding? Is it conscience, in other words, that makes me feel obligated to withstand the trials and tribulations of fate–my passiveness? I’m not certain… What I do know, however, is that I do feel these compulsions and obligations, and fully recognize that such thoughts are touching upon something deep within my personality. But I can’t be certain that “conscience” alone is sufficient to explain it. What then? What else is preventing me from simply being who I am; forcing me to passively accept whatever “happens” to befall me? What form of entrapment is this that both places me in harms way, and compels me to accept, rather than fight, the consequences? I am just now sensing, (with the help of a remembrance which just flashed into mind), that it might have something to do with my not wanting to cause or witness another’s pain; that I would do anything to avoid the same, even if it means that I must take the pain upon myself. I sense that this has something to do with my on-going fight against God or nature; that I would do anything I can to interfere with this part of creation. For while I can readily acknowledge the existence of pain and evil in this world, I cannot bring myself to accept it–God or no God!

And yet, why do I suppose that my passive stance–this attitude of self-defiance against God or nature–has in any way lessened the amount of pain in the world? On the contrary, isn’t it the fact that, no matter how “honorable” I might believe my past actions to have been; no matter how often I feel that I am either protecting another from pain, or else am taking their pain upon myself, isn’t it really the case that my actions have made matters worse–not merely for them, but for myself as well? Yes, it seems that everyone around me has had to suffer the effects of my cowardice, artificiality, confusion and delusion–from my general imbalance or unadapted nature, in other words. It’s as though the lesson to be learned is simply this: One cannot, and should not, try to second-guess nature or God, nor should one try to reason to, rule over, or interfere with either. One’s only obligation is to accept life as it is, which means, in effect, as it comes to each and every one of us. It appears that it is this transgression, more than any other, that has been my major problem in life. Each time that I defiantly deny myself, I appear to be adding, unnecessarily, to the amount of pain in the world. The message becomes even clearer: In order to be responsible to ourselves, we must not only allow nature to work through us, but we should never be so arrogant or presumptuous as to believe that “we” can either understand, or ultimately triumph over her. True, we appear to have the power of resistance, but only for a time–only for a time. And not only should we expect to pay the price of our defections throughout the duration (a mere buffer allowed us at best), but we should know that we risk paying an even higher price should our “day of reckoning” be staved off beyond our own limits. At that point, we will know only too well that we have placed our mental and emotional health in final jeopardy.

This thinking reminds me of Ralph Waldo Emerson, especially what he had to say in his essay “Self-Reliance,” my favorite. However, because I feel that all of what Emerson said has relevance to my thinking and needs–every sentence worthy of being quoted in my estimation–it is exceedingly difficult for me to choose from among them. Nevertheless, the following are some of my favorite passages.

A man should learn to detect and watch that gleam of light which flashes across his mind from within, more than the lustre of the firmament of bards and sages.

No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature. Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this; the only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong what is against it.

A man is relieved and gay when he has put his heart into his work and done his best; but what he has said or done otherwise shall give him no peace.

Trust thyself; every heart vibrates to that iron string. Accept the place the Divine Providence has found for you, the society of your contemporaries, the connection of events.

Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind. Absolve you to yourself, and you shall have the suffrage of the world…. Your genuine action will explain itself, and will explain your other genuine actions. Your conformity explains nothing.

In that deep force [Intuition], the last fact behind which analysis cannot go, all things find their common origin…. We lie in the lap of immense intelligence, which makes us receivers of its truth and organs of its activity.

When the good is near you, when you have life in yourself, it is not by any known or accustomed way; you shall not discern the footprints of any other; you shall not see the face of man; you shall not hear any name;–the way, the thought, the good, shall be wholly strange and new. It shall exclude example and experience.

Insist on yourself; never imitate. Your own gift you can present every moment with the cumulative force of a whole life’s cultivation;… That which each can do best, none but his Maker can teach him. No man yet knows what it is, nor can, till that person has exhibited it.

He who knows that power is inborn, that he is weak because he has looked for good out of him and elsewhere, and so perceiving, throws himself unhesitatingly on his thought, instantly rights himself, stands in the erect position, commands his limbs, works miracles.

Nothing can bring your peace but yourself. Nothing can bring you peace but the triumph of principles.

Can there be any doubt that Emerson is speaking to me, and others like me? Aren’t I weak because I have looked for good–for what is right for me–outside myself? Aren’t I guilty of having ignored that gleam of light–my own feelings and intuitions–speaking to me from within? Have I not failed to perceive and accept “my place” in the world? Have I not failed to accept the world itself? Surely I have been disingenuous, if not so much a conformist or imitator. Only how do I begin to correct my situation? Assuming that all such information is well-grounded in fact, what can I do about it at present? How, in other words, do I go about learning to trust myself; realize that power is inborn; manage to insist upon myself; act genuinely; and, above all else, learn to recognize when, and if, the good–or life itself–is near or in me?

This points to a major criticism which is often directed against the so-called “self-help” books which have nearly flooded the market. Most of what these books have to say is fine and good–in general–but their “generality” is just the problem. For, if we are to believe Emerson, there is no room for the same in life. All of what we are and need to know is particularly suited to us–already within and given ourselves! We require no sages–no psychologists–no spiritual leaders for guidance. Our individual constitutions will make themselves known through feeling, emotion, intuition, personal preferences and the like. We lack for nothing.

“This one fact the world hates, that the soul becomes; for that forever degrades the past, turns all riches to poverty, all reputation to a shame, confounds the saint with the rogue, shoves Jesus and Judas equally aside.”

The “soul becomes,” says Emerson, and this means that none but ourselves can know what is rightly ours, or what Nature or God intends for us. And yet, so many of us continue to feel confused, abandoned and alone. Why is this? Why, in particular, am I “disposed” to disavow my natural inclinations? Why do I continue to refuse to accept myself or the world on its terms? And, since I know that I have to “fight” to maintain my passivity, doesn’t this fact indicate that there is something “unnatural” or “abnormal” about such an attitude? Only now I feel that I have entered a philosophical muddle; that I am no longer on firm ground. At this point, any number of issues can come to the fore: Isn’t my attitude “my attitude,” whether it be pro or against nature? How can we label it “right” or “wrong”? Does it take an “act of will” to accept nature on its own terms? Does it take an “act of will” either to resist or allow? Then again, why should I feel guilt or shame for past transgressions if I truly believe that my life could not have been different–that the controls were never in my hands to begin with? So does my shame result from my feeling of helplessness in opposing nature? Is this what I’m apologizing for? Or might my guilt stem from my believing otherwise–that I really could have picked up the controls–the gauntlet–and, at least, effected something? But, if so, why the refusal? Or is all such thinking merely a self-delusionary tactic designed to save me from having to face my own cowardice–my own fear of failure, or of discovering that I am simply not worth what I want to believe I’m worth? Have I refused life because I lack the confidence to believe that I could ever make something of it? Is all of this talk concerning “free will,” “determination” and “integration” simply a cover-up? And, while I remain in a state of confusion at the moment, once again, I do sense that I am touching upon something very close to home–something which I feel I need to “fight” to reach or allow. Then too, wouldn’t I have been a better person had I openly fought against nature–against fate–rather than simply “disallow her” and bear the consequences? After all, I haven’t been the only one affected by this attitude. And what has my refusal gained for me?–this refusal to seek personal satisfaction while being unable to do anything more than minimally meet personal responsibilities and obligations? Nothing! Absolutely nothing. And yet I persist.

When I began this writing session, I blamed my confusion (my being overwhelmed with life) primarily on my “passive nature”; that the reasons were owing to the fact that I have failed to act appropriately in the past, and that things have simply built up beyond what I can presently handle; that my failure to make choices has led to a forced acceptance of anything and everything which happens to come my way. Then there came the notion that my personal “conscience” might also be holding me back; that as a result of so many dishonest betrayals in the past, their accumulated effects have not only caused confusion in the present, but also carry a sense of profound guilt for having caused others to suffer. Of course, all such consequences are precisely what I cannot bring myself to ignore. Adding to this guilt is the present knowledge that, had I acted honestly in the first place; that is, told the truth and abided by the dictates of my own mind–I wouldn’t be in the jam I am in today. I would not be confused over competing influences since they would have been appropriately handled as they arose, and, thus, would not have caused others pain. Since my expressions and actions would have resulted from my “true character,” and not from a betrayal of the same, I would not have become fragmented. My energy would not be sapped from having to withstand all of the same. No, this mis-matched, hodge-podge of competing influences which is literally wearing me down, simply would not have arisen. Is it any wonder why I feel my life to be “out of sync, artificial, or illegitimate”?–I have not been genuine!

This is a very tough lesson to have to face right now, and it comes at a time when I feel that my wife and children need me most. Only, I must realize that a good part of their problem has to do with me! or, at least, with that “ghost of myself” which they feel is me. Only, again, how will I reach “the real me” so as to be able to express who I really am; so as to be able to right past wrongs? Or is this a mistake? Should I simply stop all such pretensions (as my Autowriting suggests) and, without guilt or regret, simply turn the page and go on from here? But how can I avoid or ignore the consequences of my past actions while doing so? Six years ago, back in March of 1990, I wrote a fifty stanza poem which really represented more of a “mini-breakdown,” than an actual attempt to write poetry. For some reason, I called it “Journey’s End,” although it proved only to be a beginning. I was reaching for a concise means for expressing my thoughts, feelings and frustrations up to that time. I wanted a tight summarization expressing, once and for all, the very essence of what I was feeling. I was fed up at the time–had simply had enough!–since this followed almost five years of previous reflection and writing. And it seems to have worked, at least up to a point. When I reached the end, having successfully expressed all of the cognitive and emotional frustration I was feeling, I felt that I was truly standing naked before fate, readying to meet myself for the first time; that I had adequately expressed my anguish, willingly stripped away my delusions and defenses, and was finally going to find the courage to face myself. The last part went as follows:

X

Anxiety due to fear.
Fear stemming from the unknown.
What will happen to me when I come face-to-face with truth?
What if that truth belittles me? What of my self-esteem?

There’s an anxious sort of emptiness now that only I remain,
Without supporting crutches–without my holy chains.
For now that I’m unraveled, my true self bared to see,
I’m frightened more than ever–simply frightened to be me.

A puzzling thing this freedom, this submission to nakedness,
This test of strength that dares receive the dress of truthfulness.
And should I prove unready, meagerly tempered for the test,
Will I be allowed to refuse what comes and return to my empty nest?

Deceptive though comforting delusion is gaining entry to my mind,
I know this as safe confusion, or a clinging to that which blinds.
But for now I must gather-up courage, to withstand myself impure,
No matter how daunting my spectacle, I must stand ready to persevere…

Nearly fifty years have passed till now, my stretch of loneliness,
Nearly fifty years of trial, nearly fifty years unblessed.
But it’s not for me that I come to you, this one last time for sure,
But to plead for all the painful rest before I shut the door.

Not great poetry, to be sure, but, as I said, it did seem to serve my purpose. Only judging from all that I’ve written since then, it’s not difficult to see that I have yet to reach “my journey’s end”; that I have yet to find the courage necessary to face myself–to be. It goes without saying, these last six years have taught me that it is extremely difficult to accomplish what I had set out to do. And yet, I can’t help but feel that these words really were a gift from my inner self; that they in fact succeeded in expressing something of my essence, my dilemma, and my personal quest for integrity. But, as was said earlier, words by themselves, no matter how concise or emotion-ladened they might be, cannot take us all the way home. If this were the case, I would have been there already. I would simply have followed my own advice, or that of Emerson, and would, at very least, have been well along my way. As it is, however, I have yet to “pick up the gauntlet”–else, not.

And yet, judging from everything that has been said thus far, Why, we might ask, does there need to be a journey at all? Since everything we are, and need, is already contained within us, why not simply let it be? A good question, to be sure, but one which cannot be answered easily; and this despite the fact that in every field of knowledge (if we might digress for a moment) there are answers which, although expressed in different terms, amount to the very same thing. For example, religious leaders might point to our defection, or moving away from God, that stands in the way of integration. They would have us pray, read the Bible, or listen to God or the Holy Spirit within. Psychologists would remind us of our innate characteristics, or the fact that we are born with native dispositions or personality preferences, and that we need to pay closer attention to what resides within us, as well as without. Indeed, a very famous psychologist, Carl Jung, devoted an entire book to the subject of “Psychological Types,” and in his final chapter, offered a description of the types from a therapeutic angle. In his treatment, he showed how various personalities could stray from their respective constitutions into various forms of neuroses; that their constitutions, in fact, played a strong part in deciding the character of their respective neuroses. Again, the major point being: pay close attention to who and what you are and need, and don’t stray too far. For we are warned that exaggerations, or deviations too far from the norm, will take their toll–and that you can count on this being true. Child psychologists might point to the effects of parental influences leading one to accept things counter to themselves; sociologists, to the effects of indoctrination or other pressures causing us to conform to societal values and norms, peer pressure, and the like. And more practical, realistic types, such as politicians “from the right,” might simply admonish us to stick to traditional values and obey the law. Thus, we can see that there is an “inside” as well as “outside” perspective to all of this. Those who believe that the primary source of personal identity will be found in the individual, or the subjective, will take the former side, while those who value society, or external circumstances, will take the latter. And so the question comes down to this: Will we find our “true selves” by looking without or within? Put another way, if we could strip away all influences which come from without (via sensation and experience), will there be anything remaining of our personalities?

Of course, these questions are nonsensical in reality. Since they begin with dualism (that is, treating sensation and experience as though it comprised parts), they end with the same. In any regard, our digression has once again reached a so-called “philosophical dilemma.” And if we were to pursue this line of “conceptual thinking,” replete with its abstractions, formulations of definitions, employment of analytical methods, and, above all, its basic tendency to begin with dualism, I can promise you that we will wind up at a dead end! I have been there and back, hundreds of times, and can tell you with the greatest conviction, that such “thinking,” alone, cannot be sustained. Invariably, one will find that he is either out on a limb, having pursued too many options, ideas or intuitive insights (which are bound to spring up at every cross-roads), or else will find–if he is honest enough to admit it!–that he has been forced to “formulate” his meanings or definitions by “hacking-off” absolutely relevant material. If I have learned anything at all from my years of reflection, it is that we are all variously “one-sided,” “half-baked” creatures, who have no other choice but to live with ignorance and illusion, although we seem willing to fight against facing this truth to the bitter end. Thus, we are “self-delusionary” creatures as well–and we ask for it!

Again, I do not wish to get side-tracked by such issues as these. What is most important to me at present is that I keep my thoughts and feelings focused upon myself, even if my head continues to be filled with examples and ideas all begging pursuit. No, I am convinced that now is not the time to embark upon such excursions–that I am still too mired in the consequences of my past behavior to warrant any deviation at this time. And yet, I do feel that I am much closer to the truth about myself. In any case, the most important questions and issues remain: Have I truly taken a passive approach to life? If so, why have I not sought those things which I most wanted, and avoided those things which I did not? Why have I not been honest and truthful regarding my feelings, wants, and inclinations? And does my failure in these regards account for my feeling that everything surrounding me is in some way illegitimate, out of sync, or inappropriate? Are these, then, the real reasons why I feel twisted, confused, and seemingly disconnected from life? Again, why haven’t I exhibited even a modicum of “ego strength”; something which could have demanded, fought for, and achieved at least something out of life? Why have I, instead, resigned myself to a form of meekness, vulnerability, or outright obscurity in the face of God or nature? Why not challenge both? Again, am I not worth it?

This question of “worth” is perplexing; it pulls at something in me. It obviously has something to do with my failure to reveal myself for what I am, but why should I hesitate at all?–I’ve got nothing to hide. By every outer standard of comparison, I know that my heart, if not my head, is at least in the right place; that I feel it to my core that I am a good person, and this, despite my acknowledged weaknesses. If I am doing wrong: feigning, taking some advantage, whatever the case might be, I, at least, know I am doing wrong simply because my heart really is in the right place. I do have a conscience. But what about this conscience? Is it an external or internal phenomenon? No, this is not the right question! As I said above, we must not talk in terms of opposites–dualism–since such divisions are precisely the sorts of things that most interfere with personal integration. We must constantly remind ourselves that there are no separations in nature, and therefore no separations pertaining to ourselves. If we want the whole truth, we must be prepared to take it in with our “whole being,” and not with one or another of our “abstracted parts.” We must never begin to understand something with concepts or analysis; that is, unless concepts and analysis is what we are attempting to understand. Rather, we must begin (and in most cases, end) with perception or awareness. This, of course, includes sensation, intuition, feeling, or any other component of our awareness that it is possible to identify. But it is important to realize that no such abstractions are necessary. It is not an intellectual process. It is not something which only “advantaged” types can reach. The point is, we are not looking for “components” within ourselves, but need only to remain open to whatever is present. Neither do we need to “analyze” such occurrences–examine, define, compare, or classify them, etc. This has its place, to be sure, but it is a place far removed from its source. And it is here where I wish to remain.

And yet, even while I feel it necessary to allow more than words into my awareness, if I am ever to get at the real truth about myself, it may appear that I have arrived at this very conclusion by means of the same. But such was not the case. Words do carry numerous associations with them; strings of words, numerous more permutations of the same. But if one is really cognizant of what is going on when thinking, it will not be too difficult to recognize the very crucial “guiding influence” played by intuition and feeling. And not only are these guiding influences–but, themselves, form our actual awareness. All this is only to state the obvious: that we are “receivers,” first and foremost, and “creators” only in the sense that we are able to “take” and make use of the same and, of course, accept the credit as well. No, if we wish to get at the real truth about ourselves, we would do best to keep words in their proper place.

Well, then, what about these notions of conscience, self-worth, or even “nihilistic tendencies” at work within me? Where is the “intuition” that will set me straight–that will make sense of it all? My imagination has, at various times, provided me with images of some of the pangs associated with my ethnicity, my relationship to my father, longings to find love, peace and contentment; but do such images point to the source of my feelings or conscience in this regard? Do they explain it? Do they form an awareness within me that such is the case? No, not exactly. Enlightenment comes painstakingly slow and incremental, but it does come. And until it comes, I can do little more than remain in a holding pattern, frustrating though this is. But isn’t there something that can be done to quicken the process? Perhaps, more writing, word associations, imagining, remembering, reflecting? Shouldn’t I review and concentrate on the facts which have been shown me thus far? Perhaps, since this does seem to work for me. But then, perhaps nothing can push the issue. For, as I said before, we need to remind ourselves over and over again that we are merely “receivers.” On the other hand, this does not mean that we are only receivers, for there does seem to be evidence for believing that our respective “attitudes” can make a difference; that we are not, strictly speaking, “determined” lock, stock and barrel, but that the controls, although they too are given us, can be used for good or ill–or not at all. Now I am not saying that we should hold to the preposterous view of thinking we alone are “in charge.” On the contrary, there is much more to us than what we know. Of course it appears as though our minds (or brains) respond to “our” requests, hopes, desires, etc.; that we can bend the world to our wills. But, like I said, this only appears like the almighty “Ego” is in control. Closer reflection will show that our conscious selves are extremely inferior to all that surrounds it–all that remains unconscious or unknown. Sure, we can and often do treat the brain as an impersonal “organ,” a mere mechanism which we feel is at our disposal; something from which we can abstract “ourselves” when it suits our purpose. We can go on pretending that all of this is logically consistent with our beliefs. But, of course, such thinking literally shatters rationality–makes a total mockery of it.

When all is said and done, perhaps the only thing that we can do is to heed Emerson’s advice; that is, by patiently learning to detect and trust in our own intuitions–our own constitutions. By learning to be genuine by telling the truth always, and making certain that our hearts are truly into whatever it is we are doing–we will learn how to come into ourselves. Will this correct my situation of its own accord? Will it allow me to discover, accept, and express the goodness which I know is within me?–that I was born to realize?–that which will finally bring my peace? I hope so. I sincerely hope so.

July 22, 1996

Upon waking this morning and thinking about some of what I was reading yesterday concerning early Near-Eastern civilizations, I was suddenly struck by a notion (or intuitive insight) which might appear altogether obvious, but whose ramifications run far beyond what we would typically make of it. It occurred to me that the roots of the divisions between the known and unknown, sacred and secular, priest and chieftain–whose interplay we find running throughout all of history–must have already existed in nature, even before the types themselves. I am suggesting that, not only do such things precede our knowledge of them, but also their effects which we like to call our own. We are “awed,” “frightened,” and “compelled” to knowledge which, once it becomes familiar to us, is simply taken to be our own–that is, usurped from nature. Insofar as the unknown is concerned, we continue in the same vein as before. Thus, there will always be two spheres which will require our attention–the known and unknown–all that Caesar claims is his, and all that remains in the hands of nature.” Of course, neither our language nor our thinking allows us to see that priest and chieftain already exists side-by-side in nature, but it is no less true on this account.

In the same way as it has been said that the existence of a thousand (future) oak trees lay already in a single acorn, so too does it make sense to say that all events (past and future) have already, and continue, to reside in nature. In other words, we already have in place numerous concepts which give meaning to the same: “cause and effect,” “unity and parts,” “inner and outer relationships,” “simple to complex,” etc. These are the “instruments” by which we tackle the yet unknown.

July 26, 1996

A few moments ago, I sat down to try to ascertain what comprises myself or my personal concerns, and under Personal Relations went on to list Family, Friends, Former Clients, Society, Nature or God, and Self. Only as I stared at this list, I began to see that, in terms of priority, the list should be reversed; that is, in terms of the amount of attention, time and consideration paid to each, the order should be Self, Nature or God, Society, Former Clients, Friends, and Family last of all. As I said, this order would be valid in terms of the amount of “consideration” paid to each, but, hopefully, this is a different thing from concern. For I have always felt strong concern for the welfare of my wife and children, as well as for extended family members, even though I have done little or nothing to demonstrate it. Only now I feel terrible about this realized fact. How is it that my family might very well be my first concern, but last to receive my consideration? I would like to believe that I have essentially put all of the other categories in the service of family; that all of my thinking, preoccupation with self, nature, and others outside of family, has all been for their ultimate benefit, but is it true? Have my preoccupations been for their benefit, or is this notion “feigned,” “imagined,” or “conscience-motivated”?

The truth is, I have forestalled–essentially forfeited–my relationship with immediate family members; that is, have sacrificed such feeling and ties in the hope that I would soon discover a more appropriate basis for the same. My idealism, in other words, has turned its back on the realities of nature, the realities of what constitutes those personalities surrounding myself, in favor of seeking something better. As such, I have been preoccupied with looking on the negative side of human nature, ascertaining all that is wrong and in need of improvement, without also acknowledging what appears right or proper. This critical outlook has not only clouded my vision, but has caused me a great deal of personal anguish as well.

But what can I do about it? How can I bring myself to tolerate what I feel is wrong with the human species and world, while, at the same time, rest content with what I feel is right? The fact is, I can find nothing in the human condition which I consider “proper” or “right” without qualification; that is, able to stand alone without also having a negative counterpart. Nothing, in other words, is “purely” right or wrong, true or false, proper or improper. So how can I rest content with only half a perspective? Or put better, perhaps, how can I feel good when tending to both the positive and negative aspects of my whole perspective? Shouldn’t I feel as bad about the bad as I feel good about the good? Or is it the case that one’s feelings cannot be “split” or “pluralized” in this way; that, properly speaking, it is the total experience that is felt, however it is felt. Only why, then, is it possible for two individuals to see a situation in exactly the same way (that is, agreeing to both its negative and positive aspects), and yet feel or react to it in completely opposite ways? Is it attitude, disposition, values, beliefs–what?

Yes, what is it in particular that causes me to forfeit sound personal relations and a healthier outlook on life, in favor, apparently, of concentrating on the more negative aspects of personality, life, or nature? Is it something that I am doing to myself, or something which simply cannot be otherwise? Are these the deep facts of “personality” or “nature” which cannot be otherwise–fate? Or should we cling to the view that everything has a cause or a reason, and that we have both the “freedom” and “power” necessary to initiate and understand change? In other words, do we need to accept ourselves and our circumstances because there is no other choice in fact, or are we able to alter or effect what we want our circumstances and selves to be?

SELF-ANALYSIS: FINDING MY PLACE

1. PERSONAL PROPENSITIES & CHARACTERISTICS
2. Seeking Personal & Social Integration & Satisfaction

I have a strong desire and distinct longing for love, intimacy, self-expression, respect, valued work, and the opportunity to make a positive contribution to others. Unfortunately, all of these things seem to blend together and I cannot be sure as to which one, if any, really forms the “essence” of what I want most or need. Saying this raises a crucial issue for me since I find it impossible to believe that there is not a fundamental order or “priority of relevance” at work within myself and nature which, theoretically at least, is capable of being discovered. While it seems clear that nature is in fact an integrated whole, I cannot let go of the notion that she is also a definite system of “ordered parts” which, I suppose, is saying the same thing. Only the “deck is already stacked,” so to speak, meaning that our distinctions have already made separation (and, therefore, re-integration) a reality. Nonetheless, it seems obvious to me that some of our distinctions (perceptions, abstractions, definable “things,” etc.) have more relevance to some things than others. Of course, the whole matter rests with ourselves as the focal point; that is, with our abstractions in relation to ourselves and other things, though always from a personal perspective. But this does not make the notion of relevancy or priority in nature any less true. It remains true in nature because our actions and perspective make it true. Yes, this also means that our truths are relative, and this, of course, entails that the truth of any situation would change from an altered perspective or differing set of observations or concepts. Needless to say, achieving integration with nature and others can be a sticky business, one which is fraught with illusion and mistaken notions which, in my opinion, must be understood before they can be mastered or tamed. And it would also bear noting that, as of now, the sheer acceptance of the way things are is still a foreign notion to me.

1. Emotions/Feelings

I dream, hope, despair, allow my imagination to wander, oftentimes soaring to impossible, utterly fantastic heights; squander my thinking, allow intuition to rule over me, refrain from imposing structure upon my thinking, refrain from following any one direction, and generally avoid the so-called “common” or “routine” elements of life and personal relations. As a result of this, I am oftentimes fatigued, worn out, lost, trapped, behind, alone, critical, embittered, sad, foolish, embarrassed, angry, vulnerable, hopeless and afraid. On the other hand, there are times when I feel hopeful, optimistic and confident regarding my talents and future possibilities. In fact, at this very moment, I feel that I might finally prove myself capable of expressing myself as I truly am and need to be.

1. Personal Dishonesty

Everything in my life appears “artificial” to one degree or another–not really mine. I can’t help but feel that neither my home, nor wife, nor children, nor possessions of any kind–not even myself–really “belongs” to me; that there is merely a scant veneer of legitimacy to any of it. It is, of course, a reminder to me of the effects my dishonesty has had upon everyone and everything surrounding me; a reminder that I have not been real–have not dared to honestly express who I am–nor have I demonstrated it.

1. Wish to serve self and society

I tend always to think about myself and society from foundational or theoretical perspectives; always searching for a means to personal self-satisfaction and harmony in my life, while, at the same time, hoping that my findings might serve all human kind. For this reason, I am interested in any and all issues relating to learning, happiness and the general welfare. My overriding goal seems to be one of wanting to “tame” myself, others, and world through understanding, but such “understanding” comes at a very high price. I am tantalized by incremental insights which always seem to take me close to the big picture–close to truth–but never quite reaching it.

1. Improving Our Lot

I hope to be able to apply personal intuition, feeling and thought (new ideas, practices, structures, models, concepts and understanding) to the realities and needs of today. Toward this end, I find that I am always criticizing and/or trying to improve upon existing ideas, practices, structures, etc., wherever I see these to be maligned, or in need of correction or improvement. I am driven toward essences and simplification, always trying to uncover essential truths where these appear to be hidden or deliberately disguised. I strive toward accepting the facts for what they are–as nature presents them!

1. Accepting Nature

My wish is to always try to remain in the realm of truth and reality, rather than in lies and illusions, no matter how “appropriate” these latter contexts might appear to be at times. My bottom-line faith is that no evil is too evil, to at least try to face, and that, so long as evil exists in nature, it is at least “appropriate” within this context. The point being, that we must move forward from this point, rather than from some illusory, though palatable, basis which will undoubtedly, prove more harmful to us in the long run.

1. Freeing Myself And Others From Bondage

I wish to discover the means to eradicate personal dissatisfaction through the appropriate satisfaction of needs and interests. My wish is not merely to aid others through understanding, or by helping to carry their burdens, but to try to resolve any and all issues which stand in the way of eliminating the same. I have an underlying faith, although it is oftentimes hidden even from myself, that all things can be explained or understood on one level or another, in one way or another; that unhappiness or dissatisfaction derives essentially from our inability–or lack of freedom–simply to be ourselves. Whether such restraints are due to ignorance, physical or mental bondage, conceptual confusion, or slavery of any kind, it is all the same to me–a question of integration or fragmentation; a sense of belonging or alienation; a matter of happiness or despair.

1. Desire to understand self, world, and others through knowledge

I suspect that this is grounded in my dissatisfaction with the way things are–both within my personal life as well as within the world at large. But it is difficult, if not impossible, to separate the two because they are so intertwined, or, perhaps, might even be of a single substance simply abstracted into differing conceptual identities. Be that as it may, fragmentation, however it is shaped, always translates into alienation, loneliness, and eventual despair. I want to understand the workings of this process, and through understanding, help to lessen, if not eradicate it altogether.

1. Self Versus Nature

I suspect that my conscience is grounded in my being human first and foremost, and also in my having to acknowledge the superiority of nature; that, despite our obvious bias favoring the human condition over any other, we have no choice but to acknowledge nature’s superiority over ourselves, that is, unless we wish to deal in illusion. Acceptance, however, is quite another matter, and my tendency seems always to fight against nature, God, or humanity, for the sheer sake of humanity. As of yet, I cannot bring myself to accept things as they are, or as they present themselves. I feel that we can and should try to make a difference, even while I feel myself to be totally in the hands of fate. Reconciling these oppositional tendencies has, more than anything else, been my greatest personal struggle to date.

1. PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS
2. Generalist
   I tend to be interested in the broad spectrum of things; a “big picture” type who wishes to discover the largest “integrating factors” holding the greatest promise for understanding and applicability.
3. Introverted
   I try always to hold the world at bay while attempting to consolidate, simplify, or improve upon seemingly disparate things by seeking “essences” or commonalties, or more integrated means for explaining things, or performing some activity.
4. Feelings, Emotions, Values
   __1. Empathizing/Sympathetic
   __2. Counseling
   __3. Self-Expressive
5. Cognitive/Conceptual
   __1. Intuitive
   __2. Analytical
   __3. Abstracting
   __4. Classifying/systematizing
   __5. Synthesizing/consolidating
6. Artistic
   I enjoy creation more than duplication or repetition–improvement over assistance–and always with an eye to doing it myself and in my own way (though oftentimes wastefully “reinventing the wheel”). I appreciate imaginative and moving expression in the arts as well as in nature.
7. Feeling, Compassion, Sensitivity
   I am, and also love and appreciate, feeling, compassion, and sensitivity for itself.
8. Critical, Condescending, Insensitive
   Feel a strong compulsion to strike out against arrogant behavior wherever I find it; that is, against an “attitude” or “air” of certainty without constraining influences which I feel are always warranted. My behavior sometimes borders on crudity in such cases, sometimes intended and sometimes not. Very often, my strong desire to show an alternative view, or to point out errors in thinking, puts people on the defensive and, as a result of this, opens me up to personal attacks as well. But attacking someone is never my purpose, at least not my ultimate purpose. My greater purpose–my true end–is never a personal one, but one which seeks to attack an attitude or position which I feel is unwarranted. My frustration is always owing to the fact that I cannot adequately correct the situation before me; that while I might be able to see the error of someone’s ways, I am most often at a loss for knowing how to explain it. This is because I am trying to express the “fringes of intuitions,” at a point visible enough to suggest importance or relevance, but not clear enough to adequately express. More than once, I have felt the sting of someone’s retort because they misinterpreted my emotional frustration as a visible attack upon their person. And since this was never my purpose, I seem to be left with no other choice but to withstand the onslaught. I guess that I must appear to others as some kind of “crudity” who is himself in need of correction. What a waste.

III. THINGS WHICH I FEEL I WOULD LIKE TO DO

1. Find a means to earning a living by undertaking those things that matter most to me; or simply discovering the means to self-satisfaction or contentment, no matter what I might do for a living.

   B. Continue to make headway toward personal integration and self-understanding (because I regard this as the most viable means to reaching my goal of contentment) and be able to assist others in doing the same.

   C. Be able to study and become involved in activities which I feel I would like to engage: painting, sculpture, ballroom dancing, writing, photography and computer programming

   D. Go on experiential trips, outings in the great outdoors

   E. Incorporate some of my ideas into a novel, essays, plays or newsletter

   F. Play a significant role in helping individuals and societies find peace and happiness

2. PERSONAL LIMITATIONS/DIFFICULTIES
3. I tend to allow, or am disposed to allow, disparate images to come into mind at any given time. These interfere with my ability to focus upon a particular thought or activity, as well as interfere with my ability to apply myself in any one direction. I find myself having to split my energy among competing influences which generally translates to a deprivation of the amount of effort needed to complete any such activities.
4. I am obviously “spread too thin,” not wanting to limit myself to any degree. My constitution either “wants it all” or naturally is disposed in this way, although I remain fully aware of the fact that I can’t have it this way. My life to date shows quite clearly that I have been forced to settle for rather shallow “possessions” in terms of knowledge, things, and relationships, rather than realize in-depth achievement in these regards. On the other hand, my intuitions and ideas seem to be anything but “shallow.” Perhaps the only shallowness to be found in this has to do with my failure to put these gifts to proper use.
5. A major difficulty of mine has been my seemingly “cavalier” attitude regarding my need to be honest with myself and others. Underlying such insincerity is a sort of “cowardice” or “fear” that prevents me from seeking personal satisfaction. Whether my reluctance to act on my own behalf stems from a fear of not being understood, fear of rejection, my not wishing to hurt others by correcting previous mistakes, or simply the result of an in-born passivity which I feel in regards to nature, the result has been overwhelming confusion and, most certainly, procrastination.
6. SENTIMENTS, CHARACTER, ATTRIBUTES, SPECIAL INTERESTS, APPRECIATION, INCLINATIONS, ETC.
7. Emotional sensitivities and preoccupations

   1. My continual longing for personal integrity, harmony or balance within myself, has not been satisfied, nor do I appear to be making progress in this regard.

   ___a. Confusion regarding personal feelings, present and future direction, remains with me.

   ___b. Confusion regarding past and present behavior, or in coming up with an accurate assessment of who I am. My tendency is to want to evaluate the same; either to condemn or justify who I am, or what I’ve been, and be able to move on. But I am unable to accomplish this.

   ___c. Contents of my mind seem to have little to do with conscious desires. Such contents appear randomly irrelevant or unconcerned from conscious goals and needs. As of late, positive or wishful thinking never fails to “turn into” some form of negative consequence. Who is the spoiler?–and why? Don’t know where else to turn for answers since both outside and inside worlds are either incapable or insufficient to answer my call.

   ___d. I am obviously not “centered.” Thus, I am without an anchor or foundation which could serve as a “pattern”; that is, provide me with some semblance of what is to come; some notion of purpose and direction which could serve as a means for evaluating my actions or myself. Without this central perspective in place, all things appear fragmented and disconnected from myself.

   ___e. I don’t believe that I have ever been centered in this respect, only the passing of years is making my past and present situation appear to be all the more wasteful or desperate.

   2. I have been preoccupied with finding a career (a “vocation,” really), earning a living, making a marriage work, living up to the expectation of others, or wanting to engage something that will win praise, recognition and respect for me.

   ___a. My tendency to date has been to remain on the conservative side through all this; that is, constrained by what is generally sanctioned or expected by others.

   ___b. As a result, my career choices were never true choices–reaching for what I wanted–but simply resulted from my accepting whatever happened to avail itself at a given time. At present, I am trying to identify career choices more in line with personal propensities, but it is proving to be difficult. My tendency is always to lean in pragmatically “safer” directions, rather than aim for the bulls-eye, or allow myself to be “guided” toward some presently unknown end.

   ___c. Only how can I make a career out of an on-going preoccupation with a process of “self-realization”? How can I do this when the process has not been smooth, sequential, or in any way solid in regards to progress? What can I offer others other than deeper analysis, more abstractions, and attendant confusion? We are already too steeped in the same. I want to lessen confusion in the world–not add to it.

   3. Preoccupied with trying to understand others and world in order to envision better means to fostering greater personal and social harmony.

   ___a. This thinking is intertwined with my own self-preoccupations. I want to resolve difficulties for myself and others because I want the world to be a better place for myself and others. And I have always felt that the best means to accomplishing this would be through “intellectual understanding.” But is this so? Or, rather, is this truly my way? or does it amount to a mistaken over-preoccupation with my thinking side?

   ___b. Is there presently (and has there been all along) a need for me to allow my “feeling” side in; that is, allow it to blend with my “thinking” side, thereby uniting “clarification of thought” to my “humanistic feelings”? Although this might prove insufficient for lessening my own burden, might it prove instrumental in lessening the burdens of others? And, of course, my doing this successfully might just prove to be all that I ever wanted in the first place; that is, respect from others and the means to making real contributions for the benefit of humanity.

   ___c. If the above is true, then perhaps I ought to think less about accumulating more and more insights for myself, and more about putting what I already know to “proper” use. Perhaps my thinking has gotten so penetratingly specific that I am failing to see the broad picture. Perhaps other individuals would see immediate concentrations, directions, or a feasible vocation for me, were I to allow them to know me.

8. Artistic sentiments

   1. I feel a definite kinship to all of the so-called knowledge disciplines in one respect or another, but the humanities and arts, followed by the social sciences, seem to rank highest. (Ironically, I have been furthest removed from the former.) Art, music, theatre, movies, literature, design, construction, or creative and beautifying enterprises and processes in general, are definitely the strongest compulsions working within me, whether they allude to ideas or things. “Betterment” (of our condition) is a key word which best describes what I feel. I want to “move” people–“delight” them, “awaken” them, “teach” them, “lift” them–and, of course, I want the same for myself.

   ___a. Should I look to the humanities and the arts for a proper vehicle for my thoughts and feeling? I sense that the answer is definitely yes, but, of course, the “social” ramifications stemming from such endeavors are also extremely compelling. But, even now, “pragmatic realities” are creeping into my mind–spoiling these notions even as I begin to entertain them. How will I deal with these?

   _____(1) Writing a book seems an obvious outlet for me, but I feel that something within me is interfering with this notion.

   ________(a) Perhaps it’s the feeling that I will not have the freedom to write such a book due to personal needs, and yet I am currently in a position to actually undertake such a project for a three to four month period. But the prospect of failure and its consequences would be looming over my head. I wouldn’t truly be free to concentrate on my book.

   ________(b) Should I combine this enterprise with a part-time income-earning endeavor which could serve as a needed diversion from too great a concentration on the book, or a helpful alternative which might enhance my efforts?

   ______(2) Writing editorial essays, newspaper columns, magazine articles, or a newsletter of my own, all seem likely candidates for presenting and satisfying my talents and needs, but they too seem somewhat “removed.” Only why do my “feelings” refuse to corroborate such prospects? Should I take this as a warning that something is still not right–not yet accounted for in my thinking? Or do such feelings merely represent a lack of confidence in my ability to achieve in this regard? There is a tendency to think that feelings can be split, or else “attached” to differing aspects of one’s personality; that I am able to feel confident and not confident about the very same things. This is confusing, to say the least, but it seems likely that such feelings simply occur at different times. It seems likely that my feelings about such matters result from a general pool of feeling which, in my case, does in fact seem to be lacking in confidence. This feeling, representing my cautious, oftentimes frightened self, is trying to pull itself out of the quagmire and into a more confident light. I know that my intuitive insights and intellectual (or conceptual) capabilities are in fact strong. But why is my “knowing” this not sufficient?

9. So my feelings appear to be more representative of “myself” than have been my rational faculties or their results. The blockage which is taking place within me, then,–is me. Or to risk the contradiction: “I must overcome myself!” No, I don’t believe that there are two of me–it’s just a way of emphasizing the fact that “I,” and not one or more contents of mind, must carry the burden of overcoming obstacles. This, then, is the fatiguing presence which persists in holding me down–sometimes confident, sometimes not. And, yes, these oppositional tendencies are often concerned about the very same thing.
10. It seems that I am left with the realization that I must find the means to overcome my lack of confidence or fear of risking something new–my fear of consequences, in other words. Well, as they say, “The proof is in the pudding,” or, in my case, will be seen in the quality of the pudding. So why not begin to test the waters? And if I still have doubts as to which waters need to be tested, again, the proof will be in the results of having tried the same. So, rather than await the arrival of certainty regarding vocational alternatives (which has always been my practice), why not simply take a step in a direction which I “feel” is right for me? Why not “pragmatically” accept the best option from among the many contenders?
11. My reluctance, of course, has to do with my inability to act on a “partial” basis. I seem adamantly predisposed to the belief that we are all “integral” to begin with; that such a state of certainty or completeness is in fact attainable; is there to be discovered or uncovered. I guess that there is still another presupposition underlying this one, and that is, that we have somehow lost touch with this unity of presence, but just barely; that it remains just under the surface, just barely removed from our notice. And, it goes without saying, that since it’s just “barely out of reach,” as is evidenced by the continuing stream of intuitive, strongly compelling, insights coming into consciousness, it is something which no one would want to walk away from. Like the song says… “So close, yet, so far away.”
12. Short of cutting-off intuition and thinking altogether, I feel that I need to settle upon potential applications for the same; that I must put my thinking in the service of feeling and begin to satisfy personal needs. But where should I begin?
13. MAJOR SUBJECT AREAS OF INTEREST
14. Communications
    __1. Personal Journal Writing
    __2. Intuitive Processes
    __3. Abstract/Theoretical Writing
    __4. Social Critic/Essayist
    __5. Program Development
    __6. Teaching/Training
15. Philosophy
    __1. Metaphysics (Nature of World and Mind)
    ____a. Nature of our relationship to or within world
    ______(1) World and all abstracted “identities” within it must be viewed as a whole
    ______(2) Relativity of all abstractions: concepts, perceptions, definitions, etc.
    _________(a) Inner-outer perspectives
    _________(b) Parts and wholes
    ______(3) Effects of personal or physical limitations upon what we can know
    _________(a) Positive aspects of limitation
    _________(b) Negative aspects an illusion, misconception, or owing to the ambiguity of language
    ____b. Nature of the world itself

    __2. Epistemology (Knowledge, Certainty, Applications)
    _____a. Language and thought
    ______(1) Concept formation, meaning and use
    ________(a) Mental or intuitive
    ________(b) Word formations and applications
    ______(2) Relationship between language and activity
    _____b. Mental operations
    ______(1) Raw perception
    ______(2) Apperception
    ______(3) Sources and formation of contents
    ______(4) Judgment
    __3. Ethics (Formation & Application of Values)

16. Personal Psychology
    __1. Personality Types/Behavior
    ____a. Jungian Psychology
    __2. Nature & Workings of Mental Processes
    ____a. Conscious Self or Ego
    ______(1) Personal Identity
    ______(2) Content thresholds
    ______(3) Reflexiveness or nature of “self-awareness”
    ______(4) Illusions or mistaken assumptions
    ____b. Unconscious Self
    ______(1) Reservoir or spontaneous producer of contents
    ______(2) Sphere of knowledge
    ______(3) Composite whole
    __3. Psychological Assessments
    __4. Non-Clinical Personality Problems/Personal Growth Issues/Counseling
    __5. Dream Analysis (Theory & Practice)
17. Educational & Social Concerns
    __1. Social & Political Problems & Issues
    __2. Educational problems and issues related to learning and curriculum
18. Cultural Anthropology & Ancient History
    __1. Characteristics of primitive man and primitive civilizations
    __2. Ethnic groupings and migrations
    __3. Cultural and historical foundations
    __4. Comparative cultural characteristics

October 9, 1996

A LONGING TOO LONG UNANSWERED

Every Christmas season, after Vic Blood had set out his annual display of sleds in front of his furniture store, I couldn’t help standing in front of them, dreaming that maybe–just maybe–I might possibly own one that year. For some reason, I generally stood at a careful distance from them, I guess so as not to let anyone know of my longing. But longing it certainly was. First and foremost was the fresh smell of varnish that attracted me to them. Then my attention fell upon the absolute clearness of the shiny, rich wood used to make them, and finally to the sheer perfection of the workmanship that went into them. These were beautiful, quality pieces. How I loved seeing their bright red rudders and vividly portrayed logo’s painted down each of their center boards. Without fail, the prospect of owning one of these was almost too much to bear. And yet, I felt that there was something shameful about my longing–something which I dared not reveal.

The sleds were always left leaning against the store front, arranged by size, right up to Christmas Day. I guess that they extended from tiny three-footers right up to what appears (to me now) to have been six-footers! Which would I choose if I could?–The large five-footer that would extend beyond the reach of my feet even while laying upon it? Or should I choose a smaller, more compact version, which I would have little trouble dragging behind me, carrying up a hill, or running with before slamming it and myself down against the road surface for a long slide.

Roads were not salted in the late forties and early fifties when I was a boy. This meant that virtually every sidewalk and street presented a sledable surface after a good snow. And it was a snow that remained white and hard-packed on the road surfaces, for the most part, since salt was not used then to melt it. Instead, trucks would come by every now and then to spread ashes, but this was generally not a deterrent to good sledding. How I wish I could see hard-packed snow on streets again, and not the grimy slush on our roads today, not to mention their banks. Speaking of snow banks. They were the best! And the higher they were piled, the better our winter wonderland appeared to us. Children of today know nothing about night sledding under street lights. Sometimes, after street-sledding for a long time, my friend Danny and I would just lay on our backs, staring up at the night sky, while wondering and talking about all of the things that boys did, at least back then.

Of course, my sled wasn’t really mine, but one belonging to one or the other of my older brothers. Since there were sleds available to me, I guess that there was no need for me to have my own, or so my father must have considered, longing or no. Only the longing never ceased. No, each and every year I would walk past Vic Blood’s display of sleds, each time with a renewed hope that maybe–just maybe–this year would be different. But, of course it never was.

December 24, 1996

The meaning of a word is not dependent upon its definition, nor did it originate from the same. No, meaning is derived from various contexts of usages and is made more precise by these same means and not from or through further definition.

Outside of contexts of usage such as “naming objects” and later “referring to them,” no noun has an object or thing for its meaning. This would be far too restrictive a sense for the word “meaning” itself. For example, the mere utterance of the word “stone” could convey any number of things within appropriate contexts, and outside of an appropriate context, virtually anything or nothing at all. Thus the word “stone” does not mean what it refers to, but its various referents (still loosely defined) are nonetheless important aspects of its various uses. At very least, when one hears a noun spoken, one expects or anticipates its referent, however it may be envisioned. This, of course, assumes that one is already familiar with at least some of the word’s usages.

UNPUBLISHED THOUGHTS
1997-1998

January 15, 1997

PERSONAL COMPULSIONS

I feel compelled to pursue ideas and insights both emanating from and concerning my own personal experience. Such ideas and insights generally point to real or potential applications for the benefit of myself, first and foremost, but also for society. Only, when I try to fit them into the larger framework of life (to corroborate or verify their overall truth or authenticity), I always find myself confronted by numerous other avenues of thought, all of which are equally compelling and beckoning pursuit. And, should I choose to pursue any one of them, I will, invariably, be led to a stalemate in thought. Instead of hoped for “truth” or “certainty” regarding the facts or insights at hand, I find that they cannot withstand the onslaught of opposing (though equally relevant) intuitions and options which always crop up, and always point in different directions. For these reasons, I am further compelled to try to understand both the characteristics and processes of the thoughts and ideas themselves: why they seem to have parameters and limitations on the one hand, and are almost impossible to contain on the other. Why they tend toward polarization, both in terms of meaning as well as application, and so on. Again, I am not interested in understanding such matters for their own sake, but always for the benefit of myself and society. I would like to believe that personal and social harmony is “my ultimate end.”

Why do I continue to concentrate on personal experience, rather than search for answers without? Partly because it seems my nature to do so; to want to “do it myself” or “my way.” But, quite honestly, it is also because such matters as these seem to go unnoticed in the outer world. People simply cling to their own perspectives without suspicion; without wondering, for example, how it is possible for other eminently held, though opposing, viewpoints to arise in the first place. As it is, people seem content to flow with whichever concepts happen to be governing them–whichever beliefs they cling to–and this despite their having to face inconsistencies and failures regarding them from time to time. Of course the point I wish to make is that they usually do not “face” them as such, but rather accept them, inconsistent or not. They do so in part because such matters as these are beyond their comprehension or power to correct the situation, but also because they need to maintain a certain “wholeness,” whether delusionary or not! Indeed, our very fate would seem to dictate that we all must proceed in life without certainty regarding our actions or what we profess to know. And yet, some of us are compelled to continue to strive for the same, even when we suspect that it very well might be an impossible quest. Intuitively, we suspect that “striving to understand the unknowable,” in and of itself, will prove to have merit and benefit; that in a way which we cannot comprehend as yet, takes us closer, or further along the continuum of experience, toward that unknowable end which we seek. Somehow we are able to proceed in life with a base of knowledge that cannot even stand up to our own scrutiny. It almost goes without saying that this, in and of itself, should make us suspect of the idea that such knowledge is stemming from ourselves (that we “created” it as such), but, of course, it doesn’t. Again, we seem content to live with false belief and inconsistency, and will fight to retain our so-called “preeminence in nature,” often despite our knowing the real truth. Such matters as these interest me greatly. I want to understand such attitudes and compulsions, and, especially, how they might be effecting the human condition. I want to understand how it is possible for us to believe we are at the pinnacle of life while being almost totally ignorant of the nature and processes making up, and governing, our very own selves. I want, in other words, to understand how this blatant lie arose, and how it seems to be sustained.

CONCEPTUAL CONFUSION

One of the most difficult problems confronting us, then, has to do with the disparities existing between ideas, and especially, as I maintain, with those appearing as polar opposites. Although we don’t understand it, there seems to be something inherent in the processes governing concept formation itself that leads to such polarization; as though this were its very purpose; that it serves to define the parameters limiting the concepts themselves. As we well know, many polar concepts present us with dilemmas: `mind versus matter,’ `freedom versus fate or determination,’ `supply economics versus demand,’ `nature versus nurture,’ etc. Such problems as these always stalemate us; we cannot resolve the issue, despite the fact that there are individuals who cling to one position over the other due to their perspective. But clinging to a given perspective out of sheer boldness is never sufficient, nor can it ever hold up to logical scrutiny. Because of this, the majority of us remain confused or stalemated regarding such matters, although we are not always so willing to admit it. For example, when the outcome of a national election hovers around the 50 percentile (which is almost always the case), perhaps favoring one candidate over the other by a 5-10% margin, we call it a “landslide”! Never do we contemplate the real possibility that, perhaps, results such as these really indicate that only 5-10% of voters ever held a position; that is, really knew which candidate they wanted. As for the rest of us, well, we did little more than “flip a coin” when told that our time was up. In my opinion, society is never “split” over candidates or parties in such cases–it is more likely stalemated and confused. And yet our concepts would belie this fact. The same is true in every other area of society or academic field. Let’s look in the area of psychology, particularly that portion which deals with personality assessments and personal growth issues.

No one doubts that relationships formed or stemming from personal experience (both internal and external occurrences, compulsions, events, etc.) affect and, at least in part, go on to shape personal characteristics, attitude, and even our general outlook on life. But we remain unsure as to whether the foundation (the initial impetus giving rise to, or shaping our behavior) rests with outer world contingencies or are inborn. If inborn, then we begin life with a kind of template or mental makeup (much like our respective physical makeup) which determines both the character, as well as limitations, of our perceptions and actions. Why is this question important? Because the answer to it will determine, in part, if characteristics are limited or unchangeable, or to what extent they might be circumstantial and, therefore, changeable. Thus, if an introverted “type” is introverted by nature, then understanding and accepting the general characteristics, possibilities, and limitations of such an attitude, would make life a lot easier, if for no other reason than that it narrows possibilities and expectations–one’s own as well as those belonging to others. On the other hand, if introverted characteristics result from environment–sheer circumstance–then such attitudes are potentially capable of being altered by either changing or reversing the circumstances which caused it.

Now one might claim that none of the above makes any real difference to our lives; that, whether or not we are of this disposition or that, confronted by this set of circumstances or some others, we are going to behave as we feel prone to behave, for whatever reasons. Our knowing “why” we behave in such ways is really besides the point. While this position seems to have meritat first sight, it overlooks the fact that such things as values, knowledge and belief, often shape or determine how we will approach or react to a given situation. If we believe in fate, for example, or take an attitude of “what will be will be,” then we will probably be very accepting or tolerant of whatever “happens” to cross our paths. But if we didn’t have an understanding of this concept or belief to begin with, it is highly improbable that we could still “act” as though we did. The point is, knowledge and belief has a potency that must not be overlooked. Indeed, I’ve often wondered whether it’s a curse or blessing.

Now one solution to this problem might be to simply accept and follow the middle road; that is, accept the truth of both positions, if for no other reason than that they seem equally compelling or non-compelling. Why not trust in nature? Since concepts apparently do develop in this way, and since, upon close examination, we see that they are never really mutually exclusive (as they appear to be on the surface), then why not take the bull by both its horns? For it is possible, and I believe probable, that individual differences, as well as similarities, are in fact owing to both sides of this equation; that we do in fact have in-born, so-called “mental,” characteristics or dispositions which we bring into life, and that such characteristics are also affected, and, in part, shaped, by outer contingencies, circumstances, and events. How a given set of circumstances affects a given individual will depend, in part, upon that individual’s innate disposition. And it is equally true that how a given individual affects a given situation or set of circumstances will depend, again in part, upon the circumstances themselves, whatever they might be. As Jung noted, two individuals, subject to identical circumstances, may develop in entirely different ways, even if they happen to be identical twins! Yes, environment most certainly has an effect upon shaping our lives, but, then, something outside of environmental concerns alone must account for the above.

For these reasons, I believe it prudent that each of us try to understand that which typifies, as well as distinguishes, our individual characteristics, attitudes, or personality type, whenever it is possible to do so, that is. Not only will such knowledge positively affect personal attitudes regarding ourselves, but it can also play a major role in deciding our vocation itself. And when vocation is considered in the larger sense of the word; that is, “finding meaning and understanding one’s purpose in life,” we can see that this is no small matter. Finding meaning, direction and satisfaction is what each of us esteems and strives for.

Unfortunately, the very fact that we are shaped by both nurture and nature, so to speak, makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain which characteristics are owing to which. If we accept the hypothesis that both factors are in play, then to understand how they relate to one another, we must be capable of “conceptually” separating the two. For there seems to be ample evidence to suggest that we often act contrary to our “natural inclinations,” and, if that weren’t bad enough, we are often not even aware of it. In other words, it is possible for us to believe that we are (by our own subjective standards) what in fact we are not (as might be judged by objective standards). This means that psychometrics (or personality assessment instruments in general) have the added burden of having somehow to get behind or around the responder’s own subjective impressions. For example, a strong dominant or assertive type might correctly see him or herself as being assertive, or, if in denial (for whatever reason), as something completely opposite. In the same manner, a non-assertive individual, who happens to be under pressure, or at the end of his or her rope, can confuse the need for “forced assertiveness” for the real thing–that is, “natural.” Here again, it is possible that one can behave in a certain way (even for a life time) and still be said to be behaving unnaturally. Why can we make this claim? Because the person is capable of admitting, or exhibits in numerous ways, other behaviors, feelings or beliefs that run counter to the one in question. Something is out of place; there is a sense of tension, reluctance, guilt, shame, or any number of other emotions that inform us that such behavior is not wanted or amiss. And so we must look at the fabric, rather than a single thread, if we are to get at the truth of a given situation. And that fabric will be seen to comprise both inner and outer contingencies–both subjective and objective appraisals–both disposition and behavior.

Now it would seem from the discussion so far that all we need to do to get closer to the truth is to get closer to our feelings and emotional states. In the same way as concepts such as “objectivity” and “subjectivity” (or others such as “the unconscious” or “innate dispositions”) make it possible for us to conceive of a person who can believe that they are something which they are not, notions regarding feelings and emotions provide us with criteria or basis for judging between the two. We sense and believe that emotions and feelings simply are what they are; that they could not be otherwise. We might confuse them, try to deny them, or even try to disguise them, but such feelings as shame, guilt, or conscience appear to be adamant. Yes, the fact that an emotion cannot be denied may be true, but any truth worthy of the name will have to have been derived from our recognizing it as such–from some form of identification, in other words. It does little good to say, for example, “I feel that I’m doing something wrong, but, then again, I’m really not sure.” A statement such as this suggests that one is confused; that is, without a clear-cut idea of just what his feeling is supposed to represent. This makes it abundantly clear that the true meaning or correct identification of one’s own feelings and emotions are not always apparent–not even to oneself–and, therefore, cannot always be relied on. Yes, but because we might sometimes be confused regarding feelings and emotions, it does not follow that we are always confused–that we are never clear. Thus, it does appear that we do have a valid means–though not an infallible one–for judging whether or not our behavior accords with such things as natural disposition, values and beliefs. “But how do we know whether a given feeling is owing to a natural disposition or to something learned?” No such issue arises. When emotions and feelings are clear-cut (whatever their source may happen to be), there is nothing in question. At such times as these, we know already whether or not we are consistent, or in conformance, with our general character and beliefs. No one needs apprise us of this; that is, unless something is out of place, inconsistent, or obvious from some other standpoint.

Unfortunately, this fact also points to a problem or criticism which can rightly be directed at personal assessment instruments. And that is, such instruments can only measure (with a strong degree of accuracy) that which the responder already knows. Thus, the assessment can serve to corroborate what is already known, or else present the respondent with new configurations of information formulated from the same. “But what of those who are unable to answer with any degree of certitude?” Their results will unquestionably be inaccurate.? And should this same assessment instrument be “expanded” (as most are these days) to include all sorts of further information based upon the initial findings, those who lacked any sense of certitude at the onset, will only find that they are deeper into confusion.

January 23, 1997

Searching for Purpose

What do I know about life?

Related to what?

Related to individuals and groups, societies and nations; to questions involving personal struggle, social, national and international problems. What do I know related to such problems? Next to nothing. I am trying to focus my life. Why? In order to achieve something, as well as try to meet outer world contingencies.

But how can one expect to focus upon an entire life, as though one could simply uncover the essence of the same?

I’m not certain, but it seems that this is what I have tried to do throughout my life–search for my center.

You appear to be in search of purpose, meaning and direction in life, but are you really searching or simply waiting for such to be given you? You seem willing to try to pursue a particular path, for a while, only to abandon the attempt for fear that it may prove too difficult, or that you might fail because of your ignorance, or that it will not prove satisfying because it’s not really what you want. This shows that you are not really sure of your talents, neither about what you know nor what you are capable of. If you are going to apply what you know to some facet of life–in the outer world–you are going to have to be judged by the same. Either your talents will be considered important and of value to one application or another, or they will not. Either your credentials will pass for what you want them to, or they will not. Yes, you can try to circumvent such things, write a book that will “shake the world,” for example, and remind everyone in no uncertain terms just who you are and what fools they’ve been for not recognizing your talents in the first place. Isn’t this where you are at present? Stuck between having to find an income and wanting to write your book? Wanting to earn an income from a position that is keeping with your overall interests, only believing that you will really not qualify for the same?

Yes. knowledge, experience and certifications seem to be the criteria by which a person is judged today. Intelligence, capability and potential, are all but ignored, or else presumed by the former. The “storyteller” is valued over the “discoverer,” the “storage of facts and the ability to relate them” over the ability to “conceive of new possibilities and approaches to the resolution of problems.” Of course all of these are important, but, unless the creater-type creates, the former will have nothing to convey. Why are the creators treated so badly?

Because the world is mostly interested in applications–not in possibilities or mere potential. Benefits accrue to us only when information is useful; only when a theoretical formulation, for example, has an application. If a teacher is a discover; that is, is more interested in discovering facts for himself than in relating those of others, then, to many, he is not really a teacher. At most, he is able to teach by example. But, then, it will only be his example, and not those of the “great minds” to which we bend. The point is, curriculum comprises “the already known” and has little or nothing to do with the processes of learning, discovery, or creating. Yes, we claim that we are interested in such processes, but, in fact, we do little more than pay lip service to the same. Nevertheless, these are the facts of the situation, and like all such situations and circumstances confronting you, you cannot simply “mow over them” or avoid them without suffering the consequences. For the fact is, you are very much interested in the same and wish to be heard; but you are on the outside looking in. Worse, you know that, given the current situations for what they are, you don’t fit–perhaps, cannot fit. So what are you to do?

I don’t know what I’m going to do. Proceed to fake who I am, what I know, what I’m about? Take a job beneath myself and interests in order to go on? Suffer the humiliation of it all?–I don’t know. This is where I am at present–where I’ve been for most of my life.

Faking it doesn’t work, as you know. It amounts to presenting yourself for something less than what you are–less than what you know. It is like putting your second, rather than first, foot forward; or as though you were presenting a lie, which in truth, you are. Why put yourself through such humiliation? It would be better, and far more useful to your purpose, to have your true self rejected for what you are or stand for, than to have an irrelevant false self presented and rejected based upon a mediocre presentation, mistrust, or your general failure to convince someone that you are who you say you are. Stop playing at life! Stop lying to yourself and to others!

Yes, but whenever I do reveal myself for who I am, such as I did just recently with a career service in San Diego, I never hear back. I think that I scare them off with my theoretical thinking; with my challenges to the status quo; with my apparent interest in approaching or doing things in a manner which is not customary practice. People don’t want to deal with things they do not understand; with possibilities and potentials. Again, they want certainties, whether or not they suspect that they might just be delusionary. What works has value because it works; because it supplies an income, for example, and not because it is correct or appropriate. People don’t want their worlds upset unless it promises to have a positive impact upon whatever it is they regard as positive. Not everyone is a truth-seeker, or in search of personal integrity–most are just plain survivors. How am I to approach such persons when they are unapproachable and prefer to remain that way, at least, as far as my type is concerned? How do I present myself when I know beforehand that I am unacceptable?

Unacceptable to whom? Under which circumstances? Had you shown; that is, demonstrated, how your theoretical considerations could aid in the development of the career service mentioned; had you made it a point to work out, or at least suggest, some real and potentially beneficial applications to the business, you would have improved your chances considerably. But is this really what you want? Yes, career services benefit people and oftentimes utilize real counseling and assessment efforts, but are such concerns as these really at your core? Is there nothing other than this that you would rather be doing? Is there nothing which would prove closer to what you really stand for, or are about? Think about this carefully. Better yet, try to experience the answer through intuition and feeling.

I see myself writing in beautiful surroundings. I have a wonderful companion with me and many friends from all walks of life. Sometimes I am alone with my thoughts, sitting on my patio and enjoying the sunshine; sometimes I am looking out at the rain and feeling my loneliness; sometimes I am traveling and lecturing and working with others on projects of mutual interests. My ideas are appreciated and valued by others. They are applied in useful ways and are proving to be very beneficial to individuals and society alike. In fact, they are noticed by nations and international relations have been positively affected by the same. This is what I “believe” that I want and need most in life: people and things worthy of appreciation; applications worthy of being pursued. But I’ve known all this. I’ve written down similar thoughts time and time again. What does knowing this matter if I remain stalemated?

But why are you stalemated? What have you actually done in pursuit of this dream? Have you seriously tried to apply your thoughts? Have you even tried to order them as yet? Have you contacted other people or organizations with like interests? So your ideas are uncustomary, or even uncertain; so you are on highly theoretical ground, in the realms of theoretical philosophy, psychology, social and educational problems and concerns. What have you done about it? To be sure, you have joined several clubs to date, none of which proved satisfying. And why not? Because you did not present yourself or your ideas in an acceptable manner but, instead, wielded them like weapons over the heads of all those present. Rather than try to explain your ideas and differences, you used your knowledge to attack their own; thus causing them humiliation very often without their understanding why. Of course, you and I know why–you were venting a lifetime of frustration over the fact that your ideas, characteristics, etc. have pretty much been ignored–that you have been ignored!

Yes, I can admit to much of this, but it’s not so callous as you make it. I sympathize with those who are suffering; am truly frustrated over things which none of us knows. I am sincere when I say that I wish to help others in their struggles, as well as myself in mine. It’s my tact that you are confusing with my intentions. Admittedly, my tact is terrible. People never understand my perspective or approach to such matters because it, too, is indirect and perhaps too subtle to be understood by anyone but myself. And even I sometimes have to think about why I’ve taken a certain tact knowing full well that it would turn against me or result in bad consequences for myself. Throughout my life, I have said and done things which were directly opposite to what my situation required. I did so simply because I felt it was the honest thing to do, or because I wanted to demonstrate, in no uncertain terms, that I was above reproach. Of course, the people I was dealing with never understood the subtleties behind my remarks, or my true reasons for making them. They only knew what they were hearing and I, of course, never bothered to explain. I suspect that I felt that an explanation would detract from the sheer “nobility” of my original standpoint. Yes, I admit that I am somewhat embittered over my past, and that I often challenge people at inappropriate times and in inappropriate ways, but I am not vindictive against people–only their ideas and practices which I find to be ineffective, plainly wrong, or wrongly esteemed.

You are not being altogether honest. Yes, it is true that you are primarily concerned with ideas, but don’t try to tell me that you are never disturbed by people, and especially by those who believe themselves in possession of “knowledge” which you know is tenuous at best. You want to rage against such dishonesty; reveal their ignorance and arrogance for what it is. If you are humbled by the complexities of life, and thereby forced to admit to the same, where do they get off “pretending” otherwise? Even the great minds have been guilty of this, and when they are, you resent them as well.

I don’t deny that I hold these feelings against certain attitudes. I do in fact deplore arrogant standpoints when I know that all such attitudes rest upon flimsy foundations; that they are in fact without a foundation. I don’t deny that I was also embittered by these same attitudes and practices wherever I found them in life–and especially throughout my school years. Yes, I felt a certain bitterness when my understandings or misunderstandings where neither understood nor acknowledged by teachers. More accurately, I was hurt. Their frame of reference and, perhaps, their personalities as well, seemed always to be practical, factual, and “straight-forward.” Intuitive perceiving types such as myself ran counter to the system. Different perceptions or ways of looking at or understanding things simply were not permitted. The system could not include individuality or exceptions. It did not permit alternatives to anything. Yes, I am embittered by it all. And, since I can see that very little has changed over the years, I am even more frustrated now than I was then.

Well, your strong feelings in this regard certainly point to a definite application for your thinking. Surely, you would gain a great deal of satisfaction if your ideas were to change such circumstances for the betterment of others. Educational systems and practices, curriculum, formats, teacher-student relationships and responsibilities, etc. are all matters which appear to concern you at the core. But then, you’ve known. Why haven’t you done anything about it? You might have made a difference as a teacher or as a curriculum designer, had you gone on for a Doctorate in Education.

Yes, and I may have made a difference had I gone on for a Ph.D. in Philosophy or some other interdisciplinary field. Admittedly, higher education is much more conducive to my characteristics than I found secondary education to be, but I found that even this amount of structure proved too confining for my taste. Nevertheless, it might be a good option for me right now. But why? Why should I need to have a doctorate degree as some form of qualification or sanction for my ideas? Why should I have to go through a program in order to prove myself? Why can’t I demonstrate it through writing?

Well, have you tried? Have you sought out those professional journals that deal with issues of this kind? Have you submitted your own writing for publication? Have you contacted professionals in the field, other theorist such as yourself? No, you haven’t. Have you submitted articles to educational magazines, or to other periodicals which might have an interest in new ideas? No, you haven’t. And what about organizations? What about auditing graduate classes? What about attending lectures?

All of this sounds great, but I’ve had to contend with earning an income, or, more accurately, with the fact that I wasn’t earning an income. This pretty much stopped me in my tracks. Amidst such worries as these, including the facts of my married life, I have had to squeeze in fragments of thinking and writing over the years. I admit that it proved to be a tremendous burden and was very wasteful and repetitive. My writing harps on the same themes, over and over again, and I still have not as yet applied my thinking to anything outside itself. It is only now that my life has been simplified to some extent, although earning a living is still first and foremost on my mind. And, because of my age, and the fact that I have been frustrated for so many years (for having to do what I didn’t want to do), I have no desire to repeat the same. I seem adamant in my refusal to seek a job that I know I desperately need, but know I would not enjoy. I am stalemated between having to return to the same unsatisfying practices of the past, and daring to move forward toward that which I know I want, but feel inadequate or unsuitable to secure. The question amounts to this: How can I pursue my intellectual or theoretical interests while being paid in some way for the same?

You are not the first or the only one to find yourself in such a position. Thoreau made pencils to support his writing interest, and many other famous writers were forced to do likewise. You want the financial freedom to be able to write without having to worry about your physical survival. Well, if you can convince a publishing company that you are a “great” potential–and I mean “great”–you might get your wish. But to do this entails that you know already what it is you have to offer, and, of course, are able to make it understood. Are your thoughts in such form? Have you ordered them, classified them, determined where and how they fit in with existing knowledge? Have you at least outlined your book? No? Then it’s unlikely that you will be able to secure this kind of freedom, at least from this source. On the other hand, you might depend upon a family member–your brother Joe, for example–to provide you with food and shelter while you organize your thoughts. In theory, this would provide you with the freedom you are looking for. But, as you know, there will be other concerns that might interfere with the process: living in Kansas, for example, living with your brother, accommodations, etc. Short of having to rely upon someone else for support, you will simply have to work. But this does not mean that your work needs to be far afield of your interests. After all, just as applications often arise out of theory, so too can theoretical concerns arise out of a given application. Not only this, but it is sometimes possible to turn such considerations into real practices, programs, etc. within the organization itself. The point is, you do not always have to think outside of everything. Sometimes the best avenue for thoughts is already to be in the surroundings which you would like your thought to affect. Besides, under such circumstances, your thought will have a ready-made “focus” for it. This is a hard combination to beat, even if you are inclined to believe otherwise. You just might find that such applications as these can fuel your intuitive imagination even more than isolation.

I can’t deny the truth of these remarks. Yes, my first preference would be to work in an environment that concerns me, or would prove conducive to my interests. But what? I am not credentialed to teach in a public school, although I could consider a private one. But aren’t I going to run into the same difficulties that I outlined earlier? Aren’t I going to have to fake my real interests to some degree or another? Don’t I know already that I disagree with the approaches and curriculum as it is? How do I remain enthusiastic about working in such environments when I know I beforehand that I will dread it?

Hold on now! These remarks are almost totally undeserved. Not everything in education is as pitiful as you are trying to make it. Besides, how do you even know what’s going on? You haven’t been inside a classroom for at least ten years, and surely everything you saw at that time wasn’t as disastrous as you seem to want to make it. This vindictiveness is not going to help you. You are pre-judging what you do not know is fact. There are good teachers and bad; those who might very well be tending to the concerns you have. Your present attitude is based upon your past experience and the fact that you have not forgiven education for what it might have done to you. But is even this view accurate? What about the effects of your home life? Are you so sure that this did not affect your attitude regarding school? Or, again, perhaps you are looking for an excuse to account for your inability to comprehend what was going on in the classroom. Perhaps you were so engrossed in yourself that you were simply unable or unwilling to concentrate your attention on the specifics of the classroom. Perhaps you’re using education as a scapegoat for your having to suffer personal problems.

By all means. And I do in fact hold education accountable for the personal sphere. Damn right I do! And with a vengeance! All that goes by the name of education or curriculum can be thrown to the wind, as far as I’m concerned, if the child himself is forgotten or overlooked in the process. Personal characteristics and problems take absolute precedence over learning and other educational concerns; care and nurturing absolutely indispensable to the most primary and fundamental concerns of education. We are dealing with humans–not computers; first and foremost with feelings and emotions–not with aptitudes and learning. This is what I’m pre-judging. It’s not so much the teachers that I’m going after–many of them are simply lost–its the administrators and the confused or misled public that most concerns me. It’s the blatant advantages that seem to accrue for the benefit of those children who are least in need of them. It’s the fraudulent cover-up’s that disguise mispractices and failures that concerns me; the fostering of partial truths which serve to disguise the sheer “debris” that is carefully kept from public view. I hate “forced inequalities” wherever I find them. They run counter to such values as fairness, love and respect for others. They erode progress and detract from goodness. Such practices disgrace us; turn us into hypocrites, liars and thieves. Damn right I hold educators accountable for such sins as these, and I always will.

Well, it would seem from your strong stance on this subject that there is something more than intellectual ideas at stake here. In fact, the “personal sphere” seems to have taken precedence over everything we’ve discussed so far. And, perhaps, this is keeping with the crux of your writing to date. Surely, there is more concern for the personal sphere–with feelings, emotions, personal welfare and harmony as such,–than there has been attention paid to ideas. And when I consider the sorts of ideas you have been concerned with over the years, it seems apparent that they too are mainly in the personal sphere. This may narrow our focus somewhat, and I think it worthy of further reflection on this account alone.

Yes, I suspect that I am more “social critic” than educator, although many of my criticisms are based upon purely intellectual or conceptual findings. Only it seems equally true that I seem to engage intellectual concerns only as a means to assisting the former; that is, for the benefit of individuals as well as society as a whole. Any other purpose seems very much besides the point and definitely outside my interest. Yes, I do have other interests and appreciation’s outside of this one: my appreciation of the arts, for example, and my desire to want to join in the same. But these have taken a back seat to my personal concern with integrity, harmony, meaning and purpose in my life. Whatever talents or potential I may possess relating to the creative arts, and I believe them to be many, I never seriously sought an avenue to any one of them, although I always felt strong compulsions to do so. There was architecture, painting, theatre and music. Of course, architecture takes college and a proficiency in mathematics (something which I didn’t have), while artists remain poor (something which I was told), and musicians and composers require great dedication (something which I apparently did not have), while acting appeared a far-off dream. For whatever reasons, my first preoccupation was, first and foremost, always with myself; with thoughts and feelings concerning life itself; with my own happiness and feelings regarding my failure to find the same. Yes, my first preoccupation was, and continues to be, primarily with myself: with my concerns for the present and future, for personal integrity and value, and for my “so far wished for” reputation for making major contributions to society. Perhaps my approach to life has been far too subjective to be of value to anyone else. Perhaps I really have nothing to offer anyone outside myself.

No, this isn’t true. You have a good knowledge of what it means to introspect, lay yourself open to perception (perhaps for too long a time), or the consequences of being too “one-sided” or “overly-preoccupied” for that matter. You are extremely analytical and have a strong sense of what is logically correct or incorrect; what is misleading or delusionary; what, in fact, another person is doing both on the intellectual as well as emotional level. You have, in other words, a keen sense of human motivations and behavior. You are capable of criticizing some of the most profound minds in history, and, more importantly, are usually able to understand the bases of their own understanding. You also have a strong intuitive sense, despite the fact that it oftentimes makes you appear dull or inattentive when in public. When you are unable to grasp something quickly, even something which is apparently simple, it is because of your ability to receive and grasp alternative possibilities, even when these are plainly invisible to others. Yes, your intuition may be handicapped when in direct conversation with others, but when you are alone with your thoughts, and it is allowed full reign, it is powerful. Indeed. Aside from the conceptions you commonly receive, there are sometimes rare glimmerings of profundities not yet understood. But while such glimmers lasted, there is no question in your mind as to their importance, and you know, instinctively, that their time will come. These are gifts that should not be underestimated. But they are also gifts which, for the most part, have been wasted. Many of your intuitions have been related to others on a piece-meal basis, mostly through casual conversation, but they have not been given their due. What has been given you over the past eleven years and more has value beyond yourself, especially in the personal sphere. Only you must make an effort to join with others who are presently making important contributions in this regard. And, yes, even your criticisms of their efforts will help, so long as they are sound and fairly presented. So why not concentrate your efforts in the personal growth domains of psychology and philosophy? Critically read some of the major journals, as well as “self-help” books, and do your stuff. Note where such authors or views are coming from and why. Point out the merits, as well as common errors, belonging to the same. Suggest remedies where possible. Try to be kind, but firm, remembering why arrogance is such a common thread in our way of life. And remember, do not destroy unless you have something better to substitute. Recall what you said regarding our need to feel “whole” at any given time, even if it is necessary to cling to illusion in order to do so. In many ways, your thinking is ahead of the times. This is because you have been in isolation for so long a period and have not shared your thoughts. So, again, be kind. Present your thoughts to others carefully and with full consideration of their potential impact.

I don’t think that I’ll have a problem with doing this. I’m fully aware of the fact that my own perceptions are partial and tentative at best, even if they should prove to be more comprehensive than what we know at present. I recognize that we are climbing up an infinite ladder, rung by rung, forgetting our past just as fast as we embrace our future. But we have still not resolved the basic issues confronting me. Yes, I should be concerned about the personal domain as stated, but I still require some form of compensation in order to live. What am I going to do about money?

How about working in a bookstore?–Trying for an adjunct faculty position?–Getting a job with a publisher as a reader, copyeditor, reviewer? What about a job with a career firm or social agency dealing with similar concerns? Why not try all of these approaches simultaneously?

But this is exactly where I was before I began this dialogue. What is different?

What’s different is the fact that you now know your direction more precisely; that it rests in the personal domain, primarily, and that your conceptual interests and knowledge have always been in its service. You now have the horse before the cart, so to speak. Doesn’t this make a difference? Isn’t it the case that what you might do for an income has less relevance now than it did before? Now that you’re better focused, don’t these other needs appear less important?

Not really. I can agree with you to a point, but I’m still wary concerning my chances of getting a reasonably relevant job. I know how employers (or the public in general) thinks. I know how they will view my resume.

Well, why not turn such knowledge to full advantage? Create a resume that will take such tendencies and attitudes to heart, and overcome them. What will convince an educator, for example, that you are the right person for teaching a given course? Why, in fact, do you believe you are the right person for teaching a course?

I’m not sure that I am the right person. The course would have to be concerned with issues that I’m already familiar with, or understand to great depth. If I were teaching a course in philosophy, it would have to deal with “philosophical problems” rather than with historical data regarding individual philosophers or their ideas, for that matter. It would have to be a “hands-on” immersion type course; a casual seminar format consisting of readings followed by discussions. If it were in the career field, I would want to do something relating to vocational exploration and personality typing, but would be prepared to go much further besides. I guess that I could use marketing materials from my previous business to convince employers of my abilities. Only now, everything seems to be reaching overwhelming proportions. I’m thinking of all the preparations I would have to make–all of the complications. I don’t think that I have the energy to set things in motion.

But hasn’t this also been a problem for the past ten or eleven years? Isn’t it a fact that you have always appeared overwhelmed or too fatigued to pursue anything to its logical end? Why do you suppose? And now that you have an end in view, you would think that your energy level would be rising instead of falling. But it isn’t.

Well, I’ve always been notorious for not being able to finish anything I start. When the end is in sight, I generally quit. Why, I don’t know. But I do recall that my father always reminded me of this fault. Perhaps it has something to do with him since anything I did was criticized, completed or not. But perhaps it had nothing whatever to do with him. At any rate, I only know that this disposition has been with me throughout my entire life. I am simply not a finisher.

I doubt that its as simple as this. Regardless, if you have never set a goal and completed it to your own satisfaction, then you have never known the joy of achievement. How can you expect to win at anything if you don’t expect to win? Your life is a pretense, a fake in such cases. You are only playing at life, pretending to do what is appropriate, while knowing full well that it’s all a sham–that you are incapable as such. Surely you must know that you must first overcome this thing–overcome yourself–if you are ever to stand any chance for success. Surely you must realize this.

I do realize it. It’s been the challenge of my life. In my “Journey’s End,” a poem I wrote six years ago, I picked up on this theme and came to the conclusion that I had to battle Fate. Admittedly, I didn’t see this as a battle between me and myself, but one involving me and the world at large. I saw Fate as something external to me, as the controlling force of nature, if you will, and not as some personal blockage within myself. In this new context, Fate seems more like my personal destiny, not as determined by a controlling universe, however, but one which may have derived from events in my past. For whatever reasons, it is clear that my life has followed certain patterns. And, of course, one of these patterns has been my reluctance to finish anything. I suspect that there might be a fear of failure underlying this pattern; a fear of criticism, perhaps, that makes me want to avoid competition in any form. As a child, I expected to lose because I knew what to expect. As such, it was totally unfair for me to compete under such circumstance–and I felt it. I’m sure that the same dilemma was present in test situations as well. So to break this mold, I am expected to dare to face the truth of this situation. “To be willing to stand naked before Fate” and “receive the dress of truthfulness,” as my poem expressed it. This is where I was left approximately six years ago. I guess I haven’t come very far since then.

Yes, it would seem that your battle has yet to be fought; that you will never be able to move on with your life until this issue has been settled; that all of your starts and stops were no more than starts and stops, and that you have never experienced any true sense of accomplishment or completion. What a pity. But, should you ever succeed in your battle with Fate… Oh what joys await you. Even the smallest things will appear great! If ever you succeed, that is.

Well, one thing is for certain. This truth I’m finding so hard to face is most assuredly not what I would like to think it is. It would be relatively easy to face the fact that my father may have contributed greatly to this attitude. But if that were all there were to it, I would have faced it long ago. Because I haven’t, there must be something much more revealing about myself than this; something which I most assuredly dread having to face. What can it possibly be? What could possibly have happened to me, so early in life, that would have such a profound effect upon me? What could have shamed me? Frightened me? Whatever it was, it seems that it will not let go of me. And if it’s protective in this sense, perhaps it shouldn’t be removed. Perhaps it is something which I will be unable to face. Nevertheless, it is clear that, unless I do fight it, I will never be set free. But how do I enter a fight with an invisible unknown?

You know very well how you must do it. Somehow, you must find the courage to overcome it; allow it into consciousness, in other words. It is obvious that you have not made any real attempt to do so over the past six years. Yes, you may have tried to reach this portion of yourself through your continued writing, but it is equally obvious that you have not come any closer to the issue at hand. If you had, you would have experienced some form of trepidation, at very least; some sense of fear concerning an unknown presence; some portion of the past coming into the present. Anything less than this would suggest that you are continuing to skirt the issue.

Maybe you’re right. But I tried to go into the desert in order to be alone with my thoughts. I really thought that I would make some headway along these lines. Only nature wasn’t quiet enough. If not people, there were always animals, trees and rocks and cold to preoccupy my mind. Far from being able to focus upon myself, I found myself always distracted by some presence or concern or another. How does one really get by oneself? Or is it the case that I really don’t want to? When I wrote “Journeys End” (which was more of an outpouring of emotion), I didn’t recover from it for months after. It was exhausting. And I spent years trying to understand it more fully. I always have felt that I am learning things about myself incrementally, and that I must learn to be patient. But surely my being 56 years of age must account for something. How much longer must I wait? I’m wearing down and, in my present state, don’t feel much like facing anything, much less having to fight it.

Maybe so, but it’s something which cannot be ignored. It would be better if you simply chucked it in–admitted defeat, in other words–and simply resigned yourself to living a life of little or no consequence. Either this, or pursue the other with vigor. No good will ever come of faking it. You are only growing more tired with every defeat or disappointment you are forced to suffer. You can no longer maintain the middle road. Besides, it is illusory, as you know, and you must either fight or quit your quest altogether. As I said, quitting would be far better than trying to maintain an impossible middle road. Whatever it is that is gripping you, it is obviously strong and unrelenting. Few people have spent as much time introspecting as you have, and still you have not been able to break the chains which are obviously binding you.

It doesn’t seem fair that I should have to live this sort of life while so many others have found contentment in theirs. Why should some element of Fate, something in my past, be capable of holding me in bondage for nearly a lifetime? Again, it doesn’t seem fair. I might be content if I knew that my suffering was benefiting some other, but there is no sign that it is. So what good is it doing? My intuition is now suggesting that this may have something to do with my old combatants “Will” and “Fate.” I have believed for some time now that this was my battle in essence; a battle regarding my willingness or unwillingness to fight against Fate. And I guess that it is my battle in essence. When you think about it, it seems ridiculous to suppose that one could simply allow Fate to reign. Everything about us suggests that satisfaction or relief cannot come to us but by some force of effort. And yet, many of us remain extraordinarily passive. I, for example, generally do the minimum required of me in order to meet outer world contingencies, and sometimes even less than this. Why? Why not attack the world, win it over in every way possible? Isn’t this what we’re about? What good are unused teeth? or unused talents? What good can come of not following one’s natural proclivities? But isn’t it my nature to be passive? I’m not sure. But, if it is my nature, why aren’t I content with living out of such an attitude? Why do I feel suffering? Surely such facts must account for something. Could it possibly be more appropriate for some people to accept suffering than to try to alleviate it? It seems doubtful, and yet, I seem inclined to doing just this. What is wrong with this picture?

Psychologists would undoubtedly say that what I am suffering is depression, as though depression were a “thing” rather than a state of body and mind. Of course my suffering depresses me; but what is causing it? Some psychologists say that depression results when a person is no longer able to satisfy his wants or needs; that is, finds himself without the proper means (skills, talents, opportunities, etc.) to fulfill his desires. Well, this would surely fit me. I certainly do have doubts as to whether my skills and knowledge will prove sufficient to meet personal goals and interests. But are such doubts appropriate? Again, psychologists would say that the depressed person, prone to taking the negative road, inaccurately assesses his own situation, as well as other people’s behavior, real situations, and so on. The depressed person always assumes the worse, in other words. “Why didn’t that career service contact me?” Well, I assumed that they were “scared off” due to my thinking, etc. But maybe the right person never received my resume. Maybe she’s out of town this week. The point is, I assumed the worse and let it go at that. “My credentials aren’t appropriate for what I want to do.” This isn’t true. A Masters degree in Education qualifies me for quite a number of positions, including teaching on the college level. “But my work record shows that I have been outside of the field of education. I won’t be taken seriously.” Maybe not, but what have I done to demonstrate that my interests are really in this direction? Have I joined educational organizations, been involved in educational endeavors, submitted articles for publication, etc.? Have I worked on my resume so as to show that this is clearly my interest? Yes, partially, but it was never completed as such. As for these other endeavors, how can I expect to be able to concentrate on any one of them when I need to be concerned about earning a living?

And after you’ve secured a job? What then. Will you then say that you haven’t sufficient time to work on such things because you lack the time, or are simply too tired? The point is that achievement takes effort, oftentimes great effort. Laziness won’t cut it; neither will making excuses, failing to concentrate your efforts, or taking a cowardly stance in general. As was said earlier, you must dare to expose yourself to truth. You have assessed yourself in every way imaginable, but have not yet dared to subject yourself to an outside assessment. You undoubtedly have a sense of your real talents, but your own convictions are always subject to personal doubt. You need assurances from others, but you dare not risk it. Instead, you remain stalemated, in limbo, by your reluctance to get out of your own way. Yes, you could point to the fact that your thinking is somewhat removed from that of others, and, for these reasons, you feel that you cannot get a fair hearing; that both your attitude and knowledge will be misunderstood. But maybe this is nothing more than another kind of “protective device” to shield you from having to face the truth about yourself. Maybe, just maybe, your thinking is not so grand as you have imagined. In any regard, what have you done to adequately express what you profess to know? Again, the answer is little or nothing.

But I have ten years of writing backing me up! This will demonstrate the depth of my understanding, and I’m certainly not afraid to show it to anyone. The reason I haven’t as yet summed it up is because it seems like a monumental task to do so. Besides, I can’t help feeling that all such thought is in the past, and that my concentrating on it will remove me from the satisfying consequences of present thoughts. I would rather go on perceiving than to stop the process in order to sum-up, explain or relate my ideas to others. My intuitions are compelling.

So they may be. But what are you going to do with them? So far you have done little or nothing and feel yourself further and further removed from your surroundings. Maybe this is true and maybe it isn’t. But in either case, it points to your need for some form of verification. If there are others on the same track as you, thinking the same thoughts in essence, then it will help you to know it. If there are no others who are thinking such thoughts, then it will help you if you close the gap between society and yourself. What good can come of your ideas if you are lost at sea? Get back to shore! Share your catch with others; reassess where you are and resupply yourself with new provisions before making your next journey.

Okay, I’ll try.

Frightening Concerns Regarding The New World Order

January 30, 1997

At the present moment I am so disgusted, so frustrated, that all I want to do is throw a brick at my computer and drop out of society altogether. Never have I been forced to suffer so much humiliation as I have had since signing on to the internet several months ago. I have been using a computer steadily for the past fifteen years and have had to suffer the pangs of un-user-friendly software and documentation over this same period, but nothing compares to the internet. In my opinion, the entire industry is becoming increasingly polluted by efforts to manipulate and control the user at every turn. Only stupidity has proven to be as pervasive as are the blatant obscenities cultivated and fostered by the companies themselves. Where are the Ralph Nader’s of the world when we need them most?

Yes, this marvelous invention that can compute like nothing else can, store information, run any program that can be conceived, serve as an operator and communicator on every conceivable plane, in every conceivable way, is presently in the hands of what can only be called greedy, uncaring, crafty, and self-serving, pigs! These are ugly words and not becoming me nor my nature, but there is no other way to describe what is taking place in the industry when seen at its worse, and make no mistake about it, I can only hope that this proves to be its worse.

If you think that “sign pollution” is bad in our cities and on our highways, you ain’t seen nothing my friend! On the internet, you’ll find such a confusing mess of signs, advertisements, and so-called “hyperlinks,” that if you can manage the frustration of having to deal with the same, I can promise you that you will soon be sickened. If you aren’t disturbed by having to overcome obstacles deliberately put in your path to keep you from choosing a particular service or browser in which to navigate the internet; or by having to answer “no” to several advertisements prior to being allowed on-line or allowed to go wherever you intend to go, then it’s probably already too late for you. You have undoubtedly sold your soul, as far as I’m concerned–at very least, your freedom and dignity. If you are not disturbed by “hyperlinks” which are strategically placed in order to confuse and get you to press them because you believe (and have every right to believe) that they are helpful aids associated with the web page you are on, well, what can I say. I can’t speak for everyone. Maybe you’re the type that sees the whole thing as a game, one large challenge that needs to be overcome by your own personal prowess. Well, that may be fine for you, my friend, but for those of us who wish to explore and experience the so-called merits of this global world; who naively believe that we are surrounded by people and companies trying to make our task as easy as possible–the whole thing sucks when seen in its true light! As much as I hate using this word, I can think of none that might better express how I truly feel.

It is so demeaning–so humiliating–to be forced to experience the evasive tactics of companies who wish only to advertise and sell their products while, at the same time, think nothing of sending you around in circles trying to find technical support for one of their products. And forget about human contact. For the most part, it doesn’t exist. Instead you will be presented with all sorts of “options” including FAQ’s (frequently asked questions by other users such as yourself), on-line tutorials which may force you to buy some other product needed to show the video, whatever. Then there are the “bulletin boards” where people can present questions and help one another by doing for the vendor what they should be doing for themselves. On the contrary, what you can count on, in far too many instances, is that the vendor will remain well hidden, except, of course, in matters that pertain to new product advertising and sales. Just try navigating your way through such misleading titles such as “customer care,” or “technical support,” and the like. Rarely are they what they seem, and you will experience a great deal of frustration in the process of finding this out, I can assure you. What about the telephone? you might ask. Yeah, sure. The telephone has become just as bad. Vendors hiding behind menu choices which go on forever, or until you hang up from sheer frustration or exhaustion. This too is part of the “New World Order,” we must keep reminding ourselves. And, in many respects, it seems to be a global “free-for-all” which derives its energy from feeding upon “captivated” audience’s forced into submission by design!

Now I don’t want to turn my back on technology. I love it. I love the possibilities my computer has given me over the years, despite the everyday aggravations of it all. But it seems to me that the computer industry has been given “carte blanche” to do what it wishes, while the rest of us simply stand in awe by what is being accomplished, and stand muted by that which we are forced to suffer. Yes, I would claim that the entire industry is far less user-friendly today than ever before. It’s just its new guise that tends to make us think otherwise. And yet, because some of the gravest aggravations could so easily be corrected, that for the life of me, I can’t imagine how they can continue to be overlooked. This is no time for me to list the hundreds of aggravations that I can bring to the fore, but allow me to present just one as a case in point.

Take Microsoft Window’s little exit box with the “X” in it. Clicking on this with your mouse exits you from whatever program you happen to be in. Now this is surely an important box, so important in fact, that you would think that it would have its own symbol, perhaps a different color, whatever, that could distinguish it from other exit boxes within these same programs. In this way, we would not inadvertently exit a particular application or, worse, the internet when we had no intention of doing so. How many times have I done this. And how easily could it have been avoided. As I said, there are hundreds of improvements that could be made to any program, but since “Windows” is the mother of them all, it needs to be especially smart and user-friendly. It is not, and I dare to say it is not. It is as frustrating as it is magical.?

There. I’ve said my piece. But I meant it when I said that I am honestly considering chucking the whole thing in. I see too many bad omens taking place in society today and I feel myself slipping further and further away. Admittedly, I was never one who enjoyed structural rigidity or personally limiting controls of any kind, but what I am talking about here and now has gone beyond all decent boundaries. What is taking place today is nothing less than obscene, and what it portends for the future, is nothing short of frightening. As we enter this new age of information, becoming increasingly? dependent upon machines and those systems governing them, we cannot help but lose more of our independence, or what might be termed the last vestige of personal freedom. You have to experience what it is like to have everyday freedoms taken away from you; the simple freedom of having access (without interference) to those you want or need to contact; the simple freedom of going in a direction of your own choosing; that is, without manipulation, interference, or the presence of unavoidable controls purposely placed in your path. The frustrations I’m experiencing on the internet are “small potatoes” compared to the larger picture, which will surely come to pass. In short, we must be wary that such practices do not take precedence–are not allowed to dominate the coming age. To be sure, we know full well that nothing can stop the currents of technology from taking us into the future, nor should we want to prevent this, but this is not to say that we cannot, or should not, steer, drag our feet, complain, or offer the strongest criticism we are capable of, whenever we deem it appropriate or necessary to do so. That time is now, in my estimation. Not next week, next month, or next year–but now!

May 26, 1997
Searching For A Direction

Fairly new to San Diego
Recently Separated
Trying to find a proper direction for myself
Having a difficult time
Long on talent, but short on experience
Very much a generalist with little in-depth knowledge
I need to locate a direction and proceed to gain such knowledge

I suspect that my best talents have to do with intuitive or conceptual insights or perception, followed by an ability to abstract, synthesize, and organize such material. I have an ability to glean essences from material, as well as envision new possibilities and applications for it. I can always improve upon things.

The material I am mostly interested in has to do with human behavior, individual welfare, social problems and the nature of things in general. I guess that I am mostly interested in criticizing and commenting upon individual and social ethics, rules of behavior, law and politics, education.

I am always looking for a greater understanding of myself, others, and world, wanting to make contributions to the general welfare and state of happiness in the world. For these reasons, I am not focused in any one direction or subject area. Rather, my interests appear to skim across the entire spectrum of knowledge, touching upon such areas as personal psychology, anthropology, current events, social philosophy, politics, religion, ethics and education. Always education.

It’s certainly true that I seem to be interested in education, first and foremost, but not in the formal sense of schooling and curriculum necessarily, although I am definitely interested in the same; rather, my interests lie in the general sense of informing and aiding the public through the expression of insights and ideas, or through offering explanations and interpretations of matters of great importance to us all.

I wish to discover and understand what underlies things–to discover their “essences,” if you will–only they have to be things which either stand in the way of, or promise to ameliorate the social condition. I have as deep an interest in ethics and morality as I do education. I suspect that the latter is merely seen as a vehicle for the former which truly compels me. I want to criticize social injustice and immoral behavior wherever I see it to exist, and wish to replace it with something better. I guess that I’m something of a moralist, or at least an advocate of the same.

So the question becomes: “How best can I serve this interest?”

By demonstrating what I already know. By writing articles, essays, and finally a book for publication. By locating the sort of magazines or journals that presently deal with, or come closest to dealing with, what I wish to express. By getting into print, in other words. At the same time, I can engage other activities which might include taking courses, becoming involved in,–perhaps writing a newsletter for one or another worthwhile organization. I might even begin by showing some of my existing writing to some organization or another that might lead to some form of employment or compensation to get by.

In the meantime, I need some from of work to get by.

But have I adequately expressed what I am really about? After all, I am not simply talking about social criticism, per se, I am talking about expressing “deeper level concepts” which will (hopefully) shed light on the resolution of the same. In other words, I wish to rid the world of some of its confusion. I wish to make clearer the muddy waters. I also wish to use artistic means to do this; that is, employ fiction as well as non-fiction,–write a novel, play, or other form of expression. In any regard, writing, speech or oratory would seem to be at the forefront of my interests. But, then, so is “application.” I do not merely want to express ideas and insights–I want to see them put into viable structures or programs which could serve to educate others.

At the same time, I must admit that, while I do receive a large number of insights on a continuing basis, in trying to dissect or analyze them further, more often than not, I find myself up against that proverbial “brick wall.” Either too many possibilities spring up to follow, or the insight peters out in terms of cogency. On the down side, this may point to the impossibility of achieving what I would like to achieve; after all, I do need something “worthy” of expressing or developing. On the upside, perhaps I’m taking these insights too far from their source, meaning that I should, perhaps, treat them according to what they are–intuitive concepts. Intuitions are not intended to be dissected. They need to stand alone and be expressed as the vision they are–not tampered with. This said, perhaps my job is only to express the intuitions, and “leave the driving” to others.

In this vein, perhaps the logical choice would be to write intuitive essays on the order of Emerson’s, or perhaps something quite the opposite. Where Emerson chose a theme or concept to expound, while making references here and there to examples of conduct in the social sphere, I would begin with “problems” in the social sphere, and employ intuitive perceptions as examples of potential resolutions to such problems. In this way, thinking would only be employed to show the relationship between the concepts that initially describe the problem in ordinary terms, and the intuitive perceptions which extends the common or accepted vision while, at the same time, serving as a potential substitution and/or resolution to the same. Unlike Prometheus, I don’t want to steal the fire away from God in order to offer it to humankind, I simply wish to share whatever is within my perceptual realm (what is in fact given me) for the benefit of humanity. I simply want to better this world for myself as well as others. Might I also be doing this in defiance of a seemingly uncaring God? Perhaps. Might God’s own hand be guiding me? It would be nice to think so. But then, you would think that there wouldn’t be so much uncertainty and confusion if this were so.

May 27, 1997

Want to aid in clarifying personal and social problems through understanding their epistemological and behavioral roots in light of current practices.

I want to draw upon my general knowledge of personality differences, philosophy, history, etc. together with my more in-depth thinking and refection.

My true strength appears to lay in my ability to perceive and think abstractly and logically, as well as my ability to synthesize and organize. My broad general background may not be a bad thing since it is in fact focused upon a few specific areas. While I can be said to be grossly undereducated in each of these areas when taken as whole disciplines, I have a much deeper understanding of those respective parts which have interested me. Thus, I have “cherry-picked” from across the broad spectrum of knowledge without knowing what my “guiding principle” was. That I am just now beginning to discover what it is, seems to me proof positive that such a form of organization was already present within me. What I have accumulated to date, then, when taken together, is neither loose nor shallow, but representative of a specific direction with its own resident power. My ability to draw upon and synthesize these various threads into new conceptions, is what constitutes my distinguishing characteristics.

Perhaps I need to look at the fruit which this principle has already produced through me in order to understand what is my appropriate direction. Needless to say, my direction should be what my direction has been, that is, aside from the many obstacles which have been put in the way. But what are these obstacles? I immediately sense that they are stemming from myself; that is, are from that part of myself which is unaware of the total situation for what it is and always has been. It’s as though we were talking about Fate, or the principle that holds that “we are not in control of our destinies.” It certainly seems a truism from my standpoint, although I am, nonetheless, aware of a power within myself which, at least, seems capable of resistance. But, then, this resistance may be owing to “outside influences” distracting me from “my appointed rounds,” and succeeding to one degree or another. If this is true, and I believe it is, then it behooves each of us to pay closer attention to what we are and less attention to what others want us to be. And if this response is appropriate, then I should expect to experience some beneficial results in terms of decreased pain, anxiety, confusion, and ill-health overall. For, in the end, it might be truer to say that our “guiding principle” never is distracted from pursuing its ends, only we. And only we stand to suffer as a result of not recognizing this fact for what it is.

What this principle is, no one can say for sure. For where is nature heading? Toward what end? and why? And yet, if our apparent ability to resist our compulsions is only a mistaken notion resulting from the effects of “outside interference” or “distraction” in essence, then we are left to puzzle over the additional fact that we are not here talking about a single “guiding principle,” but that there must be as many differing perspectives as there are elements throughout the universe. Again, this sounds an awful lot like our current view of the natural world, replete with competing elements and organisms. Of course, the problem is trying to come to grips with the whole; that is, with trying to envision a single unifying principle to account for all of it. Or, to paraphrase Emerson, “So careful is the knot of nature tied that no one can discern where either of its ends rest.”

But this merely gives us one more reason to acknowledge that, while our individual nature’s may in large part be outside our control, whatever principle is guiding the whole competing and differentiating mess, must be guiding each of its parts. Science tends to believe that all such principles are inherent in, or evolve from, a primary source. Only now, I sense that I am running far afield of my original insight which merely expressed the idea that we are governed by a guiding principle which many of us simply fail to recognize, and in failing this, are forced to suffer the consequences. My thinking on this matter shows how quickly divergent views can arise and how easy it is to run amuck. It is not so much that such thinking is in someway wrong–quite the contrary–it may be exactly right inasmuch as it invariably runs into contradictions and dead-ends which are devoid of concepts needed to overcome them. New conceptions do arise as we proceed with this type of thinking, but there doesn’t seem to be any guarantees that they will adhere to the original conceptual point of departure. In the same way that one mental image may lead us to another and another, so too can these same images lead us from one thought to another. Images and words seem to intermingle and it is difficult to discern which is giving rise to which. I suspect that they both are catalyst’s for one another.

In any event, the essence of what I believe I have discovered, is simply that we need to pay attention to who and what we already are; that is, to our character, thoughts and activities; to our inclinations, preferences, compelling wants and desires. Judging from the fact that I have suffered and continue to do the same, it must be the case that I am not meant to deviate from myself; that I must acknowledge what drives me and get aboard as quickly as I possibly can. I must, in other words, see beyond those distracting influences surrounding me, and try to avoid their attractions which are usually felt as ugly or empty by me. Whenever I am compelled in a direction away from myself, I feel a deep-seated resentment toward others and the world at large, as though the entire matter were their fault. Only, of course, this resentment is finally directed against myself.

But what about this resident power to resist? Is there such a power in fact, or is it only an illusion disguising the fact (if it is a fact) that we are pulled away from ourselves by outside influences entirely? But there seems to be something “topsy-turvy” about this thinking: Would I be exercising my own “free will” by resisting outside influences, or simply by ceasing to resist my own? This, of course, once again opens the door to all sorts of confusion, for now we can ask: “How much of our compulsions and attractions are owing to outside influences, and how much to inside? Which “pushes” and which “pulls”?–or is this too an illusion? We are in a philosophical, as well as psychological, quandary and don’t know how to proceed from here. To move forward, we will have to note the various strands and general weave of our conception as it stands at the moment, and we will have to envision a way out of it if possible. But, once again, there will be no guarantees that we will remain in the realm of my original purpose, which was to try to resolve my problem of lacking a purpose or direction in life. Once again, thought and analysis was applied to the original conception, only to lead me into this present quandary. But doesn’t this demonstrate that the original conception was weak? without a proper foundation? I hope not. For the fact is, I am continuing to feel that it is exactly right on target; that no matter how this problem may play out in nature, I feel strongly that I must acknowledge myself for what I am–my thoughts, compulsions, interests, and all the rest–and try to resist those stemming from outside. But haven’t I in fact been safeguarding the same by trying to balance the same throughout my entire life? Aren’t these outer compulsions reminders of what I need to do to satisfy outer contingencies? After all, I do need food, shelter, clothing and transportation if I am to protect and safeguard who I am or wish to be. Don’t I need to pay attention to both? Shit! I seem to be back where I started–not knowing which direction to turn in. In fact, I seem to have reminded myself that I am failing on both counts; that I have been unsuccessful from either standpoint. I feel thoroughly constrained, drained, and physically strained at the present moment. How long will my body continue to take this abuse? How long will my mental faculties continue to withstand this almost overwhelming confusion? Why I never have headaches is a source of bafflement for me, although I sense that it has something to do with the probability that, despite its shortcomings, it in fact is being satisfied, even if at the expense of my own body. Of course, there’s something ill-logical about this notion inasmuch as I always thought that we were all on the same side. But maybe this is simply one more reminder that the guiding principle approaches us from without and, in fact, considers us expendable. The reality of my situation remains, however, and it behooves me, or whatever can be said to constitute “me,” to ease the flow as much as it is possible to do so. Only how?

Write commentaries on personal and societal issues

Express my own insights and intuitive perceptions through writing, speech, artistic endeavors.

Want my ideas to serve as a catalyst which will encourage the initiation of practices and programs that will correct or ameliorate such issues.

I seem to require observations in outer world, or other person perceptions, to set my own off. I think that this is a good grounding for me and will prevent me from straying too far from center of life. It’s like recycling inside air in order to derive maximum benefit from an auto air conditioner.

I already have written numerous short essays which would serve as columns if polished and edited. Need to get these together

Many of my ideas could be easily re-shaped into various type articles centered around a theme. I could generate hundreds of articles in this way, working from the same material.

I feel compelled to reflect upon social problems and issues, and yet, this compulsion has not led to serious thinking except in the most general sense; that is, has merely led to feelings and reflections bordering on the periphery of life and its entanglements, a consequence which I find altogether overwhelming. So why do I persist in wasting my time if I am getting nowhere? Well, I guess this is the nature of? compulsion–it’s either there or not, despite our not knowing why. But if I can see that it is leading nowhere–see that countless hours upon hours have been spent to no avail–why not? willfully reason my future actions to a more appropriate conclusion? Because I don’t really believe that it has been to no avail. In truth, I can’t help but feel that I have gained ground in this pursuit of the intangible, and that this ground rests in some way with greater syntheses of the facts of life. It is a conceptual matter, therefore, and one whose rewards are ironically tied to the burden of having to carry the weight of one’s achievements. “But synthesis is suppose to explain and account for hitherto perplexing particulars; it should lessen the burden of ‘not knowing,’ rather than increase the? burden of ‘knowing.'”?? How do you account for this?

I’m not sure that I can. On the other hand, the thought occurs to me that, perhaps, the burden is not to be found in the knowledge or perceptions gained, but in the realization of how far removed they may be from life. In other words, the discrepancies between what I believe to be the case and what others believe to be the case, may be so far apart as to invite near anguish. Look at the diversity of belief and action throughout the world today. Has humankind ever been so inundated with so many expressions of uncertainty? I think not. Of course, such expressions are thought to be “certain” by those proffering them, but let’s not be taken in. They are rationally shallow beliefs at bottom–the whole lot of them. But that they carry an emotional vibrancy and potency cannot be denied. And yet, very few persons, it seems, are ready to acknowledge the role and import of emotion and feeling upon our actions. Regardless, if current trends are any indication of future events, I believe that such inclinations, if allowed to continue unchecked or unchallenged, portend an even more precarious existence than we presently find ourselves to be in.

“We lie in the lap of immense intelligence, which makes us receivers of its truth and organs of its activity.”

These words, uttered by Ralph Waldo Emerson in his essay on Self-Reliance, are meant to remind us, not merely of the power resident in nature, but of the source of that power. For Emerson, all original thought and action is to be found in Intuition (“that deep force, the last fact behind which analysis cannot go, all things find their common origin”)

Fathers of the New World Order
August 21, 1997

I can’t help but believe that the formation of the state of Israel actually constituted a step backwards, rather than forwards, for the Jewish people and, perhaps, for all the world as well. At a time in history when national autonomy, boundaries, and sovereign rights, are becoming more of a nuisance than benefit, relatively small groups of peoples (not just Jews) are clinging to the old order as their best hope for the future.? They believe, wrongly in my opinion, that securing a “homeland” will provide the best means for achieving their own personal security and well-being.

But if modern trends are indicative of what is coming,–global thinking, global economics, global relationships, etc.?the Jewish people are already in the best position to take advantage of it. To paraphrase something Emerson said in one of his essays over a century ago: For thousands of years, attempts have been made to subjugate, if not exterminate, the Jewish people from the face of the earth, and here they remain today the rulers of the rulers of the Earth.

Jews have maintained their cohesiveness, strength and fortitude, because of such challenges and adversities. As such, they already know how to survive amongst enemies or amidst chaos. Centuries have taught them how to carve out a living, take advantage of a situation, and to offer cooperation and assistance for the sake of the group.

Perhaps, what Jews have lived for thousands of years was, and continues to be, closest to what the ?world order? was always meant to be. Not simply a cohesiveness resulting from an identification with a group (family, religion, ethnicity, etc.) but, ultimately, a cohesiveness owing to our identification with one another as persons, plain and simple. This, if anything, is where modern life is taking us. And this is what the New World Order needs to take into consideration.

And yet, we remain like children, blinded to most of what surrounds us at present. We continue to misunderstand the future ramifications of current trends and events, preferring to look backwards, rather than forwards, in search of peace and security and personal well-being. Instead of working toward the eventual elimination of national boundaries, we continue to fight for them. As I write, there are ethnic groups world-wide who continue to relive their pasts, while overlooking present realities and clinging steadfastly to false hopes. They are fighting for homelands! Not a place somewhere in this wide world where they might wish to settle, but one which can be secured with a fence around it, and a still larger fence around all of the neighboring fences, and a still larger one around all of? those. We are not yet at home in this strange new world where long-time certainties or expectations are strained at every turn in the road.

It’s The Wrong Focus!
8-25-97

It never ceases to amaze me at how often we seem willing to repeat the same old discussions of unresolved issues without realizing that the reason we do so is because such issues were never truly addressed, much less resolved. And so the topic of Special Education reared its “ugly head” once again in Sunday’s Union Tribune. And, almost ironically, it did so against the more positive backdrop of the recent installation of SDSU’s new President, and the fact that Shimon Perez (the only international figure I truly trust and admire) is going to be in town as well. But these later events are merely “generic,” not formed as yet into anything that we can sink our teeth into. The subject of Special Education is quite another matter.

Although I prepared to become a teacher at one point, I never got further than extensive substitute teaching in a number of Upstate New York Junior and Senior High Schools. And what this experience taught me more than anything was that nothing significant had really changed from the time that I was in school during the late forties and most of the fifties. Although there were new concepts being explored at the time?open classrooms, new methods of learning to read, etc. everything that really mattered, so far as I was concerned, remained essentially the same. I should confess at this point that I was never a traditional student myself, but had spent most of my school years (and I mean most) adrift in my own imagination and, most often, sorrowful self-contemplation. In fact, on the day of? my graduation from High School, I had to ask my Principal if I was going to be allowed to graduate at the bottom of my class. Following? his aggravated, though affirmative, answer, I hurried on home to get my garments just in time for commencement. I am revealing this only because I recognize that what I am about to say might have been quite different had my background been different?had I been a different kind of student. But I don?t think that the central issue would have changed at all. You see, what ?really matters in education what has always and only matters in education–is a real concern for the individual. Anything else is merely secondary to this end and, yes, this includes the “sacrosanct” curriculum.

Yes, I know what others think. I’ve already heard thousands of retorts to such a view. “Learning the curriculum is what school is about!” they would claim. “Furthermore, a teacher has every right to want to teach subject content rather than have to deal with person-centered concerns; that is, having to deal with such things as the emotional development of students, family circumstances, personal problems, particular interests and the like?” No one wishes to deny that such blatant facts exist, that there really are differences in interests, attitudes, belief, proclivities, intelligence, willingness to conform or not conform; in self-image, supportive backing, general outlook on life, and all the rest that goes with it. But if we had to stop the educational process to allow for all such factors, how would we ever get on with the business of education?

But, ah, “here lies the rub.” In the face of everything besetting education today–in the face of all of its unresolved issues–the vast majority of us are still clinging to the belief that the real business of education has more to do with curriculum than person, and, as such, interfering with this process seems inherently wrong. Now there is nothing outrageous about maintaining this position. What is outrageous, however, is believing that we could conform to such a narrow perspective without also having to suffer the consequences of fragmentation. Yes, fragmentation. Whatever our traits, attitudes, propensities, etc. happen to be, the baggage each of us carries is what we carry, and that for better or worse. Of course some will be better equipped to conform with the enterprise as it stands, with the colander as its been designed. But what does this say about the rest of us? That we’re “chopped liver” for having a different sort of makeup? that we are in some way lacking as such? Yes, this is exactly what it means. Worse, most of us appear willing to support this model, even when its damage to ourselves and others is altogether obvious. “Yes, Ms. Hussan,” [referring once again to Sunday’s featured article], “Frankie is being damaged,” only the courage you have so far demonstrated is in very short supply. Even in instances of still grosser violations of human dignity, most of us are either too cowardly or too embarrassed to do anything about it.

Who says that a person’s worth is or ought to be based upon education? Upon one’s willingness or ability to conform to the dictates of teacher, curriculum, institution or State? Who says that fast is better than slow, that the familiar is better than the strange; that realism is better than abstraction, imagination or intuitive perception; that discovery, creativity or originality is not as important as adhering to stated and accepted ideals–to curriculum? Who says that the excitement of having learned to pick up a block is anything less than that derived from mastering calculus? Nearly everyone! I?m ashamed to say. And this precisely because individual feeling and experience has been relegated to second place; precisely because society has conditioned us to place greater value in things rather than in ourselves.

Yes, Ms. Hussan, who is telling us such things, and why are we even listening?

Unfortunately, there are thousands of Frankie’s across the U.S. , or, better, millions of children and young adults with different needs and characteristics. So long as we continue in our belief that school is where individuals are given equal opportunity to conform to and learn the stated curriculum (in a manner which is still pretty much dictated by individual States following the advice of Academia), the situation is going to remain the same. But it?s more than this, Ms. Hussan, much more. You see, teachers, administrations, Boards of Education, yes, and even Academia, is at a loss in trying to frame such issues into an integral whole. What I mean is that we are lacking an appropriate perspective in which to sort all such issues as these. As it is, all such issues are merely dumped upon school districts as they are told to simply deal with it. And what dumps have so many of our schools become. Think about the hundreds of permutations, or varied circumstances, confronting individual schools. Yes, like our children, the individual characteristics, problems and needs of particular schools, are also being ignored by this sacred paradigm of education and its off-shoots.

Trained special education teachers who may be without proper training, commitment, backing, etc. who may be bored with having to deal with slower students and regretting their choice. Uncaring teachers who value subject matter over the student; or poorly trained teachers who, perhaps, fail on both counts. Then there are liberal approaches to education as well as conservative, oftentimes changing with whoever happens to be Superintendent of Schools at the time. Unfortunately, teachers who may have chosen a particular school based on focus, cannot simply pack up their bags and move to another. Education should not be so whimsical. That integrated perspective which I feel is lacking, needs to allow for such differences. Sharp turns and changes within individual school districts are most always harmful and fought against. The point I am trying to emphasize is that all such perspectives and concerns need to be accounted for since all are legitimate. Frankly, I have never heard of an illegitimate notion?one that did not make proper sense from its own perspective?ever proffered by anyone. They are always valid it seems, depending upon one?s outlook. So can our schools be all things to all people? Cater to each and every perspective? I want to say that, in theory, the answer is “yes.” But, in truth, I’m really not sure. What I am certain of, however, is that such an issue needn’t go so far; that very few people, if any, would adamantly oppose conforming to a perspective which they could see as an improvement or advantageous to their own. In other words, so long as the new conceptual model can account for, and effectively treat, more issues than the current one, such a perspective will be seen as progressive, that is, to everyone’s benefit. Yes, but first show me such a concept!

I can already hear the repercussions stemming from those with a different view of the matter. “Yes,” they would remind me, “the purpose of schooling is to learn the stated curriculum, and there is nothing to be ashamed of in this. What you are advocating is altogether different.” And, of course, their opinions are just as valid as mine. This is the main problem with all such issues as these, they all have a legitimate validity. Don’t slower students interfere with the progress of brighter ones? To be sure, just as brighter students interfere with the progress of slower ones. What’s your point? That the brighter are more important? trackers? How can we possibly deal with all such factors and issues as these?

Yes, Ms. Hussan, Frankie really is being damaged.

9/14/1997
My Continuing Search for a Vocation

If I could synthesize my creative instincts so as to be able to identify a particular vein or theme, what would it be? What could I finally set my sights on–and join–with extended effort?

There seems to be two opposing tendencies working within me: the one makes short but insightful explorations into already existing things, such as what I might do to improve upon a musical score, work of art, mechanical device, process, etc. The sheer immensity of options open to me forces me to draw back, and I wind up pitying myself for not having pursued any one of them.; for not putting my creative instincts to use. The other tendency appears to have something to do with new visions; not simply insights that might better some existing practice, process or thing, but highly encompassing visions which appear to be profound insofar as their implications for life are concerned. I can?t help but wonder if this might be an answer to my personal dilemma; that this could be the synthesis of? purpose I have been seeking throughout my life?that unifying principle that might finally set me free.

Only what vehicle would be appropriate to the task, assuming that I can in fact make use of such insights or intuitions? Well, I would need a vehicle for capturing them as they spontaneously appear, a means for grasping their significance before they disappear altogether, and also a vehicle for presenting them to others as well as a means for applying them to existing situations or problems in life. After all, isn?t this what they?re all about?

And now for the negative. What if this process of thinking amounts to no more than my attempting to narrow the world in order to make it? conform to myself? My focus has continually been upon myself throughout life; upon my specific characteristics and traits, level of intelligence, talents, interests, and all the rest. It?s as though I were trying to adapt to the world by means of defining myself? more precisely. The more I am able to define my own uniqueness, I feel, the more valuable I should become, at least for this tightly defined area. And yet, it hasn?t worked this way for me. Although the world does in fact appear to be defined functionally, especially the world of work, it is an applied functionality, meaning that regardless of which personal traits and talents are appropriate to a given enterprise, it is the enterprise, rather than the traits, that will lead us. In my own case, I seem to be trying my utmost to concentrate on my personal traits without regard to enterprise. There seems to be an underlying faith compelling me on; a faith that holds to the notion that application ought to follow, rather than define, what a person is, or is suited for. I can?t shake this belief for the life of me, and know that it has always been a guiding principle for me, even if I am given to cursing it every now and then.

In a way, my personal dilemma points to a number of philosophical issues. Only rather than present these in the traditional manner, I would rather approach them, if necessary, from my own standpoint at present, which is really only keeping with what has already been said. Why should I allow descriptions of problems or dilemmas, taken from the ?philosophical enterprise? as it exists today, to define my personal issues? This also points to something further regarding my own dilemma; that I am not, nor ever was, given to following “external” or “objective” compulsions, if I may put the matter this way. Perhaps this only points to my introverted character, I?m not certain. But my personal standpoint would seem to demand that I be put on equal footing with the opposing viewpoint. To my way of thinking, we have become so “externalized,” so prone to “objectifying experience,” that we appear to have cut ourselves off from ourselves, if that makes any sense, and are becoming increasingly fragmented as a result.

From the above remarks, I guess I should conclude that the primary reason for my being unable to apply my creative instincts to existing enterprises, is because some internal mechanism is preventing me from the same. As difficult as it is to say this, I have always felt that by applying my insights to existing enterprises, I would be forced off my own track, which is beginning to have the appearance of some sort of “receptive domain.” And yet, as much as I would like to believe my own thinking, I am my own worse critic or skeptic. No one doubts my perceptions more than I, regardless of my compulsion to see the matter otherwise at different times. Who wouldn’t find it difficult to accept the notion that, perhaps, one’s personal vocation in life is to be a “seer” or “prophet.” But, maybe I’m just being too colorful. After all, we’re only talking about insights, and, as to their far-reaching, all-encompassing profundity,.. well, that? remains to be demonstrated. So why not set myself to this task, first and foremost, and allow the world to evaluate the worthiness or usefulness of the same. Again, if I can see the implications and import of such visions to real factors in the world, so too will others. Otherwise, there wouldn?t be any point to my receiving them in the first place.

SELF-ASSESSMENT
9/15/97

PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS & PROPENSITIES
I am continually disturbed over my apparent inability to satisfactorily integrate with the world; that is, with my inability to come to an appropriate understanding of myself in relation to the world. And why should this disturb me? Mainly because my failure to adapt successfully has led to emotional hunger, confusion, loneliness and despair–that is, to unsatisfied desires, needs, and all the rest that goes with it.
My feeling has always been that the answer to my own dilemma must rest with understanding or knowledge; that appropriate conceptions, once realized, would pave the way for me–perhaps for all of us–if only I could manage to find and grasp hold of them. I seem to vacillate between believing myself capable of actively ?thinking? my way to such solutions, and believing that that I must passively await their coming through ?intuition.? The former view smacks of a belief in freedom or force of will; the latter, a passive acceptance of Fate?or of a controlling God or Nature. The difficulty I have had in trying to come to terms with these two views has to a large degree been the struggle of my life. My tendency seems always to have favored the passive view–that of nature, God, or some general controlling ?purpose? guiding me or determining my fate. Of course, within the sphere of the passive, there is a big difference between ?guidance? and ?determination,? the personal and impersonal. Regardless, I?ve fluctuated between these views as well.

I have also had great difficulty reconciling myself with God, or God with World. In some strange way, I seem destined to continue with some form of belief in God, even while I am sometimes prone to rejecting Him. If God is responsible for the manner in which this universe is evolving, then I certainly wish to make my dissatisfaction known! If nature, then I wish to understand how such a world could have come about ?on its own.? An absurd and entirely inconceivable notion, in my opinion, but one which I am compelled to think about nonetheless. My feeling is that, in the absence of an acceptable God, or an acceptable alternative for Him, there is a need for us to make up the difference between what we?re getting and what we feel we want, need or deserve; a recognition that we need to act for ourselves, in other words.

There are other things that disturb me, such as the apparent relativity of concepts and their subsets: assertions, practices, theories. Why am I disturbed by this? Primarily because I believe that what we can know with certainty will best resolve problems; because problems result from our having a multiplicity of differing perspectives regarding the same things; and because ignorance regarding this multiplicity–that is, how and why such perspectives arise and are maintained in the first place–leads to misunderstanding, personal and social anguish, conflict escalation, abusive behavior, and even war! Unfortunately,? chasing after concepts hasn?t netted very much in terms of new knowledge. On the contrary, in trying to ?think? about the insights or intuitions I receive, I invariably wind up with more alternatives than I can possibly handle; so many possibilities beckoning pursuit as to make me almost dizzy. And there it ends, with only the original conception remaining intact,? if I?m lucky.

Nevertheless, I feel that many of these alternative conceptions to prevailing theories, opinions, or practices, are in many ways powerful insights. Not because they are different, but because they often exhibit great depth and breadth, sometimes turning current thinking on its head by allowing me to envision polar opposite or entirely new perspectives. My perceptions, if they can properly be called mine, are not simply different or alternative perspectives surrounding some issue or another, but generally offer new ?levels? of insight–greater depth and breadth at very least–and whole new conceptions at their very best.
And so, like everyone else, I imagine, I not only wish to learn from those who have achieved higher levels of understanding than myself, but also wish to share what I know with those who may not have achieved the same. Unfortunately, since my understanding is always somewhat less than certain– that is, is never final–I find it extremely difficult to ever put what I know to effective use. Whenever I do attempt to assert something, it is generally so bogged down with qualifications, exclusions and alternatives, as to make the whole idea incomprehensible, practically useless, and, in the end, perhaps entirely meaningless as well.?

I am, therefore, primarily interested in creating a proper atmosphere for the reception and pursuit of such concepts or perceptions–or the metaphysical bases? underlying them. I want the freedom and means to be able to focus and concentrate upon such conceptions–my own as well as those belonging to others. I feel that focusing will foster new visions and helps to cement them within a given conceptual sphere of inquiry, intuition, imagination and thought. I also wish to find the means for putting broader, more in-depth concepts to use through writing or commentary.

SOCIAL COMMENTARY/CRITICISM
I tend to see social problems stemming more from personal psychology than from anything else. Of course, culture, tradition, history, personal well-being, fears and all the rest have a large part to play in the formation of beliefs, but I still feel that we are mainly motivated by individual personalities and perspectives which, more than anything else, shapes our outlook upon the world. Furthermore, I feel that we naively believe in the ?objectivity of belief? when they are thoroughly subjective in every sense of the word. Nurture does shape belief, to be sure, but such beliefs remain artificial to this degree. If they are to be legitimate, that is, integral with who and what we are, they must either stem from, or else connect up with, who we are.

Yes, I suppose that it will remain proper to claim that beliefs arise from external contingencies, but we will also be forced to admit that the result is a veritable hodgepodge of mixed opinions stemming from both nature and nurture. And, as a result of ignorance, apathy, and? personal confusion regarding the same, very few beliefs are ever understood, truly accepted as one?s own, or considered as something ?true to ones own nature.? I estimate that most beliefs fall into this latter category.

PERSONAL INTEGRATION

A conscientious, higher-level process of growth, understanding, and personal well-being brought about through further exploration and discovery of characteristics and functions of mind as these relate to the external world. Probably a forever unreachable ideal? which, nevertheless,? tends to shift the balance of control from nature to ourselves–or, at least, makes it appear so since nature is always in control. The fact is, we simply are not individual–we are composite like all things. That part which we claim represents ourselves (consciousness primarily) is abysmally ignorant of everything else comprising us. Thus, the vast portion of what is ?contained? within us is as much outside ourselves?our understanding as such–as is the rest of creation.

Personal Reflections
10/97

When something which is puzzling finally becomes clear to oneself, what is it that has taken place? When someone is engaged in a thought process and continually receives new insights, contexts, ideas or visions, sometimes pointing to further possibilities compelling pursuit in new directions, sometimes offering an entirely new? view of the subject at hand, and sometimes simply ?dead-ending? one?s thinking entirely?again, what is it that has taken place?

When philosophers discuss thought processes, for example, intuition, most tend to relegate such processes to an epistemological framework. Thus, intuition becomes ?non-inferential knowledge? and is judged accordingly. Rather than observe and puzzle over the entities and processes themselves–for what they are or appear to be–they, instead, subject such events to a form of logical scrutiny. ?S knows that p intuitively if? a) p is true, b) he is justified in believing that p, and c) his knowledge that p is not based upon his inferring p from other propositions,? etc.

All well and good, I suppose,? if one is interested in assessing or evaluating ?knowledge claims.? Only this is not what interests me. I want to gain a deeper understanding of the mental and emotional processes I experience when engaged in thinking, feeling, imagining, remembering, day-dreaming, night-dreaming, and so on. I want to understand the processes of mental associations, the interconnectedness of mental events, whether I am thinking or not. And, most important of all, I want to do so in order to derive some benefit for myself and others, some benefit that might help to resolve some of the personal and social issues besetting us all.? Besides, the philosophical enterprise seems almost ludicrous inasmuch as it attempts to judge the very basis of? its own knowledge or criterion. If such philosophers were honest, they would have to admit to something like the following: ?We don?t understand the underlying processes by which we formulate our? criteria for knowing, but we still feel justified in evaluating such processes by means of it.?

I want to understand why life is so complex for me; rather, why it has been so unfulfilling, dissatisfying, and utterly disappointing. I want to understand why I cannot rest content with knowing and experiencing that which is within my personal realm–possible for me. I want to know what it is that drives me further from myself, or from that or those who might lessen the burden. Like so many others, I seek meaning and purpose in life, but can find neither; feel compelled to appreciate the beautiful things of the world while despising the ugly; find it difficult to align life?s challenges with my own interests. I hate being chained or enslaved to a world and societies which I do not respect; hate the fact that? I seem too impotent to do anything about it. I seem destined to carry a load which I don?t want to carry, although in a thousand ways, feel compelled to do so. I want to understand why I can?t simply drop this burden–self-imposed or not. I want to understand how it is I can persist in following a path that has all the earmarks of? an unfulfilling dead-end.

I guess that I want or need to position myself at some (as yet unknown) intersection of philosophy, psychology,? anthropology, sociology, and political events. But even this wouldn?t be suffice unless spirituality and education were an integral part of the same. But when I look to these respective disciplines, I am generally dismayed, and sometimes sickened by the likeness or characteristics of the same. I hate philosophy when it attempts enshroud the world with its own notion of ?objectivity?; psychology and education whenever they try to emulate the same, or the world of science. I hate the fact of our intolerance toward one another regarding characteristics, beliefs, cultures and traditions. But, more than this, I hate (feeling as I do) the fact that much of this anguish could be avoided?that it is within our power to do something about. Why, then, do we appear unwilling to ameliorate such situations? Because we have essentially denied ourselves for the sake of an illusion. We have accepted the ?half-baked? notion that there can be an ?objective? form of knowledge without its subjective counterpart; that doing so constitutes a worthwhile enterprise, such as having a separate notion of curriculum apart from learner; object apart from perception; value apart from holder or believer. Yes, our concepts do make these things appear to be possible, but our ?gut? feelings and intuitions, not to mention the ever present, always interfering, circumstances emanating from the same, inform us otherwise. Thus, what I hate more than anything else, is the sheer arrogance of? believing ourselves capable of such monumental achievements when I know this to be a farce by the very same criteria which is used to sustain such claims.

So what is it that I seem to be about? At very least, where can I find my ?cognitive center?? I know that I have always been a ?truth-seeker,? or have appeared to be, throughout my life, but I don?t? believe that I ever relished knowledge for its own sake. There was always an accompanying feeling that something was out of place; not properly accounted for;? being overlooked or purposely avoided, and that people would simply not own up to it. No one, it seems, neither preacher nor teacher, ever wanted to admit to our obvious shortcomings insofar as knowledge was concerned; insofar as their own ignorance was concerned. But more than this, there was the ever-present awareness that my own needs were not being met, be they intellectual or otherwise, and that neither my dissatisfaction nor countenance was about to deter anyone from what seemed to be their appointed rounds.

So what am I looking for at present? Some contact, I believe, with people (regardless of general vocation, discipline, or belief system) who share at least this one belief with me: that, as a species, much of what we label human suffering has resulted from cowardly actions (or inaction) on our own parts; that high above all the sins we have committed against ourselves and nature, rests the sin of self-denial and our unwarranted belief that we are, ourselves, creators, rather than one of many means to the same. I am looking for people who are willing to try to muster the courage to be different, to be true, and who will dare to move toward correcting the many forms of personal and institutional fragmentation caused by our failure to embrace the world as it is. This is not to say that we shouldn?t set ideals and strive our utmost to meet them?we most certainly should?but only that such ideals should rest upon a foundation of truth and not illusion. I am looking for people who suspect, as I do, that much of our difficulty in life has to more to do with ?conceptual confusion? than anything else, and that a large part of this confusion goes by the name of ?knowledge.?

Dream
11-7-97

Dreamt about a huge black horse which I was extremely wary of. By huge, I mean fifteen feet tall with a back so large that my legs could barely begin to straddle. I recall being near to the horse’s head and not knowing whether or not it would bite me, or harm me in any other way. I didn’t know what to expect and my guard was up. I remember putting my arm parallel to his face in order to shield myself “just in case.” The horse was as muscular as it was big and, judging from the look in its eye, as independent and unpredictable as I surmised him to be. Nevertheless, the highlight of the dream was when I very hesitantly decided to get on his bare back to ride him. To my surprise, he took off and the ride was absolutely smooth. I remember commenting to someone how stable the ride was, as though I were on a smooth running machine. We jumped fences without my being moved in any way whatever. There was no danger of my falling off whatever.

There was a point in the dream where (the horse?) in some manner took out an automatic rifle which I felt he was going to use carelessly by shooting at things or people, I’m not sure. I somehow took possession of it and either discharged it into the air or else found the means to empty the cartridge.

What stands out most in my mind regarding this dream is the fact that I dared, and was allowed, to ride this monumentally strong horse which I felt was in absolute control of my safety, and yet never harmed me. If this black horse is a symbol of the unconscious, it is well chosen–something to be continually wary of, but not so much that fear prevents me from knowing more about it, or prevents me from utilizing it for that matter.

In my dream of (?????????? ), there was a painting of a Knight Chess piece in the form of a horse. It was a beautiful wood-grained piece with a wine colored tapestry draped behind and enshrouding it. Is there any connection?

I read an article in this morning’s newspaper on the merits of Marine Corps Boot Camp. What struck me most were the simple values it espoused, foremost among them, the admonition that we must all strive toward excellence. No matter what you do, no matter how trivial or mundane the task, they said, do it with excellence!

Oh how these words resonate in me, notorious, as I am (to those who know me) for never having completed anything, much less performing it to some standard of excellence. Oh how I would like to change this state of affairs, beginning with almost anything–but what? Only why do I imagine myself ready to change in this regard? Well, maybe if the task were small enough, very small, I might be in a position to practically guarantee success. And maybe, just maybe, this has been my greatest source of failure over the years, that, perhaps, I have demanded too much of myself, beyond that which my intellect and talents can ever hope to attain. Maybe this is why I’ve netted practically nothing in terms of accomplishments and remain enmeshed in a fantasy world that continues to picture my reality as I want it to be rather than as it really is. But, of course, the truer reality of my situation persists; it can neither be buried nor varnished over to make it appear more palatable. And so I try to prevail, try to hold my head up. I must be something more than this–for something more than this.

Global Concerns, Simple Solutions
January 16, 1998

In my perpetual struggle “to locate my Center,” as the notion goes, my intuition informed me one day that all I needed to do was to tell the truth. In this way, I would be able to know which of the oftentimes competing elements in my mind was the right one to follow. This tact would automate the process, so to speak, and ensure that I remained on track. Now these words might have an awfully simplistic ring to them, on first hearing, but I can promise you, that the more you let them sink in, the more you will begin to realize their profundity.

In telling the truth, we are forced to focus upon, and reveal in clearest terms, what we are honestly feeling or knowing at a given time. Yes, there will always be other options and avenues open to us, options more or less removed from our central truth, but should we lean toward any one of them, even to the slightest degree, we are, invariably, apprised of our deviation. But what is it that is so inherently important about telling the truth?? Well, it just might be our only true means for resolving both personal and global problems. No, I’m not talking about a moral issue here. On the contrary, I believe that I’m talking about mental states or the workings of mind.

Again, when we are asked to tell the truth, the whole truth, we are being asked to reveal something very special about our emotional states; namely, a sort of prioritization of prevailing shades of meaning or the manner in which they truly impact us. And, once again, we can always? expect to be apprised of having veered off course. True, he can try to bury such these “stray feelings” within the confines of some rationalization or another, but, in the end, it will be the rationalization that must be accepted, rather than successful riddance of the prevailing emotion. What I am suggesting is that telling the truth might not merely be our best or only means for achieving that sense of internal balance and personal identity each of us craves, but that it may be our failure to tell the truth,? in this regard, that has been the primary cause of global unrest. Absurd? Overly simplistic? I think not. On the contrary, I feel quite certain that the rampant confusion and sickening turmoil, which we see daily to headline every newspaper and broadcast throughout the world, is in very great part, owing to this very notion.

It is not necessary to mention what some of these attitudes and current problems are. We are all familiar with them. And I’m equally certain that you are as sickened by their consequences as I am. But don’t we already know, in our heart of hearts, that it is our individual attitudes, emotions, beliefs, wants and fears, that must, inevitably, return global problems back home to ourselves? Think on this–then think on it again! Putting it as plainly and as simply as I can, truth is the honest expression of what one finds to be the case within one’s own character. Daring to reveal ourselves is often a monumentally difficult task, especially when we may not be in agreement with what we find. And so we might veer from the truth, and the more we veer, the more hazy and further removed we become from others. Complexities grow and ignorance and jealousies soon abound. Wants stretch beyond means, and suddenly our lives and minds are filled with having to make “appropriate” corrections and choices.

I can go on and on in this vein, but I think that you get the point. Of course confusion reigns among us–we have for the most part been liars! We have veered off course, and continue to veer, seemingly unaware of the rut we have created for ourselves. Nevertheless, in spite of the fact that our hopes for a better world are beginning to appear like the “grandest delusion” of them all, the way back to our better senses might be much clearer and simpler than we think. For I submit, that when the inner house is in better order, so will the outer house be–so long as honesty prevails. I tend to view the state of humanity in this way: Somehow we have been left with the belief that nature has left us barefoot and alone, and that each of us must find the means to walk through life the best he can. To alleviate some of this stress, each society tries to cover as much of the earth as is possible, with leather. In this way, each believes that they are doing their part to ensure that all of our paths will be softened. But wait! Who is it, exactly, that is claiming we are shoeless and alone? I have them! And if you look closer, you will see that you do too! And should each of us dare to put them on and wear them as they were meant to wear, lo! a monumental, totally superfluous undertaking disappears. For what ails the entire world at present is not the fact that we have problems, but that our actions have all but delivered them to one another. And, as my intuition reminded me some time ago, the way to get back is to tell this truth.?

DREAM

1-26-98

Dreamt that I was on a fork truck and that it’s brakes were not working properly. Had similar dreams in the past (once on a fork truck and another in an automobile) where I found myself having to struggle with maintaining control of the vehicles. In this dream, I was facing the task of having to find a way of supporting a bundle of 2X4’s on three long 6X6 posts which, presumably, I was readying for delivery. How would I stack the smaller pieces on top of the larger without them falling in between or toppling over them? The solution was to simply to bundle the 2X4’s with banding wire and, after spreading the larger posts out, stack them on top. It’s not altogether clear to me now as to why I was puzzling over this solution, but I was.

Analysis

After awakening and thinking on this dream–especially on the meaning of the three posts–I began to recall several previous dreams where I was confronted by threes:? three women, three arrows pointing in three different directions, three paintings, and three beautiful mahogony doors. There may have been still others, but these come quickly to mind. In the case of the women, one was “loose,” one “nice and feeling,” and one a “teacher.” In the dream with the signs, I was driving down what I considered to be a one-way street going in the wrong direction, but then came upon these arrows pointing left, right, and straight ahead. The three mahagony doors simply stood on the deck of an old boat which was mine and were equally beautiful. The dream with the three paintings showed them to be different, but only one stood out vividly, a beautiful painting of a “knight piece” against a royal purple or violet drapery enshrouding it. I believe the second painting was of a woman, and the third I can’t remember.

Upon waking from the present dream, I tried to think of what significance the three posts and stack of 2X4’s could have. I don’t know the exact order in which I came to this possibility, but I thought about the three women and how they could be compared to three of Jung’s personality types: “sensing,” “feeling,” and “thinking.” Only “intuition” was missing. Then I thought about the 2X4’s as representing a mass of individual intuitions which needed to be bundled and set upon three posts or beams in order to be delivered. Well, since runaway intuitions have been the problem of my life to date, I couldn’t help but conclude that, quite possibily, this dream was informing of a way out; that I needed to bundle my intuitions and rest them upon a base comprising the other three elements of my personality. This was a little unsettling, however, as I would have thought one (my so-called “auxiliary function”) would have been chosen, only this wasn’t the case. On the other hand, I have never been clear as to whether this second function should be considered feeling or thinking. Now when I look to the dream with the paintings, I find that the “knight” piece (represented by a horse) might suggest thinking, while, again, the second painting of the woman would have been feeling and the third, which I cannot remember, most probably sensing. It is interesting that the first was vivid, the second, vague, and the third, unknown. In Jungian terms, this would translate to thinking, feeling, and sensing in that order. Assuming for the moment that I am an intuitive, then my auxiliary function would be either thinking or feeling, but not both. This dream would suggest that thinking is my auxilary, followed by feeling (3rd) and sensing (4th), which conforms exactly with the Jungian model. But, then, this would mean (in MBTI terms) that I am an INTJ instead of the INTP which I always test out to be. As an INTP, thinking is first and intuition second. As an INTJ, intuition is first and thinking second. But, then, who says that the MBTI is correct? Regardless, as far as I’ m concerned, intuition appears to be first whether I am introverting or extroverting. It is my primary function in either case. Thinking for me is little more than manipulating or following intuitive insights as they occur. More than “hunches,” to be sure, but not really thinking in the strongest sense of the word. I tend to conceptualize rather than systematize, and relating these conceptualizations to still others, is not really thinking.

Again, one element is missing from each of these dreams and since it appears to be “intuition” in both the dream with the paintings and also with the women, I suspect that it’s because this is what I am more than anything else. Thus, the earliest dream with the three beautiful mahogony doors might have alluded to the fact that each of these paths were equally important as doors to integration, perhaps. The dream with the arrows forced me to make a “right” turn (rather than a left) against my will while driving a car, only to end at the three arrow signs. Only, what the significance of the arrow signs, or the right turn are, I don’t know. Presumably, the dream was telling me that I may have to go against my inclinations or habit in order to proceed on course. My belief was that I could use my left hand as well as my right, which was exactly what I was telling my brother Leonard who was sitting next to me in the auto. Regardless, although I intended to turn right in order to demonstrate this point to him, the car turned right on its own accord.

The question is, what am I trying to balance that I shouldn’t? Two sides of my personality? If so, would they be sensing and intution or thinking and feeling? If I return to the dream with the three women, I can recall that I went with the lustful one even though I was really interested in the nice feeling girl who I was getting to know. The teacher was further in the background. Well, this would suggest that I’m yielding to the temptation of my sensing side even though it is not really satisfying me, which was the case in this dream and I think maybe true in real life as well. It also suggests that what I really want is “feeling” (something of deeper value, more meaninful, and worth striving for) but neither do I want to risk losing any immediate gratification that might come my way. I remember thinking that my actions might cause me to lose both women and be left with nothing for my indecisesiveness or inability to choose between them.

My brother Leonard is an introverted sensing-thinking type himself, but he says nothing in my dreams, while I am always trying to convince him of something. If I follow this line of thinking, then I am either trying to convince my sensing or thinking side that what I say is true, but my brother, I believe, remains doubtful. So does this mean that I am employing thinking to rationalize my fluctuating between sensing and feeling; that I can handle both? I suspect so. My dream may be informing me that I am only fooling myself and that I had better recognize that feeling is what is most important to me at present. Then what does this say about the painting dream? This dream suggests that I need to create something beautiful with my thinking side, or so it would seem. So which is it? Thinking or feeling? And what is the significance of turning or leaning “right?” In still another earlier dream, I recall that I could propel myself around a room simply by leaning my body right. There was also a school teacher in this dream as well, trying to get something over to me which I refuse to hear. Is there an inner thinking personality (always a feminine one) that is trying to get me on track? But, again, what is the significance of turning right? What do I need to do to turn right? Turning toward “thinking” seems to be the closest I can come to, but it doesn’t seem sufficient. And yet, coming up against three arrows is telling me no more than seeing the three doors. What do they mean?

If I assume that I need to employ thinking while, at the same time, investing in my feeling side (over that of sensing), then why does my last dream show my bundled intuitions resting upon three equally sized posts? And, last though perhaps not least in this dream, Bob Virkler, a former fellow employee (when working for Wickes Lumber), called out to me while I was on the fork truck: “Did you turn 57 yet?” I don’t know what this could have meant, although I remember Bob was a highly intelligent, very rational, individual who had a Master’s in Divinity. Was he making fun of me? Or does 57 have some further significance than my present age?

Dreams are a real pain in the ass. Just when you think that they’ve conveyed something meaningful, all sorts of “unmeaningful events” arise to antagonize the original notion. But is this my fault? Is is because I was bent on finding additional support for the dream when I shouldn’t have? Maybe. In any case, the lure of supporting elements always seems to be counterbalanced by the failure of certain other elements to conform with my original notion. Like I said, dreams can be a real pain in the ass! Nor were these two dreams the only ones informing me that I need to turn right. There was at least one other that I can recall which had me turning right and then making a quick left in order to find my way back home. If I could only resolve this one issue, I think that the rest will fall into place. Right in the sense of “propriety” or “conservatism?” Or something else?

I feel compelled to continue to pursue this thing. Prior to the automobile scene, I was jumping from pit to pit in a bowling alley with Leonard sitting behind me. I told him that I wouldn’t get hurt so long as I could protect myself by extending my legs when the balls fnally hit the pins. He said nothing. “Pit to pit,” “left hand-right hand.” The first is rather generic, both pits being equal in the bowling alley. The second seems to connote something, but maybe its not intended to after all. Just another balancing act. Okay, so I’m forced to turn, and feel that I’m going in the wrong direction on a one way street, only to be reassured my the three arrows facing me. What caused this feeling? The fact that I was forced to go against my inclination? The fact that I was being controlled? Or out of control? Is is a question of lacking trust and suspecting the worse? Am I failing to trust myself, my own intuitions or feelings or thoughts? Is this the matter then, the fact that I am trying to have it both ways–that is, acknowledge my feelings and thoughts while hedging them to some degree? So, is this dream informing me that I can’t even begin to get to my three remaining directions until I am able to let go of my hedging? I think so.

And what about the paintings. Prior to seeing these three beautiful paintings on the wall, I had just tried to help an artist out of a jam. He was forced to continually lower his prices because people would always question their worth. I suggested that he scribble some abstract stuff which would only take minutes and could sell for more than what his work was selling for. He said nothing and left the room I believe. This is when the scene changed to the three beautiful wall-size paintings. So how many levels of meaning might be at work here? Am I the artist and addressing myself? Or is it my “attitude” that counts most? Rather than give in to the public, or allow them to beat you down–outsmart them? That would be one solution. Another might be to create work that would be indisputably valued! Well did the artist produce these to confront my attitude? Or was my dream showing me, through symbolism, a way out of a dilemma I share with this artist?

But what about the public’s attitude in this regard? What about the feeling of helplessness that accompanies this sense of unfairness–vulnerability? Such an attitude not only demeans the work, but the artist as well! The public only sees the surface of things, rarely the thought and effort that go into producing them. It’s a sort of slavery where they seem to be in control. Only, apparently, my response was neither becoming to the artist nor to my dreammaker. I’m trying now to consider whether I have acted in this way while running my resume service business. Was I producing templates of sorts and passing them off as originals. To a small degree, yes. But, far more often than not, this was not the case. I put a good deal of genuine effort into composing resumes and, more often than not, was not fairly compensated. But is this the point? Was even my best work not good enough since customers weren’t always convinced of its value? Or was it mostly myself who remained unconvinced and thus charged less than I could have?

1-29-98

Why can’t I reach my soul? Scattered everywhere around me is the debris of my uncertainty? “The Essential Writings of William James,” “Quantum Questions,” my latest “self-help” book? all half read and strewn here and there along with my regular readings of Jung and Emerson. And then there is my manuscript. What is to be done with it? And earning a living. What is to be done about this? Where is my Center? What is it that I truly want or am in need of? Why am I so na?ve in this regard? So blinded?

I just now created a macro to search for dreams in my manuscript and to mark them with a code so that I could locate them more easily in the future. The first one I came upon was the one with Harold Greenstein and the evaluation of my ability to manage (10/8/90). Once again, I was reminded of the indubitable fact that there is more residing within and without ourselves than we will ever know. And yet, our accessibility to both inner and outer worlds–Mind, if you like– is severely limited. Why? In thinking about this, it also occurred to me that all of us experience mental telepathy. We do so in dreams when others are talking to us. What is this if not telepathy? And then there are those times (two in my own case) when we experience an inner voice speaking to us while we are awake. This is closer to normal speech, but slightly different. We hear it within.

Okay, so our dreams utilize language and mental imagery and surely are not constructions stemming from consciousness. But then the question becomes: Why, if the unconscious has these abilities, does it not simply speak to us verbally, clearly, without symbolism, and when we are awake? Or might the answer to this be in some way related to the “necessity of limitations” that I am so fond of speaking about? What if the unconscious did speak to us in this way, as a greater source of intelligence in the form or a teacher or guide, or simply as the keeper of a repository of knowledge gained through millions of years of evolutionary development? What if? Well, it seems to me that this would be no different than having a highly intelligent friend to rely on. One might still not understand what was being said, or question its accuracy, or refuse to hear it, etc. “But this is your own voice, stemming from within yourself. Surely it must be more knowledgeable and accurate about your own case.” Maybe, but what goes on in my mind does not speak from one voice and, perhaps, does not stem from one source. There are countless distractions, imagery, feelings, memories and the like, that almost bombard consciousness on a daily basis. These are not nicely sorted and prioritized, nor are they free of confusion. If there is a central authority at work within me, it is not doing a very good job, speaking from my own case.

Yes, consciousness may be playing a part in blocking out what it does not want to hear, but if that’s the case, then all the more reason for the unconscious to speak in clear, matter of fact, terms. Why leave me with the confusing symbolism of dreams? Why instruct or attempt to convey by such means? My God, I have literally been inundated by such symbolism and still do not know what to make of it? I have been shocked, pleaded with, instructed, warned, frightened, made fun of–and still am unclear about any of it. It is obvious that we are in need of a conceptual breakthrough in regards to dreams. Their relationship to consciousness seems almost polar opposite to that of intuition. Whereas intuition takes place during conscious wakefulness and ranges from fuzzy to clear insights about actual facts, dreams take place during conscious sleep and offer unclear, symbolic messages which cannot be counted as insights. At most, they might be compared with their fuzzy intuitive counterparts in terms of meaning or comprehension, but not in form. For dreams are clear in perceptual content whereas fuzzy intuitions are something between an unclear feeling or vague vision.

Unfortunately for myself, I’m beginning to get the impression that all my thinking in this regard has been for naught and has merely placed me beside, rather than within, myself. Only how can I simply ignore what goes on in me?

I just read another former dream of mine and came across the following which I wrote soon after recording the dream. It seems to hit home.

OCTOBER 3, 1990

Why do we insist on hiding ourselves from others?
Pretending that we are society’s own;
That we are hero’s, brave and strong;
That good or bad we must belong;
That we are cultural entities?

If we are not cultural entities, then what are we? And why hide the fact from others? Or are my words unknowingly describing myself? Do I think of myself as one of society’s unsung hero’s, struggling against himself for its benefit? Perhaps I do. But if I do not struggle for society’s benefit, then for whom? The answer is, of course, as obvious as it is seemingly vacuous. Yes, my allegiance most probably would be to myself first and foremost, but this “Self” is anything but knowable. So what should I reveal to others? My confusion? I’m afraid that I will make a very poor representative for Self.

February 13, 1998

I awoke at about 9:00 this morning and spent almost two hours reading the morning paper while having breakfast. How is it that I can waste so much time when it is essential that I gain an employment very soon. Then I picked up Freud’s Interpretation of Dreams, for no apparent reason other than the fact that I noticed it among other books,? and began thinking about finally reading it. I read a few pages and then stopped myself. What am I doing! Am I going to allow myself to become further diverted–further distanced–from what I need to tend to? After reading a couple of pages I set the book down and went to the bathroom to shower. During my shower, I went through a long soliloquy concerning attitudes regarding structure and present-day social organization. I commented that structure needs to be respected as our only means for dealing with chaos and difference, and, therefore, it is within our rights and duty to criticize it where it is deserving of the same, but never to criticize it for simply being. It is our handle on the universe and must be respected as such. Those who would eradicate certain attitudes, values, institutions, etc., for no other reason than that they dislike or disagree with them, are a danger to society and to survival as well. They must either demonstrate why such things needn’t exist, or else demonstrate how they might be changed or replaced by something better.

In any event, I got out of the shower still thinking about how easily I can get myself side-tracked. What is it that I need to focus upon? What area of life or knowledge do I need to zero-in on? I spent the entire day yesterday developing an honest resume that adequately expresses where I feel that I am at present. In effect, it outlined my thesis or the major thrust of my thinking which is, essentially, to show how the formation and functioning of concepts and personality help to create and continue human and social conflicts on the grand scale. Unfortunately, there probably aren’t more than 1000 persons on the face of this earth who could give a hoot, or even wish to understand where I am coming from. In point of fact, I sometimes feel that I’m one of them! So, needless to say,? I’m not all that thrilled with having created a resume that I most probably will never use, and now feel that I should edit it down to something that might work. And so it goes? work like hell to describe what it is that I’m really about? then work like hell to downplay it, simplify it, or disguise it altogether.

I’m still smarting over the $750 dentist bill I received for 45″ of professional attention. Who is he kidding, he’s bilking the insurance company and myself (I may have to pay the whole shot) with government sanctioning backing him up. And for what? For filling three tiny pinhole cavities on the back of a single tooth. These guys must laugh themselves to sleep each night while, blissfully, counting the number of sheep they fleeced for the day. This episode, together with all of the abuses I’ve suffered on the internet over the past months, has reminded me over and over again of how infuriated I can get over these capitalist wolves who appear to be taking us all down. Is this the kind of society we want?–that we’re are willing to settle for? I’m getting so I can’t stand the stench of pollution surrounding me; the blatant lies, schemes, rackets surrounding and involving us all. Why aren’t people screaming at the tops of their lungs! Well, all of which is to say that, because I feel so strongly about such issues, perhaps this ought to be my calling. But how would I even begin to contain myself? What vehicle would I use? Where are the Ralph Nader’s of the world? Still lost.

I had a dream the other night. I was on a very high tight rope suspended over water I believe. I was able to maintain my balance (although just barely) by means of hanging on with one hand to another cable that was running parallel to the one I was on. Unfortunately this cable was at shoulder height and about four feet off to my right side. It was a precarious situation (which only the genius of the “dreammaker” could ever think up) inasmuch as I was confronted with two choices. Since I was precariously balanced and subject to falling into the sea below, there was a strong tendency to want to grab this other cable with my free hand in order to save myself from falling. Only if I did that, I would be dangling from the cable with both hands and would eventually have to let go. I vaguely remember seeing others do this and they dropped into the sea. Somehow or another I held my position and backed up to some kind of platform. Now the question became, how would I be able to let go of the cable and still maintain my balance? Just as suddenly, my left hand touched the platform and, gripping onto this made it simple to pull myself to safety. I remember my cousin Sam (Rizzo) being on the platform.

Well, judging by this dream, it’s obvious that my situation has not gone unnoticed deep within. But like most dreams, it’s difficult to recognize what the actual symbolism of the dream is implying. For all I know, maybe it would have been better had I grabbed (committed myself to) the cable with both hands and then dropped into the sea (unknown unconscious) below. After all, “letting go” has been a subject of several dreams of mine and it makes matters confusing. On the other hand, it seems “right” to think that I chose to save myself and actually succeeded. I want to believe that the dreammaker is informing me that, although, I feel precariously balanced in life at present, I will manage to save myself and get to relative safety. The spoiler in this, however, is the presence of my cousin Sam. For me, he represents a strong, business-like practicality, a non-intuitive, non-idealistic sort of person–someone who is definitely on the conservative, right wing side of life. And, even though I am able to recognize a conservative side to myself, I don’t feel as though this is, or ought to be, my path. And this in spite of the numerous dreams that appear to be compelling me in this direction.? I don’t know what it is, but right-wing conservative thinking tends to be more of an ideal, than an actual position which can be held on to. Conservative thinking is relatively shallow and simplified, devoid of the subtle realities that an abstract intuitive mind is capable of receiving. As I said, I would like to achieve their (the conservative) standpoint, only without having to sell ourselves short. I want to do it with depth and insight–not by means of convenient oversight.

One thing seems certain judging from my dream–I’m not willing to “let go” or brave the unknown. As I said, I saw other people drop into the sea but this does not mean that they dropped to their doom. Turning the dream around to this side of the equation, it would follow that I am still clinging to the safety afforded by practicality, custom, or simply by the “known.” Yes, it was relatively easy for me to regain my balance once I grabbed on to the structure behind me (I seem to think it was a wooden bench). This entirely solved the problem of needing sufficient leverage to pull myself upright on the cable. But did it represent a cowardly escape from what I really needed to do? That’s the real question, and it still remains unanswered.

Instead of “missing the boat,” as the saying goes, I “missed the shore” in still another former dream of mine. I recall having come up to the deck on an escalator or elevator and was standing there watching two other individuals jump from the boat and swim to shore. It was only twenty feet away. I considered doing the same thing, but since the ship appeared to be docking, decided to wait instead. Well, it didn’t dock, and the next thing I knew I was back out to sea. Now I was forced to go down this archaic escalator with a cable for a hand rail and representing a very dangerous situation. I had all I could do to make it down. Then I was directed to sit down at a table with a little elderly lady who resembled Dr. Ruth. She was kindly (I even gave her a peck on the cheek) only, needless to say, I was told that I would have to repeat the experience of having to climb to the level I had just left. The dream ended at this point. But judging from this dream, there doesn’t seem to be any question as to what I should have done in the former dream? only why so precariously? Why can’t I trust that things will go as is customary? Why must this move be an act of desperation? A risky move involving some element of danger? What is my unconscious trying to convey to me? That events will not proceed in a safe, smooth, coherent fashion? That I must exert myself and win (through some willful act of courage or ?leap of faith?) the position that I am seeking.

Thinking About The Internet? Well Think Again!
2-17-98

For those of you who may be thinking about going “on-line” and enjoying the benefits of “surfing the web,” do yourself a big favor and think twice, or maybe three times.. Unless you are very computer savvy, extremely forgiving, na?ve, or patient to the nth degree, why don’t you simply save yourself the frustration of it all. Especially don’t do it if you have a good deal of common sense, are easily aware of when you are being duped or manipulated, or are prone to getting angry whenever you are. For, if you think general computer usage and software programs are unfriendly,? you ain’t seen anything until you’ve seen NET! This is a veritable jungle with a no holds barred attitude. At every turn, you will find crass commercialism, manipulation, irresponsibility, redundancy, and graphics pollution to the nth degree. It is so messy, in fact, that it’s hardly possible to know whose site your at even after you’ve chosen it. Your “browser” wants to keep its name, graphics and commands, on screen at all times, and, very often, you won’t know which “hyperlinks” belong to it and which to the site your at,–or? which might belong to a whole host of other “hyperlinks” competing for your attention. These latter ones don’t merely want your attention, they want to confuse and manipulate you into clicking on them. Bingo, off you go, you poor slob, to some commercial link that succeeded in side-tracking you from where you really wanted to go. And so you realize your mistake and try to get back to where you were. Only where were you? And how did you manage to get there? “Oh well, I’ve had enough for today,” you’ll hear yourself saying over and over again.

And don’t even begin to think that your going to get straight answers on the internet–they hardly exist. After receiving two busy signals in a row, America On Line, for example, will still flash a screen reminding you to recheck your settings and other such nonsense designed to divert you from the real problem. They simply can’t accommodate everyone. This is the company that also forces users to view advertisements prior to going on-line. That?s right, you have to click “No Thank You” or “Not Interested” three times in a row before you will be allowed to go where you want. Did you hear what I said? Allowed! They even had the gall one time, to put up an advertisement that couldn’t be avoided. There was nothing to click “no” to, and I was forced to choose it, as I recall. Needless to say, for these and a hundred other reasons, I quit them and joined the Microsoft Network. Yeah, quitting wasn’t easy. They made it impossible to do it on line and, for once, I had an opportunity to talk to a real person by telephone. She told me that there’s a way of turning these advertisements off. I told her that the company should have made that apparent from the start. Who are they kidding?

But don’t think that Microsoft is any different from AOL. Yes, they keep their advertisements in small blocks, rather than fill up the whole screen, or force you to respond to them, but they’re also masters of deception and avoidance. For example, I was revising my resume about an hour ago and was using Microsoft’s “Word” as a word processor (Why did I ever switch from WordPerfect!). About an hour into it, I suddenly received the message “You have committed an illegal operation and this program is being shut down.” Bam! No further options; no chance to save my work. My resume was simply wiped from the screen and the program closed. Now who in hell are they kidding? “I” didn’t perform an illegal operation–their program malfunctioned for some unknown reason!? But what do they care, they just press on by rolling right over me, as though I don’t exist. And then there are the so-called “support” screens available to you when you run into trouble. Want to “rant and rave,” well you won’t be able to by pushing this link. Once you do, you find that it’s an area where you can read what other people have had to say about the company’s programs. Hiding behind FAQ’s (frequently asked questions) and Bulletin Boards are two other means for these companies to remain out of sight. To be sure, once you’ve paid the price of extreme perseverance, you will learn where to find the answers and the right sites. For Microsoft, use the email link, but don’t laugh when you see the structure of the response screens. Technocrats! You won’t believe it! Needless to say, shouldn’t easy accessibility to help be a company’s first priority? Well, no, not so long as things remain what they are. The point is, they know as well as I, that there are so many glitches associated with computer usage today, that it’s literally impossible to keep up with it all, much less hold the user’s hand as he or she wades through this turbulent sea of confusion. And so it goes.

As I said, if you have any degree of common sense, whatever, you will become extremely frustrated by the degree of oversight and plain stupidity that will surround you, this much I can promise. Take something as simple as this. The windows format has a box in the upper right hand corner with an X in it. This is the way you exit from windows programs. So the same is true for your Browser’s Window box as well. Only, since every dialog box has one of these exit boxes in them, you would think that someone would have thought to change the appearance of “this box” since, by clicking on it, you will exit the internet itself. Surely this deserves some further defining characteristic. How many times have I inadvertently exited from the internet when I only wanted to exit from a web site. And so will you. Simple, obvious, but overlooked or ignored. Another case in point. When you go to a web site, there will undoubtedly be many “sub-screens” that you can go to in succession. In fact, you can go down six, ten, fifteen levels or so and then may want to back up to the original home page. Well if the site producer didn’t put a hyperlink on every page to get you back, you’re out of luck, or must resort to hitting the “back button” fifteen times. But, shouldn’t this be the responsibility of the “browser” you are using? When you go to a web site, the very least your browser ought to do is to remember its home page. Surely, it ought to have on its command bar a “home” button for the current site along with its own. I can promise you, new users will be hitting the browser’s home button thinking it belongs to the site, and then having to figure out how to get back. Yes, as I said, after a time you will begin to recognize the quirks and setbacks–but only after a time. And this is the problem. Not everyone will have the perseverance to go through the obstacle course. Nor should they be expected to!

As I said, think again before you decide to get involved with computers period, let alone the internet. It’s a jungle out there–mass confusion, sheer stupidity, and unaccountability at every turn. And it’s getting worse–not better. Sometimes I feel as though I’ve been raped, or that my computer has. You see, when you go “on-line,” you open your computer up to everyone. Try downloading a program and you might find that the program has changed files, replaced some that “interfere with its operation,” or any number of other things. At any given time, you won’t know how your machine is configured, even if you cared.. Oh yes, then there are the new versions of software or “drivers” or “searchers” or “multi-media plug-in’s,” etc. that spring up about every other week. Sometimes, after you have downloaded or upgraded one of these programs, you might get a message informing you that you ought to get rid of the old one. Yeah, sure! Where am I going to find it on my 4.5 gigabyte hard drive? How many different programs were already loaded on it when I bought my computer? How many different directories were used? What lines of special coding were added to my “autoexec.bat” file or others? Besides, if this industry is so good at reading the contents of my computer, and knowing exactly what I have in it, then why in hell don’t they locate their own files and make certain that they’re replaced or deleted? Why ask me? Since we’re already standing naked in a stream of technology which few if any of us really understands, they might as well go the whole way with us. Only how did we get to this point? What went wrong to allow these measures?

I remember fifteen years ago when I bought my first computer, a Timex, which had about enough memory to hold about a paragraph of text, or so. Programmers had to draw upon sheer genius in order to get the most out of the few lines they were allowed. That’s what’s missing, in my estimation. Memory and speed of computers has multiplied exponentially since that time, while programming has gotten fatter and sloppier by comparison. But, beyond this, where are the “intuitive types” in designing these programs? Surely, the technocrats haven’t overlooked how extremely valuable they can be in noting how things go together, or ought to go together? Surely they’ve learned by now that programmers and engineers are linear, step by step, thinkers that oftentimes cannot see the forest for the trees? There’s no good in denying this fact. Yes, they are exactly right for designing machines and writing code and routines, but so is the intuitive perfectly suited to seeing redundancy where it exists; in noting unnecessary hierarchical schemes, menu after menu, that could easily have been synthesized had the right perspective been noted from the outset. Programmers, or technical types in general, are anathema to user advocacy. Keep them as far away from the end-user as they in fact are–please! They cannot be the final arbitrators of how their programs will “interface” with users–nor should they be. So I remind you once again, you who are the end user–think twice before you buy into this melee! Yes, I’m well aware of the fact that most of us have little choice in the matter and that our choices are becoming even less as time goes on. But, for heaven’s sake, when and if you are finally forced to take the step, please don’t be so accepting of abuse. Don’t go quietly into the night, but rather fight, scratch, and scream as loud as you can each and every time you come upon blatant wrongs. I tell you, the sins this industry is currently committing is barely known. Part of the problem is the fact that most computer and internet users are young and don’t really know better. But I can tell you this, if “civil libertarians” were fully aware of the extent to which current technology is squashing freedom of choice and access to real human beings and needed resources, they would take to arms! Oh well? Welcome to the new world order.

Thoughts
9-2-98

I find so much in my life that is irksome, that you would think it a simple task to do something about it. Far from it. The problem has something to do with not tending to the things which are bothering me. Only if I deal with such things, then I won?t be able to tend to some others, and so on. Nor do I have the energy or sheer willpower to tackle the whole gamut of such bothersome trivia. I am certainly not in control of the same, nor do I seem to want to be; and this is the crucial point! Call it laziness or a general disinterest in dealing with life?s demands, it?s all the same with me. But what is it exactly that is the same? Where in this general malaise am I to identify the crucial constituents of my own character or behavioral preferences? ?I? am certainly not apparent to myself. The only thing that I know is that I hate dealing with the mundane; hate conformity; hate illusions; hate ignorance; hate immorality; and generally hate anything less than the ideal or, at very least, the pursuit of it. This seems like a certain recipe to becoming a sociopath, I realize, but it?s not as bad as all that. It?s the pursuit that matters most to be?not the actuality. So long as there are people in this world who are sincerely trying to be better persons (and sincerity is the key word), then I have something to hope for and cling to. What bothers me most is not my loss of respect for individuals, but for society as a whole; and for our leadership in particular. At a time when concern for others should be of paramount importance to better global relations, we are, instead, growing more and more self-centered?self-concerned?and seemingly bent on fostering the same!

In my opinion, the world is fast becoming a virtual cesspool of greed and ignorance, and hope seems to be dwindling just as fast. Yes, I?m fully aware of the fact that the world is in transition, and that new ground rules are taking shape on a daily basis; but who is kidding who?surely the plane is without a pilot! As incomprehensible as this may sound, we are all heading into the next millennia without our basic humanity in tact?and we have only ourselves to blame for it!. My God, how do we think that the ?climb from the slime? was made possible? Of course survival was and continues to be at the bottom of it, but it was always a survival that required more than food and drink. It was and continues to be a survival that demands of us that we fit (all of us!) within our surroundings; that we belong to something larger than ourselves which must prove gratifying and rewarding?that is, that we have a world in which our individual characters can grow and expand into.

In past times, our worlds were much smaller?tribes and communities, then states and nations. But now it?s global?the entire earth at bay?and we still have not sufficiently grasped this fact. Nor do we seem to know what to do about it. To put it bluntly, the world?s leadership is in dismal shape. In best terms, we could say that our leaders are like children innocently playing in a mine field; only let?s be honest?they are not so innocent. To be sure, none of us are cognitively or emotionally ready to accept the entire world as our new tribe, much less expecting that we will any time soon have a political and economic basis for the same. But this should not deter us from at least striving to meet the future that we see taking shape! Now I am not for a minute saying that the world?s institutions and values must eventually come together under one roof?only that our common humanity remains so and, of course, is always accounted for and, above all, protected.

And yet, what do we find to be the case in today?s world?–A world full of individuals virtually starving for personal attention and meaning, and, whether knowing it or not, groping for significance, completion, hope, direction, fun, and a thousand other things besides. Yes, of course each person?s perspective is different; that there are many who are able to live relatively happy lives within the confines of their own limitations or interests; but this does not mean that they are out of danger, or that they may not suffer the consequences of global circumstances. There are limits to the ?blissfulness of ignorance.? Neither do I wish to say that each and every one of us needs to be apprised of all of the dangers–that would be foolhardy and cruel;?only that those who are apprised of such facts have equal access to personal satisfaction on whichever level they happen to be. But isn?t this the way the world works? Isn?t this why we have different careers and interests? No it?s not! I am almost ashamed to say that most of what we are and do–profess to want, believe, value, etc.?stems from the throes of our surroundings; that is, from those persons or institutions fostering or demanding that we accept certain contingencies as being our own. We are?and we are not–depending upon how we choose to look at our own situations. And this may very well account for most of the conflict in the world today since many cultures take a different view of their own circumstances. Which cultures, then, are most honest and true to themselves? Which most striving to satisfy personal needs, rather than caving in to personal greed and power? Which are the truest democracies, for that matter?–Those that first ?stack the shelves? and then allow the greatest freedom to individuals to ?choose? among them, or those striving to know what individual wants and needs actually are? Of course, such questions as these are overly simplified. The truth of the matter is that none of us really knows where we are at any given point; that is, knows ?from whence the egg originated,? and also why it is of one type or another. For some cultures, the egg is material?for others, a set of values or beliefs. Well, are such to be considered defining characteristics of individuals?–or simply inculcated within them? Fresh fruit??or unnoticeably rotten or cancerous? The answers are not easy.

But neither should we think that we are left totally without an anchor or common point of reference. If nothing else, we have our humanity! our cravings! our hopes! And what do these apprise us of? Well, in my opinion at least, they apprise us of the fact that we do not crave to cheat and steal, maim or kill, deceive or hurt others in any way. All such things, when they do occur, is the direct result of our lacking personal worth or personal satisfaction of one sort or another. This, of course, is not to deny that we do have basic instincts which, often enough, lead to such actions as these–only that the intent is rarely? what it seems. Since there are all sorts of levels to illusions, we need to take the most brutish approach to this issue. And so I will. And still I will remain steadfast by my contention that the child who grasps a toy from another?s child?s hand does not do so because he wishes to hurt the other child?he simply wants the toy! (Hurt, hate, revenge, animosity, etc. comes later as the result of obstacles standing in the way of what we want). And so, neither would I wish to deny that a person, or a people, may themselves become the object of such hatred. As our personal lives and history shows, people often do stand in the way of our getting what we want. And yet, I still say that such acts as these do not stem from any sort of craving to do harm to others.

But, again, what of those cases where the hatred is directed against another?such as ourselves as ?The Great Satan,? for example? What about the serial killer, rapist, terrorist, abortion clinic bomber, right or left-winged extremist? In every case, I would contend that there are basic needs or contingencies that are obviously not being met. ?But are these legitimate needs?? one might ask. Legitimacy has nothing to do with it. Such contingencies exist! And so they are nature?s own, like it or not! And so are a thousand other human contingencies which we do not wish to face or deal with. And now we are approaching the crux of the matter. Favoring the comfort of illusion and delusion over that of truth, humanity (and especially the Western world) has pared down our true natures to so large an extent, that we no longer seem able (much less willing) to grasp the true significance of who and what we are, or what we need to do. Is it any wonder why the non-Western world appears so remote to us? Or we to they? It?s because we are only remotely connected to ourselves! We have for too long behaved like cowards in effect!

And here I am, once again returned to myself from this long digression. Such digressions are rarely intended, but always seem to take place whenever I begin to direct my attention toward myself. You would think that I would have learned some crucial fact about myself by this time, at least something that might determine a definite or solid direction–but I haven?t. I?m still the same person as ever I was, struggling to shrug off the mundane and distracting things of life; striving for essences and ideals; wishing that I could survive in some way without having to contend with what distracts me from my personal quest, whatever it happens to be. But that is a whole other story which I have covered so many times before. Haven?t I learned, only too well, the terrible price of nonconformity. Not daring to live up to my own expectations, or out of my own true character, has also had a tremendous price. And so the shallowness and cowardice I see so vividly displayed in others is, first and foremost, seen in myself? and to that extent. If only I could escape this personal dilemma?dare to fly!?dare to be!??

Thoughts
9-9-98

There is obviously something about the fact that I can?t seem to finish or tolerate (for very long) a book, a thought, a job, or any person or relationship, even when such persons are members of my own immediate family. Everything in the world grows stale for me and I can?t fathom why this should be. Don?t I already know what is seemingly ordained for me?what is surely coming?even before I venture anything new? And don?t I already know that whatever it is will have a sour or abrupt ending? I have grown to believe (or have tried to convince myself) that all such things are simply not right or meant for me, as though they in some way stand between me and my intended fate. But what good or sense can become of a fate that seems bent on excluding the whole world? a fate which is seemingly without an objective of its own?

I keep trying to join a world which I pretty much despise, and maybe this is my problem. Maybe I shouldn?t bear the burden of tolerating what I don?t like, and take pains to change it! Only competitive I?m not. It goes against my grain to go against someone else?s. And neither am I tactful. Don?t I know already that those whose favor I should be currying are precisely those whose favor I will shirk? It?s part of my personality pattern and only I (and others like myself) understand it.

And when I say that I despise the world, I say it with tongue in cheek. The statement is true, but it requires qualification. I despise what people have allowed themselves to become on the one hand, and what they have allowed themselves and others to do on the other. Character is all but non-existent, as is the expression or want of truth. Conformity is as commonplace as is cowardice, mostly as the direct result of fear for our own welfare. And, of course, ?controlling elements? have all but buried individuality (and its benefits) by sanctifying what is purely an illusion?such as? ?teamwork? in the case of my present employment. In my opinion, if the individuals making up the team are not involved in understanding company aims, for example, or in elaborating real problems and establishing the proper focus to achieve the same, then the so-called ?team? is little more than a ?herd.? Through the mechanisms of? intimidation, punishment and ?proper culling? practices, the team finally becomes exactly what it has allowed itself to become. With the implementation and acceptance of each new ?scare tactic? employed by management, the overall character of the group further diminishes, while individuality continues to be stifled and cowardice fostered. At this juncture, a sort of competitive spirit ensues, only it is an ugly state of competition?a competition among the members to demonstrate (to their leader) that they are the better conformist!

Eventually, there comes a time when no one dares to speak the truth openly, but, of course, their actions belie what is going on underneath the surface. And now the group begins to turn on itself. Since the only means for self-aggrandizement is to demonstrate one?s conformity (rather than indifference) to the rules which are firmly in place, then some of the ?weaker members? in the group will begin to look for errors in the judgments and actions of their fellow employees. The weaker one?s personal character or talents, the more vicious the individual is liable to become. But, of course, it will always be up to each individual to find his or her own way to satisfy the ?requirements? or to ?play the game.? Not only will most find their own means to conforming to what management asks, but some may very well ?cheat? wherever the means to doing so can be easily achieved. The student who only wants the ?A? grade or the ?Degree? is going to focus (like a laser beam) upon the most direct means to the same, and only upon such means. In like manner, the Tour Conductor who believes that his value or worth is being judged by the degree to which he conforms to company policies, or to the number and quality of platitudes received through guest comment cards, is going to conduct himself in like manner and direct his or her tour toward this end?and, perhaps, only this end! And some individuals?again, those most desperate or frightened, lacking in talent, or simply ?knowing how to play the game? while feigning conformity– may even go so far as to falsify such platitudes. It is easily done. Blank comment cards are everywhere to be found. The point is, what seems to have been the case eventually gets superceded by an illusion of the same.

I suppose that some individuals may believe that fostering such delusions can be of tremendous benefit to their own aims, so long as they are able to successfully maintain and manipulate them among the group. When dissension is at its highest, for example, one might simply claim that ?The bar has been raised!? or some such platitude. But nothing could be further from the truth. What is more likely the case is that the group has been further squeezed and probably more ?on edge? than ever before. If allowed to go too far, there will come a time when neither fear tactics, nor reliance upon the group to ?police itself,? will work to hold everything together. Management will, invariably, think that it needs to resort to further compression or ?culling techniques,? since such practices form the very foundation of the organization to begin with. But it won?t work. If the overall character of the group has been allowed to deteriorate so far; if all that comprises the group are individuals who have (out of fear for their jobs) suppressed their individuality for the sake of conformity; who, perhaps, continue to behave like cowards while deluding themselves into believing the contrary; who claim to ?be having fun? or ?that all is well,? simply parroting what management wishes them to say, then I seriously doubt that any such persons are going to be willing or able to save the day. Instead, I would rather expect to see either a general apathy, or else a venomous reaction to take place among the herd; something more like a free-for-all, since the group was merely manipulated into thinking itself a team.

Well, what a digression this has turned out to be! In trying to get to the bottom of why it is that I can?t finish anything; that is, why it is that I cannot seem to stick to something and maintain it throughout, I went off on a tangent talking about my current job situation. On the other hand, such expressions may be nearer to the source of my dilemma than I realize.. For don?t I always see things differently (from a different perspective) from that of others? And don?t I always find myself in a position of having to contend with the same? ?Yes? to both questions. It?s been the story of my life. But what can be done about it? Do my perceptions need to be challenged? I fully recognize that I rarely reveal myself for what I am, or reveal to others what I am really thinking. Then is my problem owing to the fact that I rarely test my perceptions against the views of others? Or is it simply that I am lack a vehicle for the same? Or, again, is it a question of personal vocation being out of sync with intellectual interests? or the fact that I have not dared to follow my true vocation?

Well, in any case, I simply do not know what my vocation is, nor do I understand why it is I cannot survive in this world. I only know that nothing ever works or proves to be satisfying for me, be it a job or personal relations. No sooner are the doors to my personal creativity and imagination shut (which invariably happens in every job that I?ve held), than I begin to deteriorate. Dissension foments and criticism raises its ugly head in response. And rightly so, in my opinion! Perhaps this is the key to my problem, then; perhaps it has always been a question of retaliating against ?personal rejection.? If so, then I surely need an appropriate outlet for my creative juices, and one which would be relatively free from such interference?s! But, then, haven?t I always suspected the same? The problem is that I still need to earn a living!

If only I could eke out a bare subsistence at very low cost? to earn me that illusive ?cottage? in serene surroundings, etc. But why suppose that I will ever be able to put my thoughts in some semblance of order? The best that I could hope to do is exactly what I?ve been doing over the past ten years; that is, express my intuitions as they occur, and try to engage in some semblance of thinking as I do so. And so the cycle ensues. I?m back to ground zero once again and don?t know in which direction to head. A part of me wants to be alone, but another part wants to be with others? especially that elusive ?special other.? Maybe this is all I have ever really wanted from the external world, simply someone special to share it with. Maybe it?s always been this need that has kept me from fulfilling the other, I?m not certain. In the final analysis, I am only certain of one thing?that I continue to ache.

#