The 'Transcendent' functions in every day life

I've recently become more convinced that the 'transcendent function' itself is what creates so much disharmony everywhere and every when. That's because 'it' (the function itself) individualizes a persons' experiences to such a degree  over a long span of time as to seem impossible to a scientific oriented mindset. Its my experience that the symptoms of certain mental 'disorders' can be understood as attributes of the individuation process. I've never heard 'voices' myself, I've experienced thought that I didn't 'will', and speech that was spontanteous, but as I found out over a   length of time came from depths of mind below consciousness and my  and other's intents.

Its also possible that the ordinary individual, having no knowledge of such a process, can experience a sense of being the focus of some malignant attention from an 'other'. The 'other' can perhaps be a spouse,  a neighbor, the FBI, or some material world real persecutor. I've experienced several people who went into a different personality, a few somewhat returned to normal, just somewhat.
 A sprinkling of unusual events may open the door to the hidden world that lays 'hidden' behind a barrier that is language itself, that's how 'it' began to come to my attention. P. D. Ouspensky wrote that a person does not always recognize something new when it happens or one hears about it.  I discovered that myself , in a location where 'new things' happened in my own mind and thought,  between age 2-1/2 and my present age which is  almost 80 years and I didn't notice them myself. They were brought to my attention in an unusual method. I'm sure Emanuel Swedenborg named this 'method' as 'remains installed early in life in states of innocence' for use later in the process he named 'regeneration'. Regeneration is a good word to choose.

The first was an image of what I was looking at when I was 2-1/2 years old, which was 'fixed in my memory' complete in every detail, like a super photograph, because even a thought that occurred into my mind was part of that image. That was the unsuspected 'new' thing as I found out  decades later. That 'scene' then repeated during my life for no reason I could ever see, flashing into my mind extremely rapidly.  Eventuallly I wondered why that 'scene' flashed into my mind. That was a small degree of curiosity and attention but not enough to cause me to focus  on that re-occurring memory for more than a few seconds.

The scene, which I've mentioned before but will describe briefly again:  I was laying on a bed, directly overhead was a bare light bulb suspended from the rafter, it was not a ceiling in a house; that was the visual part. The audible part was that I heard wind coming through the cracks, I knew my new baby sister was laying on the same bed but her body was not in the scene. A thought occurred: "I am in a cold place." I never mentioned this to anyone else until one day in 1989 when I found the old one car garage my parents had rented in 1934, the day before it was to be torn down. My husband told me I could not possibly remember anything so young, but he got out of the car and talked to an old woman sitting on the porch  of the house next to the weather beaten garage. She verified everything. I took pictures and asked if I could have some engraved panels in the door. She told me to take whatever I wanted because the next day the garage was to be bulldozed away.
A different kind of scene was super-photographed when I was about 9 years old when a Sunday school teacher told her version of the birth of Jesus. I listened to her tell about how the messiah had been expected for so long but 'when it came it did not come as it was expected to come'. I remember thinking that the messiah was not an 'it', she should have said 'he', not it. The internal conversation about the messiah not being an 'it' re-occured for decades before my curiosity was somewhat 'turned on'. Only then  I wondered why that memory flashed into my mind.  I had never mentioned that memory to any one.

Only one 'event' cannot be enough to convince anyone else of the validity of a 'process in every day life' that is in fact a complete separation of an individual from the mass of individuals and an interface with that individual takes place.   A few somewhat similar events happened before I was a  teen ager, each different in content but similar in the unexplainable re-occurrance of the event into my mind. I didn't recognize them until I was in my 60's as having been installed early in life for later use, to make me understand that foresight or apparent foresight other than my own was obvious. At this point I believe there's an explanation in our biological connections to what's outside the body, and history as it's been described, for this 'apparent foresight'. Also it was obvious that my thought was as retrievable as the memory of the physical component of the moment.  I didn't recognize a description of similar re-occuring events in his life when I read it the first time, in A New Model Of The Universe by P. D. Ouspensky.

I've read a lot since 1983, when I first came into contact with ideas in psychiatry other than what I  had gleaned from the fictions that were my main reading material. I avoided non-fictions unless required in school or at work because they were  very boring. They didn't produce any  effect or comprehension. I had noticed that about myself when I did read One, Two Three, Infinity by George Gamow after my new husband read it in 1955.  Every word was easy  to read  but I didn't understand what the book was about. That was a small degree of self observation but I didn't think of it as 'self knowledge' then.

The two pages in the picture below are from The Bridge of San Luis Rey  by Thornton Wilder in which an abbess mentions a 'secret' and from Childhood's End by Arthur C. Clarke in which an alien tells a man about an 'abyss' across which 'few....unaided have ever found it.' There's a kind of literalness in these two abstractions from two different books. The title of the chapter, Perhaps An Intention, is perhaps important, and is in my opinion, it really is important information about 'it'.

The Temper of our Time

I've not posted for a few weeks because  so many things have happened that make me believe nothing can be said to describe or change certain aspects of our lives that really need to be described to be changed. It's easy to relate to H. G. Well's fatalistic essay in his last book, Mind at the End of its Tether .  He was my age (79) when he wrote : "The end of everything we call life is close at hand and cannot be evaded." and   "Something queer has come into life...." and "There is no way out or round or through." " ... life as we know it is at an end.".

 I've not played around with his contexts, the quoted words mean  exactly what they say. He died soon after writing that the 'end is near'.

The recent Casey Anthony trial has just blasted my belief that its possible to get at the truth somewhere: in courts. Last night I watched Maher's show and heard Neil de Grasse (wonderful man) say something that needed to be said: "more than 50% of our senators were/are lawyers. He asked: "Where are the scientists, the engineers, the accountants...?" . My hope that the legal process is really about justice and  that people will abide by the law has been shattered too, from experiences of my own. I was involved in a lengthy trial presided over by Judge Gary Little, (check that name on the Internet) but that was not the most instructive court situation I've been involved in.

The Anthony situation which so many people could watch in its entirety is  much more complex than the reality that's the theme of the play Rashomon. It's a play in which several people describe a rape, then  a murder but not one person saw the same event.  Every person experienced something so different than what others told had happened, that the priest is ready to give up his faith. If the truth could not be found it court, where else?
At the end of the play the only 'good' was that a torrential rain storm had kept four people in a sheltered location  long enough to talk about what had happened in a court, each telling their version. So they 'saw' the strangeness of human perception and memory. They saw a side of reality that really is real, nobody experiences an event the same way.  After the rain stopped a baby's cry was heard, someone had left an infant in the rubbish near the Gate so it was rescued although its future was uncertain even then. The priest learned a lot about reality and they saved an infant that had been 'dumped'. The play is supposed to be based in ancient Japanese folk tales so the strange aspect of human perception is not new or unknown.

I saw the play 50+ years ago and a thought occurred into my mind that the play probably explained why people quarrel so about reality. That thought stuck firmly in my understanding, partly because someone had told me I had imagined some things that seemed to me to really have happened. That incident probably created an unconscious interest in trying to prove to myself whether I imagined things. Or it was evidence of foresight other than my own.

But only recently I've read enough of  Freud's ideas in the origin of psychiatry and psycho-analysis to realize that what he really discovered was how invisible a person's understanding  is to the individual.  I suggest A. A. Brill's Freud's Contribution to Psychiatry, its available on google books. The discovery process itself has been difficult to identify, but it's obvious the ancients experienced the kind of relationship that individualizes 'life's events' and the results, the 'voice of the Time' that has been named the voice of Gaia.  That process is not going to be scientifically validated for a while, probably.
It's a good idea to know for your self what psychiatry is and its origins, which Theodore Reik wrote, originated in Freud's need to cure himself.

I've felt and heard the temper of the  'voice' of our Time, the main theme of which right now is: "this is the end of life as we know it". That doesn't need to imply negativity  because the word 'end' also means 'goal'. But the idea is embedded in many places, in advertisements, television shows and actual 'art' of every form.  It felt very 'strange' to hear a television advertisement 'speak' directly to me the way a person does. "The second world is here, and in the second world, all the rules are changed." I paused briefly, thinking ad men didn't have to make sense. Later  the memory of a few unusual events that had happened recently began to resurface often enough to arouse my curiosity. The words told me a fact that was happening, literally describing that a 'new world' was speaking. One event is not enough to believe, a steady stream of similar events had to happen.  A person that's not experienced that 'strangeness' will be unable to relate to that!  It's a voice that may be heard without knowing it is 'the' voice,  because it is created, abstracted from embeddedness some where and a new context is created, automatically and at an almost un-see-able speed!

I have reason to believe (with careful observation) what it 'says' to me because so many books have been written about 'it', but more as a result of hearing 'it' myself. That has happened to me and could be happening to others in the same form,  without consciousness and psychological awareness or prior knowledge about what 'neurosis-psychosis' really  is.  But the history and evolution since Freud wrote his version down,  of modern psychological interpretations is important to know about. That kind of understanding can't be gained from reading anything anywhere, its learned in a body. 
That's a different kind of 'sense' functioning and it produced in my opinion the works of Freud, Jung and  other authors who write about our modern process of psycho analysis,but that's another post I'll make.

The war between humans and electronic creatures is the main theme of so many  movies now. But to anyone that's not decently well read in philosophy, history and especially the pulp science fiction magazines I read (when I was able to find them, because my father hid them from me) there's no way to see how the themes intertwine, and are 'at one' the theme hasn't changed.  We seem to be electronic ourselves, flesh coated energy, perhaps are information that has to be discovered 'bit by bit' through so called 'coincidence'. Synchronization is what happened to me when books, events, thought, memories and two groups of individuals seemed to know what I was thinking but had not said aloud to any one. Those groups were at war with the mainstream, it was painful to be part of that war. We were literally 'leaving the mainstream to learn advanced and challenge levels of square dancing' but new ideas occurred to me, such as 'subracting my self from what was outside my body' so that I could 'see' my body and track the 'phantoms' when they were suddenly added to the set. That was a change so drastic its almost impossible for me to mention without feeling ashames that I'd not noticed even the basic forms of the square dance set.

 I was strangely fascinated by certain mirror image aspects of the dance that didn't make sense to me.

All aspects of our lives  were woven into a fragmented story, that assembled in my  mind much like a puzzle is assembled bit by bit, every one was in my private drama and that almost 'floored' me at times. The current books have in them  ideas that are the same themes;  in the stories of our time, read by  teen agers, young adults. Some of whom read and devour  Harry Potter as pure fantasy. I read them too but a lot that's not new is conveyed in them. The themes  in the Transformers, the Twilight 'phenomenon',  and in True Blood are making me think about the 'dark ages',  about paintings that depict a war between angels and demons that I saw in the Louvre, that are 700 years old.

 I've read a lot and recognized in reading philosophers from the past that it was obvious there's been an ongoing 'theme' in Time itself  that   'echoes' in the popular fictions of this point in Time:

Whether we are alone in the universe is the primary theme. That's what religion is basically concerned with isn't it?  But derived from it is another: whether there is really a war in Time  between two agencies, one that wants 'man' to find his own destiny and fights with the 'other one' which  wants to rule and decide for man.

From that theme  is derived:  whether electronic beings are real and will take over or  whether 'we' are them but cannot know it and be happy to 'serve' another level of intelligence.

Ira Levin's book, This Perfect Day is about a world where chance has been eliminated, its a perfect society where rain falls only at night, food is 'total cakes', and the word 'hate' is the filthiest word. There's a real shock at the end of the book, I won't reveal it but I felt it in my body when I turned a page and the entire past of the character 'Chip' was suddenly changed.  Read the book! That shock was used several times, retrieved, relived literally.

The ancient Liriope bore a son, Narcissus.  She asked Tiresias "Will my son live to old age?" If he never knows himself." was the answer. At a certain place  in his life, the beautiful Narcissus could not recognize his own reflection. (Thought is a reflection. This is important to take literally, he  could not see his own reflection.) A lonely female, Echo repeated the last words she heard him say because she'd been 'cursed' herself, she could only use (re-use)  words someone had said!!!  These are facts told long ago about a certain relationship that many females live today. They are writing books, but males are beginning to describe themselves accurately, too!!! I listened to Dr. Phil while writing this post, 8-16-2011, (maybe its available to view on the Internet?) and heard with the new (to me its still new)  sense that created a new understanding, how those 'fictions' are acted out in our 'now'.

"Behold I make all things new." means something to me and its likely that is what the interactive force is supposed to accomplish.

The fictions  of our time and of the ancients are 'about' something real in reality in our Time itself or outside of what has been named time. It can't  be defined by naming the present as 'now' because it's a point that's moving constantly. Do you remember when the space between one second and another was fixed, stable?  I know that more people 'get that message' today than in my generation.

What is our future? That space has expanded in the years since 1984, and apparently can continue expanding.
 There seems to me to be a lot of prophecy embedded in science fictions. I'm reading Arthur C. Clarke's Rama II, published in 1989 in which he and co-author Gentry Lee described prophetically  much of our current situation, the collapse of banking, especially and the corruption and inaction of politicians. In 1989 they described aspects of our 'now'.  But David Bowman, a fictional character in 2001 is in 2010 alive, being educated by an invisible presence, he's learning a lot but he's not in a body! He feels that presence but can't see it and he knows he is being manipulated but not why.
Discovering that invisible presence is a task that requires isolation and experiences in the real world, in my opinion. It is not depersonalizing without being ultra-personalizing at the same time.

I wonder who should make the rules and what can make the rulemakers address real problems and solve them so that everyone feels somewhat secure that good judgment prevails unless its by 'twice born' individuals? That's my question today.  But my own answer is that it may be that way already.

The ancients had the same problems but one real  fact has changed: now the 'slaves' can write books and publish their experiences  themselves. Cameras are everywhere. Its getting hard to lie. Any one can get on the Internet and publish real events because cameras are in the hands of those (of us) who often couldn't prove anything by merely telling their version of what happened, as  happened in Rashomon.  A picture is worth millions of words. 

Synchronistic events are not 'visionary' experiences.

The truth is sometimes literally 'funny'.

From my own experience I know they are every day events, that are 'like' particles in the processes of individuation, 'bits of information' in the context of F. David Peat's idea of an 'interactive force'.

The first  'coincidental' event that happened to me didn't produce a sense of awe, wonder, or curiosity. Let me describe it: I went to a friends house for coffee one spring morning. She was unusually happy because it was her birthday and her husband had given her not one birthday card but two.  I read both cards and  made appropriate remarks about what a thoughtful man her husband was. I had noticed that he seemed attentive and helpful and perhaps I felt envy, just a tad of envy, nothing else.

When I left I went to a pick up some pictures I'd left to be developed from a roll of film I'd found in our van when I cleaned it. The roll of film was under a seat and I had no idea what pictures were on it or how long the film had been laying there. When I riffled through them I realized they were from the last trip  my husband and I had taken in the fall, several months ago.
 One image made me feel 'funny'. It was a picture of myself wearing a bathing suit, a pink sweater over it, running through the  silvery sunset tinged surf, waving my hand at my  husband who was taking the picture. Then I recognized that this picture was virtually identical to one of the cards my friend's husband had given her! It had a woman, wearing a swimsuit topped by a pink sweater, waving as she ran through silvery sunset tinged surf.
I didn't think about the timing for very long except that  it did seem unusual that just on that day I picked up the old roll of film,  she had a card that was identical  not just basically but in such specific detail. I thought about showing the card to her, but decided not to mention it. It was just an 'event', nothing personal and the word 'coincidence' did not occur to me.
I forgot that event  until another similar event happened, then another, then others happened more frequently, not always similar in content except that the timing seemed to be unlikely, even impossible to happen once in a lifetime.
 How could it happen that I am driving, we are in heavy traffic and suddenly I  hear myself blurt out that I don't feel like myself any more, that I'm going to change my name to Ju-anna. And I've not thought about that before; the words spontaneously came out of my mouth, unwilled by me!  Suddenly a white van passes from the passenger side to in front of me, dangerously close then veers into the left lane and speeds away but I saw the first vanity plate  I've noticed it was letters:  DJWANNA. The letters decoded themselves spontanteously into Do you want to? Then a 'second sight' (literally)  revealed that they repeated what I'd just said my  name was: 'Ju-anna'! Different letters, same sound! "Did you see THAT?" I yelled and tried to speed up to make sure I'd seen what it seemed I'd seen but traffic made that a dangerous thing to do so I didn't think more about it. That was in 1983 probably.


Then over a span of a few years (1982-1989) similar  and a variety of other 'kinds' of unusual  events happened. Some were all in my mind, a kind of content that I'd never had in the past, or so I believed at the time.  Occasionally I noticed thoughts that occurred that seemed faint, they were not quite words somehow, but were a suggestion of words, like a fragrance identifies an object before its visible. I watched two such events  advance to becoming real words in my mind! Then later that content met its exact match on the jacket of a book, An Imagined World, by June Goodfield!!!! I felt 'funny' when I read about Anna Brito, who 'caught a  sudden glimmer of possibility; she observed a pattern that had hitherto been unnoticed or ignored and she began to think of explanations for what she'd seen. Her superiors weren't very impressed, but she persisted, thanks not only to tenacity but to inexperience--a mind uncluttered by pre-conceptions...." There was a faint sense of more words in my thought, added to words on the jacket but they were in the book!  That variety of inner content began to accumulate, it became a stream that gradually paralleled the understanding of my 'normal' experience, built up from every day situations at times, but not always. I could see the accretion of the new understanding and how it was built as I lived, from events in my life in a perception that was new to me, unfamiliar and it made me feel 'funny' very nearly constantly by 1984 and afterwards until about 1995. I'd become comfortable and familiar with this 'funny stuff' and I could relate to my own  inner content when it emerged, and at times say it aloud in it's 'now'.  As a comparison I remember having a different understanding, before I was 5 decades in age.
I noticed that certain new (to me) content was 'inserted' into my mind. Example: The word 'overt' came to mind one day, then it re-occurred until I wondered why. Then the word 'covert' began to 'haunt' me the same way. I wrote the words down one day and laughed (to myself) when I saw that the difference between the two words was also a similarity, the word 'see' and the letter 'c'. An overt thing can be seen, a covert thing cannot be seen.  It meant nothing to me then, but much experience followed so now I realize the words were telling me something, they suggested that an 'overt' thing and a 'covert' thing was happening.

 The words 'the numinous is hard to bear ' occurred into my mind, spontaneously one day in 1985 and I wondered what the 'numinous' was. I looked it up but didn't understand the definition. (I remembered that in the past I'd been able to understand dictionary definitions but now I could not.)  Then within a few days I read the word in a book, Contact by Carl Sagan which I was reading then. That book made me feel 'funny' all the way through it and I 'met' ideas in it that I'd never known about.
The word 'palimpsest' began to hang around in my thought after reading the book, then a most amazing thing happened soon after that when the book's main theme which was about a message that was a palimpsest took root in my mind, and seemed relevant to me.  I noticed that a new context  at times emerged in my thought, automatically produced, and immediately, so quickly that it took a few years (2 at least) to identify was a kind of 'echo' of content that had occurred into my thought. Or from what I was looking at at the moment. It began like a 'drip'  then became a deluge,  that changed over a span of years. (My next post will be more explicit about this and how it began.)
I realized the thing was 'talking' to me, this 'interactive force', which is how I thought of it after reading F. David Peat's book in1989. There was a replay of content literally. , At times this was thoughts that occurred about something I was doing or thinking about; the content re-occurred in a bundle, no space between words, but a different  kind of hearing the bundle turned the words towards me, and simultaneously formed a personal 'bit of information'. This had to happen in one specific situation where I  could see this happen,  but the word 'echo' is good too.
The timing was what should have puzzled me, should have aroused curiosity but I'm a slow learner. 
 The duration, the span of time through which  this kind of event happened convinced me that there was a purpose other than my own behind them. I could see that I didn't will them and could not have understood them myself because  the new meaning was produced, given to me in a variety of forms. Some could be recognized immediately, others required certain events in the real world to happen later. There were incidents where suddenly  memories from a very early age were retrieved and  linked to 'right now' , and they had information in them, only then.

I'd not read anything about  psychiatric ideas and when I began trying to describe my experiences to a psychiatrist I didn't realize this was a 'kind' of experience that has psychiatric names and definitions until one day I asked to read what a therapist wrote while she listened to me! I was puzzled then outraged.
 It was obvious she recognized a pattern but nothing I'd actually said was on the record. Nobody who read that report would know what I'd talked about. That may be different now, when psychiatric names and definitions are everywhere in news, movies, television shows like NCIS, CSI.  Hearing names is not likely to convey the kind of meaning that experience does. I've read a lot but it was 'events' that produced a new understanding.

This post has  some examples that I'm using to try to make a point about how these kinds of unusual 'events' that  produces the process of individuation, but more than that: information, fragments at  a time usually. But there's a lot I didn't know then about  history, especially the origin of psychoanalysis, nothing about my own  mind, thought, mechanisms that alter thought, (even changing the direction of my own thought, so that its 'heard' the way another person would be heard.) (That's a really big change!) And noticing how much spontaneous content that is not self willed or self generated occurs,  just comes into my mind, its thought embedded, but that it was not my own thought took a long time to become curious about, and attentive towards.

 Especially I could not have suspected depths of mind exist or that there's a variety of inner content that may  not be available for articulation for a long span of time. There are levels in the mind where content occurs that  requires years of attention turned towards 'me' as an object, an observer to 'me' as an actor and its own audience because there is at this point, (and not before) a point where  both inner and outer world interfaces, becoming one.. When that kind of event occurred at first there was no sense of 'numinosity', only a kind of 'dizzy-ness', momentary confusion, wierdness. I don't rule numinosity out, but words need to get connected to their real world meaning, in lives. That's where meaningful coincidence is an 'interactive, information generating force'. The word 'numinous' doesn't attach itself automatically to any event.

There is a consensus that there's a thin line between normal experience and the kind of experience that is essential to a process of individuation. 
"There are certain dangers that are not necessarily associated with psychosis, which is a common diagnosis;  ignorance that such a process exists; the span of time over which the process evolves; and the fragmented, non-linearity of related events, as well as the apparent doubleness; literally an alternate to 'normal' reality emerges. Its there already.

What some authors have named 'numinous events'' does not always seem to be anything but 'strange', unreal. I can only understand what I've experienced myself, and there was a distinct loss of volition but also a distinct change in perception and thoughts.

I hope this is useful information to other individuals like myself, who didn't  know what 'psychosis' is, and do not suspect what the content of 'psychotic thinking'  is, what kind of 'events' are psychotic, when it can vary so greatly in content. When the content is so explicitly related to what the 'I' that's observing  understands with 'my' normal way of getting meaning, it can turn reality upside down, inside out.  I hope these posts and the examples I give are  re-assuring and helpful. It's difficult to live through the apparently  'non-numinous' when years of events have to occur, and there's no linearity of events.

Easter Sunday 2011, I Read Matthew 13 and understand "illustrations'

Click to enlarge the image.

These images show a reflection of a box that fascinated me after I noticed a third invisible compartment in it that was useless and is invisible from some perspectives. It triggered a variety of object generated 'thought' about what is 'invisible' and why its visible in a reflection from the object. The use-less compartment in the box is visible in the upper image, left side bottom. I had a moebius band that was clear plastic and I had photographed it  in some strange places, laid it on snow, hung it from a tree branch, my impulses were directing me to do such purposeless things.

 I was watching my body from a new eye and ear as I lived my ordinary life. 

 What  did  Jesus mean when he talked in 'illustrations' to the crowds that followed him and then in  private the disciples asked why he spoke to them by the use of  illustrations'? 

What does this quotation refer to, if it's not a reference to a special 'sense'? THE BIBLE:


"Let the one that has an ear listen to what THE Spirit sayeth unto* the CHURCHES(CONGREGATIONS). To him that conquers I will give some of the hidden manna. and I will give him a white pebble and upon the pebble a new name written which no one knows except the one receiving it.

A conversation between myself and a person that is 'strictly material world oriented' caused me to read Matthew last week. As I read chapter 13, there was a 'sense' behind my ordinary thought that what we experience today in a different way, pathological thinking in some cases,  was ordinary when the Bible was the most shared book, even before printing presses made it available to everyone. 

 Matthew 13:3- 13:9 "A sower went out to sow; and as he was sewing some (seeds) fell alongside the road and the birds came and ate them up. Others fell upon the rocky places where they did not have much soil and at once they sprang up because of not having any depth of soil. But when the sun rose they were scorched and because of not having any roots they withered. Others too fell among the thorns and the thorns came up and choked them. Still others fell upon the fine soil and they began to yield fruit, this one a hundredfold, that one sixty, the other thirty." "Let him that has ears listen. " His disciples asked why he spoke by the use of 'illustrations".

13:11 In reply he said: "To you it is granted to understand the sacred secrets of the kingdom of the heavens, but to those people it is not granted. For whoever has, more will be given him and he will be made to abound; but whosoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. This is why I speak to them in illustrations because looking they look in vain, and hearing they hear in vain, neither do they get the sense of it.  

Then He explains the 'illustration' of the sower and its not about seeds at all:
13:18 thru 13: 24  "You then listen to the illustration of the man that sowed. Where anyone hears the word of the kingdom but does not get the sense of it the 'wicked one' comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart. This is the one sown alongside the road. As for the one sown upon the rocky places this is the one hearing the word and accepting it with joy. Yet he has no root in himself but continues for a time and after tribulation or persecution has arisen on account of the word he is at once stumbled. And as for the one sown among thorns this is the one hearing the word but the anxiety of this system of things and the deceptive power of riches choke the word and he becomes unfruitful. And as for the one sown upon the fine soil, this is the one hearing the word and getting the sense of it, who really does bear fruit and produces this one, one hundred fold, that one sixty, the other thirty."
 Then he tells other 'illustrations'  based on what He had already said: "The kingdom of the heavens has become 'like' a man that sowed fine seed in his field. While men were sleeping his enemy came and oversewed  weeds among the wheat and left".

He  further describes the 'kingdom of the heavens'  by the use of 'illustrations'.
The kingdom of the heavens is 'like' a tiny mustard seed that in maturity is a fine lodging for the birds of heaven.
The kingdom of the heavens is 'like' leaven which a woman hid in three large measures of flour until the whole mass is fermented."
Then speaking to the  crowds by using 'illustrations'  which He says He does to fulfil prophecy, after dismissing the crowds  His disciples came to Him and asked that He explain the 'illustration' of the weeds in the field. In response He said: "The sower of the fine seed is the Son of man, the field is the world. As for the fine seed these are the sons of the kingdom but the weeds are the sons of the wicked one and the enemy that sowed them is the Devil.The harvest is a conclusion of a system of things and the reapers are angels. Therefore just as the weeds are collected and burned with fire so it will be in the conclusion of the system of things.The Son of man will send forth his angels and they will collect out from his kingdom all things that cause stumbling  and persons doing lawlessness and they will pitch them into the furnace;  there is where their weeping and gnashing of their teeth will be. At that time the righteous ones will shine as brightly  as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Let him that has ears listen.

Then He  continues:  "The kingdom of the heavens is 'like' a treasure hidden in a field which a man found and  for the joy he has he sells everything he owns  to buy the field. "
"The kingdom of the heavens is 'like' a traveling merchant seeking pearls who sees one fine pearl of great value  and promptly sold all he had and bought it."
"The kingdom of the heavens is 'like' a dragnet let down into the sea, gathering up every kind of fish, the fine are kept and the unsuitable ones thrown  away."
"That is how it will  be in the conclusions of the system of things...." "Did you get the 'sense' of all these things."  His disciples answer "Yes."  then He says: another ' illustration':
"That being the case every public instructor when taught respecting the kingdom of the heavens  is 'like' a man, a householder who brings out of  his treasure store things that are new and old."

What did Jesus intend to convey when he talked in 'illustrations' to the crowds that followed him and then in private the disciples asked why he spoke to them by the use of illustrations?
I believe He introduced the very idea of a  'kingdom of the heavens' and what It is 'like', what it 'is' and how It was experienced even 2000+ years ago when a new 'system of things' was begun.

I'm thinking after reading Matthew that the 'illustrations" are the use of  art  is to force the mind to think of 'things'  that cannot be seen. Recently I read the same remark in a  graphic cartoon book about calculus: "What is the use of calculus?" The answer was: "To force the mind to think of things that cannot be seen."

More on this topic will follow. I believe the sacred secrets of the kingdom of the heavens are revealed by the transcendental function, as Freud described what he believed is a function of mind that I've mentioned several times. This function creates 'ambiguous sayings' and more, much  than that, a conversation between an individual and the kingdom of the heavens.

I'd like to suggest Maurice Nicoll's book, The Mark or The New Man  and his Living Time and Integration of the Life but a willingness to learn  more about  history and origins of our modern psychiatry  is necessary to 'get the sense' of what the 'extra sense' conveys and how it conveys information  to an individual. A specific individual.

An example, a personal experience, this was the first of its kind' happened to me  in the summer of 1984,  I was sewing, emersed in thought one day. The television  was on  but ignored until my attention was plucked from my intense reveries to the words  coming  from the television: "The second world is here and in the second world all the rules are changed." It was shocking, literally to hear those words. For a few minutes I thought about how advertisements didn't have to make sense, then I went back to my sewing. Until the words re-occurred into my thought along with memories of a few events that had happened fairly recently when I'd felt 'wierd', dizzy. They were just normal events but somehow something 'else' than normal. Then the words began to make sense, they were being said directly to me,'who had the ear' then. They explained the 'new world' that was beginning to speak to me.  It was a few weeks before the Los Angeles Olympic Games opened that it happened, that I heard the television talk to me the way a person would but it  was only an advertisment for a new automobile. Or was it the 'extra sense' at work?  It was both. It was only the beginning of a long process of synchronization between my inner content and the material world's events

I repeat this as I do other ideas that  need to be emphasized and held in conscious understanding, as a foundation for what I write,  its from a book, Oedipus authored by Patrick Mullahy and its only in a Footnote, (!!!!) page 507. I believe 'illustrations' and 'reflections' (both definitions) create the 'voice' attribute of events.


"Often in explaining his ideas Freud resorts to analogies or conceptions from the physical world. Another conception of his is “that among the psychic functions there is something which should be differentiated (an amount of affect, a sum of excitation), something having all the attributes of a quantity—although we possess no means of measuring it—a something which is capable of increase, displacement and discharge and which extends itself over the memory traces of an idea like an electric charge over the surface of the body…for the present it is justified by it’s utility in correcting and explaining diverse psychical conditions. Collected papers, Vol I, p.75"

The process of becoming twice born.

The 'voice' begun to speak this way, in a surprising form:  using words someone else had written in a book! While I read the book, one evening a  selection from the book affected me 'like' a shock, literally I felt the words in my body.  This particular selection was a few paragraphs that were  literally abstracted from embeddedness in the book, it was highlighted by some mechanism of mind. Which at that time I knew nothing about. It was just a shocking event, literally, I didn't understand the content had any relevance to me or a fact about my life that I didn't suspect was a factor in my real life.
 I didn't realize this was the kind of coincidence that describes to me a detail about my life, one I didn't know myself, until the pattern had repeated often enough to be noticed, then understood. Many events had to occur and the content is very specific in each event but the common theme was that each event described a detail of what was happening 'now' in my life. This kind of coincidence as I had to find out also, is currently not recognized to be a 'symptom' of a process of individuation (Jung's term); re-generation (Swedenborg's term); the 4th Way (Ouspensky's term, the path of personal development that's lived in the ordinary life. ) It was a personal discovery to learn that this life path was experienced in ancient times from which arose ideas of fate, destiny, karma, Fortune, a 'god within', that are carried forwards in Time, in history somewhat 'like' a signal, at least that's how I think of it now. I believe it is the pattern that C. G. Jung identified in his time as 'inherent in all men'.

 The book was one I just happened to notice because it had a lovely sky blue jacket. I saw only the spine, as clean as any new book. That made it hard to miss in a tall stack of used books. The Weaver of Dreams by Myrtle Reed was an old book. The cover was bright, the top edge was gilt and in perfect condtion as though it had just been printed although the book had been published in 1911. On page 175 begins a conversation between characters in the book that caused me to feel an unusual body response. I'd name it a shock now but then it was just 'wierd', unexplainable. I was in an unsual situation when I read this the book, the situation was an ingredient, the necessary ingredient for  'getting the message'  eventually, that the event conveyed to me. It was about a situation I was involved in at that time.

"I don't believe you can live with other people and not absorb something from their ways of thinking and manner of expressing themselves. Moreover Aunt Cynthia has a very penetrating personality."

"All strong natures have." Chandler answered. "Some people are shaped wholly by their environment, as plastic material conforms to the receptacle in which it is placed. Others mould their environment to meet the demands of individuality."

"Can it be done?" asked Judith, thoughtfully.

"Always, if one is strong enough. From mysterious sources we draw to ourselves that which we require or expect. If a tree may lift into it's trunk the materials for sap and fibre, and if the moon may control the tides why should not thought which is the most wonderful and powerful of forces bring harmony into one's daily life, if not the absolute control of circumstances." 

This was the first time I felt an effect in my body, merely from reading words. What I described when I began the post with this event, was this content,  the first of its kind that I really felt when it happened. This kind of content from which a conversation  was created was  aimed towards me. It's a fact  that no one else will ever  understand  this kind of conversation unless specific content, of which this incident is just one example (and  the content was assembled over a long period of time) is put under the 'scope'. It's a well known pattern. The incident informed me about a detail in my life exactly and literally when I understood more about the kind of synchronization that created the conversation.

It was fragmented content, bits of information that assembled a new understanding and context that emerged in my mind,  parallel to my 'normal' understanding.  That's a surprising fact about 'meaning full coincidences'. In the beginning it seemed as though my unspoken inner content was known to even objects that use words, such as books, televisions, radios. What a shock! What a new experience! What I read affected my body in a different way than I'd ever experienced!
 It seems like 'mind reading' but I believe there's another explanation. It's something that looks like non-verbal communication but isn't that either.  There are psychiatric names for this kind of experience but I'd no knowledge of them and even knowledge of them is not enough information to understand what it's like when it begins and continues. Bits and pieces have to accumulate, then be assembled by the mind itself.

I don't believe the process of assembly differed greatly from how an author of a non-fiction work, such as the bibliography in Harold Searles Selected Essays on Schizophrenia  or any similar work was assembled. At this point I'll explain why I mention this book because its an example also: I read an essay on the Internet that had a biblography that included a mention of an article: 'Driving the other person crazy', by  Harold Searles. I searched for the article and found it was in a book that cost $79.50 so I put the urge to read it aside. A short time later I'm in Borders Books, waiting to check out when I notice a rack of books, marked down 75% . Laying on top is a book, Selected Essays on Schizophrenia by Harold Searles. Of course I bought it and have read it. He described one aspect of his relationship to his patients that interested me very much: They seemed to read him psychologically and accurately, because he noticed they acted out some aspect of his own nature at the moment, but did this in a symbolic way unknown to themselves. This was one factor that C. G. Jung made note of, that at depth level, a well part of his patients seemed to speak in  kind of code or symbolic form that the individual could not hear and or understand themselves. This is an important fact to keep in mind, that a use of 'codes', symbolisms that were unknown to the person that was the patient were picked up by the therapist. That points towards a connection between patient and therapist as well as what the therapist knows.  Not many therapists know as much as Mr. Searles did. 

These fictional people created by a female that ultimately ended her own life  spoke about two kinds of people; about 'mysterious forces';  about thought;  about what we require;  or expect (??) and about a force bringing harmony into one's life. The part about absolute control of circumstances is possibility. I personally believe all  thought does not do anything, some may seem to. There's  a variety of thought  levels that are unconnected and there are depths that are so far from speech that no author other than Emanuel Swedenborg  made reference to them and he had to experience that himself. Certain thought and inner content that isn't words  can seem to affect the world outside the body, that seems obvious to the individual, when this kind of 'event' happens  for an extended period of time. There are levels in the mind, as we now realize there are levels in personality and in 'understanding'.

I felt how my body reacted to the  printed words in the conversation, that memory created a beginning point of me, noticing my own body as though 'I' was not connected to it.

 For a few years it seemed to me I was dying but I've lived too long since 1983 (?) for that to be true. Life as a near death experience may be part of nature too. The process of becoming 'twice born' is probably in our genes by this point in time.
It doesn't always happen in a blinding flash of ecstastic influx. It's necessary to see one's self, know what one is doing, and to the degree it's possible, know why one is 'doing' in the body whatever I am witnessing to from a detached perspective, that is not 'astral projection' or anything like it. I've read a lot of Swedenborg and found much verifiable information about the mind is embedded in his writings. Last week I found this which reminded me of the movie Contact and the trip Ellen Arroway seemed to have taken in the machine.  I'd underlined it in Arcana Coelestia, paragraph #10763 in  "A Sixth Earth In the Starry Heaven" .

"Once more I was conducted to another earth that was in the universe outside our solar world and this also by means of changes of state continued for about twelve hours. The company with me there were a number of spirits and angels from our earth, with whom I conversed on the way or during the progression. I was carried sometimes obliquely upwards and sometimes obliquely downward, continually towards the south. In two places only did I see spirits and in one I spoke to them."

The trip Ellen Arroway took in Contact was different than how it was in the book, but in many ways the 'changes of state'  that we now realize are experienced by people who don't take drugs, who don't meditate may be that they are in such states, now. I don't believe everything I read in books about the mind unless the author is like Colin Wilson, or Joseph Campbell, aware of the ideas that have been cast into the 'shadow world' of the irrational part of mind.

Possibly there was in my understanding, some glimmer of how the mind works in some reality other than 'normal' only partly from having read books, I'd had my own experiences and realized the mind can insert or delete some content of it's own. Because I'd read all of Robert Monroes' books about his journies out of his body(!!)  and read Joseph Chilton Pearces' wonderful description of an event that happened to him in The Bond Of Power, there was enough information about the mind to begin understanding my own.  He wrote about the 'insight' realm without a religious foundation, but I wouldn't eliminate religion from that realm. Also and more to the point, physically I was working in a location where events began to happen that seemed perfectly timed to synchronize with some mental activity in my own mind.

I've had to learn what I write about on this blog, the hard way, the very most personal way, from experiences of my own.  The details are very specific in any life. I don't know how to convey to someone else what an isolated kind of 'space' I lived in after I had a dream late in 1981 and I'm still in that space, isolated from other people but not alone. That's obvious.

Starting with a point in the center.

This is an interesting image, it begins with one whole and a point in it's center, successively divided by one line, then 3 lines to form a triangle, 4 lines make a square, five point star, etc. Every number except 2 lines has been used to create a form on a flat image of a circle. Circles have been a generator of thought on many levels in mathematics but less commonly in psychology as the 'ego'. Where is the center of 'me', or am "I" the whole and the dividing into parts creates a confusion at times ( purposefully it seems to me) of what is reality? But a circle is  flat.

 

I used to wonder how a sphere could be drawn, how would the lines on this image appear on/in a sphere?  The question formed after I'd  read Flatland by Abbott then by chance, (that's where I can see purpose is at work in my life)  Sphereland by Dionys Burger, then  read as though some foresight other than mine had arranged the sequence The Persian King Allegory by Charles Hinton. Thought about 'dimensions' and 'points of view'  within me, in my mind grew slowly, evolving when I became aware of different  thought than was normal for me, but there were changes in how things  looked and sounded outside my body too.  

 

I just watched a news video that showed how the first real 3 dimensional image of our sun had been made. It also proved the sun is round.

                                                      88888

I thought I'd discovered the 'moebius twist point' until by accident I saw a mathematical equation for it. This YouTube video comes close to illustrating it but not how I became aware of it, bit of information by bit of information over a span of several decades. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JX3VmDgiFnY

 Hinton's book, Scientific Romances is not about surfaces but about interiors of a king's mind, after he is led across an abyss into an isolated land. He has to figure out how to motivate creatures that lay about listlessly, and he decides they must require feeling more pleasure than pain so he absorbs a measure of their pain himself. That difference creates activity and a busy civilization, but as time passes the amount of pain the king absorbs becomes unbearable so he has to leave them, inert again and he is led away by the being that led him into isolation. Do I have a similar need, to feel more pleasure than pain?

I remember something that happened at about the same time I read The Persian King. It was a foxglove bloom in my yard  that had the shape of a nautilus shell, the  familiar chryslys  form;  the form so often associated with the Fibonacci sequence, 1,1,2,3,5,8... and certain ideas in quantum physics. That shape is a circle opened up, this foxglove had a door in it!

 

 This was an unusual foxglove plant, it was thought provoking too, in fact it generated thought that I would not have experienced ever, except in my experiences with this foxglove and its progeny after 1989 until this year, 2013. As I looked at it "I" began to think about it's 'spirituality', i.e.,  it's attributes, characteristics, qualities, etc and the strange fact that it is both life saving and death dealing. A lot of thought was produced when I noticed how unusual it was. Every stalk had a different kind of bloom at the top. I'd never seen anything like it but every year it  has re-produced and foxgloves aren't supposed to do that.  Until 1995 I'd always had a plant that produced round blooms on the top of each stalk;  I thought of them as a mandala flower.  Then as a result of thinking about 'dimensions' and how a sphere really can't be drawn, somehow that impossibility caused me to think my center could be anyplace at any time in one of the layers I couldn't see in my mind. What if my 'soul's eye'  looked out at the world from different locations in my mind? (I  had become convinced there is a soul eye , after reading that Goethe mentioned he saw not with the eye of the body but the eye of the soul).

What if "I" was looking within my mind, and seeing from it at the same time, but sensing purposefulness  behind even the distress and discomfort at times, where motivation didn't just happen? What ever is 'me' now,  its not always a center point in a Cartesian like three dimensional space, with 'ego' in one place, it can be moved anywhere without any awareness of crossing from one 'part' to another. I hope this makes sense?  I  began to wonder whether all the different problems I had with people in my life, and with situations that caused me a lot of inner turmoil happened because I didn't understand the value of unpleasant situations and thoughts.  

 If other people are like me, it takes something really unusual to cause me to think about thinking, and what produces it. Thinking about the kind of thinking that was produced (or generated) by objects or situations has evolved from a point where my 'eye' was like the center point on a circle, when every thing was 'flat'. The sphere within 'me' extends back into history and very certainly into the future at times. What if I'd merely glanced at the strange (to me) book,  Flatland, then Sphereland and passed them. Or ignored the strange title of Charles Hinton's Scientific Romances, seeminlgy unrelated? 

There are quite a few images of my foxgloves from1989 to last summer.

http://s138.photobucket.com/albums/q251/ayesha32/