When I was a child my mother explained to me how to do sums in my head. The procedure involved my being able to picture a blackboard and then imagining writing the numbers to be summed on it. That sort of imagination is directed, as it were, from the "outside" by ideas or plans; however, there is a kind of picturing that arises, again, as it were, from the "inside," and on its own. This inner sight is quite accurate and startling.
The summer I graduated from high school I had a great job working for the Southwestern Company selling books door-to-door in Texarkana, Tx/Ar. Before we started our day, my roommates and I listened to inspirational records by Earl Nightingale. I can't, right now, remember any of the words he said on that record, but I do remember the sense of his voice and can almost reconstruct the feeling that listening to his voice had on me. If you have ever heard Earl Nightingale speak, then you know exactly what I'm talking about.
I have been given the Oneness blessing on two occasions now; and a few days after receiving each one I have experienced what I take to be significant progress in my efforts to come into consonance with the spiritual Presence. The first was in relation to my inner sight and the second was with respect to the sense of a voice. Two results have been that my devotion to the Mighty I AM Presence has been intensified and my resolve to come into alignment with it has been strengthened.
Co-given with these smaller changes is a much stronger sense that there is something of cosmic proportions afoot in the world; there are global changes occurring and they are registering on our psychic seismograph even now. I do not think that this is "the end of the world" but there are dramatic changes coming. As if what we are experiencing now weren't dramatic enough.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Blagojevich
I happened to be living in Illinois when Blagojevich was elected; at the time, I was the chair of the Libertarian Party of Southern Illinois and didn't really notice the details of his platform. It wasn't until the recent events took the national stage that I noticed him again, as I have since moved away from Illinois. What strikes me the most about this bizarre episode is the absence of emotion in all of his addresses. He is strangely detached from his feelings and, as a counsellor, I would say that he evinces the signs of sociopathy. His detachment puts him in a delusory world and makes access to moral sentiment impossible; i.e., he is unable to feel the feelings of others because he cannot feel his own feelings.
His case, however, is instructive in the following way, namely, it illustrates the truism that when we wish to cover something up in ourselves, we daren't admit it in another, lest it be publicized and come to the surface of our own consciousness where we must face it and deal with it. More recently this was the case with the election of the previous president, who had bankrupted every company with which he had been associated. Unwilling to admit this lack of financial responsibility in themselves, the republican leaders refused to see it in their candidate. We now know what that cost us, the republican party knows what it cost them, and the world at large knows what it cost because they, too, are paying the price.
More to the point, what is it that we are covering up in ourselves with regard to more important matters? Einstein is reputed to have said that we cannot find solutions to problems from within the same consciousness that created them. With respect to certain issues facing our country and the world, this bears keeping in mind because, so far, no solution has been presented to any of the crises that does not already lie within the consciousness of the problem that it is put forth to solve.
The financial crisis, for instance, did not arise from a shortage of funds but from poor decisions bred of the flawed character of those in charge. Why, then, 1) do we think that throwing money at these institutions will solve the problem and 2) why do we allow the same people to make decisions as to how to use that money.
The middle east is another area where our myopia reigns supreme. For some reason we bear a national guilt that is assuaged only by a blind support of Israel. This blindness prevents us from seeing that it is our money that is prolonging the dispute. If we simply freeze Israel's funds until they make peace with their enemies, then 1) we will have the use of that money until such times as Israel earns it back; and 2) Israel will have a reason to negotiate. This is a large amount of money paid out on a monthly basis; money that we could use right now.
Contrary to popular belief, our society is not classless. In our society we have the two major classes: the people who are working for themselves and those who work for others; those individuals who are at the helm of the great corporations can be considered to be working for themselves because they are the major stockholders in the corporations and they are in control of their own paycheck. In our present financial crisis, neither position seems favored. For all practical purposes, then, we might consider that the days of capitalism in this country have ended and we stand now at the cusp of a new order.
We have not been able to trust individuals to head up great companies because they have defaulted in their trust and brought ruination on the country's economy. The new order will not be an order in which social groups hold sway, contrary to the beliefs of one political party; nor will it be an order in which the privileged few hold sway, contrary to the beliefs of another political party. Rather, each individual will discover within him or herself the Power to direct their own lives, as the likes of Emerson invisioned.
This revolution, if it can be called such, because it has been slowly moving toward this day for ages, is not an overthrowing but an awakening; not a dissolution but a hatching; it is not a destruction of the law, but its fulfillment. And the law in question is the law of our own being; and we must come into contact with that being if we are to understand the law. Our own being is the Life of us; it is the "I AM Presence" of us. Accordingly, the race will not go to the swift nor to the strong; it will go to those living closest to that Presence and in consonance with It. The days are gone when physical, mental, or social prowess will avail anything; only the Light will continue on from here.
But this is not a namby pamby powderpuff change either. The Light is a conquering Presence and that which does not conform to it's Way to live Life, will surrender; the Light no longer tolerates the abuse heaped on Life and is now coming forth as the Champion of Life; all who oppose will fail.
I know whereof I speak; I Am the Unfed Flame.
His case, however, is instructive in the following way, namely, it illustrates the truism that when we wish to cover something up in ourselves, we daren't admit it in another, lest it be publicized and come to the surface of our own consciousness where we must face it and deal with it. More recently this was the case with the election of the previous president, who had bankrupted every company with which he had been associated. Unwilling to admit this lack of financial responsibility in themselves, the republican leaders refused to see it in their candidate. We now know what that cost us, the republican party knows what it cost them, and the world at large knows what it cost because they, too, are paying the price.
More to the point, what is it that we are covering up in ourselves with regard to more important matters? Einstein is reputed to have said that we cannot find solutions to problems from within the same consciousness that created them. With respect to certain issues facing our country and the world, this bears keeping in mind because, so far, no solution has been presented to any of the crises that does not already lie within the consciousness of the problem that it is put forth to solve.
The financial crisis, for instance, did not arise from a shortage of funds but from poor decisions bred of the flawed character of those in charge. Why, then, 1) do we think that throwing money at these institutions will solve the problem and 2) why do we allow the same people to make decisions as to how to use that money.
The middle east is another area where our myopia reigns supreme. For some reason we bear a national guilt that is assuaged only by a blind support of Israel. This blindness prevents us from seeing that it is our money that is prolonging the dispute. If we simply freeze Israel's funds until they make peace with their enemies, then 1) we will have the use of that money until such times as Israel earns it back; and 2) Israel will have a reason to negotiate. This is a large amount of money paid out on a monthly basis; money that we could use right now.
Contrary to popular belief, our society is not classless. In our society we have the two major classes: the people who are working for themselves and those who work for others; those individuals who are at the helm of the great corporations can be considered to be working for themselves because they are the major stockholders in the corporations and they are in control of their own paycheck. In our present financial crisis, neither position seems favored. For all practical purposes, then, we might consider that the days of capitalism in this country have ended and we stand now at the cusp of a new order.
We have not been able to trust individuals to head up great companies because they have defaulted in their trust and brought ruination on the country's economy. The new order will not be an order in which social groups hold sway, contrary to the beliefs of one political party; nor will it be an order in which the privileged few hold sway, contrary to the beliefs of another political party. Rather, each individual will discover within him or herself the Power to direct their own lives, as the likes of Emerson invisioned.
This revolution, if it can be called such, because it has been slowly moving toward this day for ages, is not an overthrowing but an awakening; not a dissolution but a hatching; it is not a destruction of the law, but its fulfillment. And the law in question is the law of our own being; and we must come into contact with that being if we are to understand the law. Our own being is the Life of us; it is the "I AM Presence" of us. Accordingly, the race will not go to the swift nor to the strong; it will go to those living closest to that Presence and in consonance with It. The days are gone when physical, mental, or social prowess will avail anything; only the Light will continue on from here.
But this is not a namby pamby powderpuff change either. The Light is a conquering Presence and that which does not conform to it's Way to live Life, will surrender; the Light no longer tolerates the abuse heaped on Life and is now coming forth as the Champion of Life; all who oppose will fail.
I know whereof I speak; I Am the Unfed Flame.
Monday, January 19, 2009
The Inauguration
Eight years ago this past November I was dismayed at the apparent lack of intuition Americans had for what was good for the country; four years ago this past November I awoke one morning thinking that I lived in a nation of idiots and they had elected one of their own as leader. Tomorrow we will inaugurate another in the long line of leaders elected to direct the course of my beloved country. However, in the days following the election this past November, I became aware that there was something different about my citizenship, indeed, about the whole system of beliefs I held about America.
I am a Scottish immigrant, having come here with my parents at, what Freud would call, the height of my psycho-sexual development. From the vantage point of a schoolroom in Galston, Ayrshire, the United States was truly "the mystical, magical land of America," if I might borrow a phrase from Paul Simon. To my boyhood sensibilities and childhood naivete, I was more than disappointed to discover, upon my landing at O'Hare Field, that there were no stagecoaches; no cowboys; no indians. I was wrenched from my romanticized world by the August heat, the velocity with which cars sped past pedestrians on the sidewalks, and the vastness of corn fields, stretching for mile upon mile as we travelled northward to Wisconsin and what would be my home for the next ten years or so and which would also remain the fond home of my childhood as I ventured out across America.
Yes, I knew I was different in grade school, junior high, and high school, but the difference was just that I was "the kid from Scotland." I had become a naturalized citizen at the same time my parents did and nothing seemed to set me apart from other citizens; at least that was the case until my freshman year in c0llege. There, during freshman speech class, I first became aware of the difference between me and my fellow Americans.
One of my classmates, a political science major, started off her speech with a piece of poetry and asked the class--and you can imagine the size of a required freshman speech class-- if anyone knew what that piece of poetry was. In the entire class, only one hand went up, and it was mine; just to be sure that I knew the answer, she asked me to identify it; I correctly identified it as the second verse of the Star Spangled Banner. Such was the love this Scottish immigrant bore his beloved America. From that day to this I have been aware of what, for lack of a better description, I call a qualitative difference in types of patriotism.
During the last two presidential campaigns much has been made of the patriotism issue, ranging from the "swiftboat" ads to the "war hero." The patriotism that soldiers have is qualitatively different from the type of patriotism that politicians have; the former sees what is good for the country in terms of the domination of a particular way of life; albeit, this way of life may not be spelled out in detail in the mind of the soldier. The latter sees patriotism as the triumph of a particular ideology, in spite of the fact that the ideology promoted may not have brought about the changes anticipated when last it was implemented. In addition to these types of patriotism there is that ilk of patriotism shared by immigrants of all stripes; in these cases, the love of America arises from the promises inherent in the image of America that is promulgated abroad--the love of America is the love of the particular type of freedom sought, i.e., economic, religious, political, etc. In my case, none of these apply because I was too young to be a soldier, politician, or to articulate a particular freedom I wish I had and saw that I could have in America--I was taken to America. In what, then, does my patriotism consist?
My patriotism consists in this, namely, that I want for America what is good, and right, and just because we are "One Nation Under God." "Ah," you say, "but isn't that what we all want?" Yes, it is what we all want; but we disagree as to what it is precisely that is the good, the right, and the just. This disagreement has caused every war, all poverty, all cruelty, hatred, and intolerance of every kind. The inability to come to agreement on this issue is a symptom of personal fragmentation; and, as a result, the intuition that would normally guide our decision making has been poisoned, crippled, and distorted; indeed, the ills of our society reflect the condition of our intuition in every respect. Every ill we see in the world is of our own creation; and can be remedied only by healing the guidance mechanism that our personal intuition affords us.
This healing amounts to nothing more than personally affirming the wholeness of each individuated consciousness; and we affirm it by finding, identifying with, and living in the self-consciousness of the "I" of "I Am."
I can almost hear the objections to this insight now; claiming that it smacks of religion and that we must maintain the separation of church and state; and that such statements have no business in politics. Well, consider this, I have been repeating the question posed by my classmate these many years and I have yet to find someone who knew the answer; why didn't you raise your hand? We can often benefit from the perspective of another on our problems; as Einstein has noted, we cannot solve a problem from within the same consciousness that created it. And, as the Scottish poet, Robert Burns, also noted, "I wish God would give us the power to see ourselves as other people see us." "I AM" giving you this power right now.
A few days after the recent presidential election the newswires were abuzz with talk of how historic this election was and how great a step America had made. But I have seen a kitten raised with puppies who thought that it was a puppy too until one day, when chasing a squirrel, it was the only one able to run up the tree after it. Should there be celebration? Is that a historic happening? I asked myself the following rhetorical question in the midst of all this news buzz "Am I the only person in America who is not racist?" The jubilation that was, and still is, expressed belies a deeper, although now dethroned, racism; in my America this was expected, and what is expected is no surprise. The deeper question now is: "What is the difference between my America and yours; what is it that I see that you do not; how was my vision of America formed?"
I used to think of myself as, more or less, "the man in the street" but no longer; apparently, I have a perspective and vantagepoint on America shared by few, but available to all. Perhaps tomorrow we should inaugurate a new self, the "I Am" of us; this is, after all, AMerica.
God bless you all and, especially, God bless America!!
I am a Scottish immigrant, having come here with my parents at, what Freud would call, the height of my psycho-sexual development. From the vantage point of a schoolroom in Galston, Ayrshire, the United States was truly "the mystical, magical land of America," if I might borrow a phrase from Paul Simon. To my boyhood sensibilities and childhood naivete, I was more than disappointed to discover, upon my landing at O'Hare Field, that there were no stagecoaches; no cowboys; no indians. I was wrenched from my romanticized world by the August heat, the velocity with which cars sped past pedestrians on the sidewalks, and the vastness of corn fields, stretching for mile upon mile as we travelled northward to Wisconsin and what would be my home for the next ten years or so and which would also remain the fond home of my childhood as I ventured out across America.
Yes, I knew I was different in grade school, junior high, and high school, but the difference was just that I was "the kid from Scotland." I had become a naturalized citizen at the same time my parents did and nothing seemed to set me apart from other citizens; at least that was the case until my freshman year in c0llege. There, during freshman speech class, I first became aware of the difference between me and my fellow Americans.
One of my classmates, a political science major, started off her speech with a piece of poetry and asked the class--and you can imagine the size of a required freshman speech class-- if anyone knew what that piece of poetry was. In the entire class, only one hand went up, and it was mine; just to be sure that I knew the answer, she asked me to identify it; I correctly identified it as the second verse of the Star Spangled Banner. Such was the love this Scottish immigrant bore his beloved America. From that day to this I have been aware of what, for lack of a better description, I call a qualitative difference in types of patriotism.
During the last two presidential campaigns much has been made of the patriotism issue, ranging from the "swiftboat" ads to the "war hero." The patriotism that soldiers have is qualitatively different from the type of patriotism that politicians have; the former sees what is good for the country in terms of the domination of a particular way of life; albeit, this way of life may not be spelled out in detail in the mind of the soldier. The latter sees patriotism as the triumph of a particular ideology, in spite of the fact that the ideology promoted may not have brought about the changes anticipated when last it was implemented. In addition to these types of patriotism there is that ilk of patriotism shared by immigrants of all stripes; in these cases, the love of America arises from the promises inherent in the image of America that is promulgated abroad--the love of America is the love of the particular type of freedom sought, i.e., economic, religious, political, etc. In my case, none of these apply because I was too young to be a soldier, politician, or to articulate a particular freedom I wish I had and saw that I could have in America--I was taken to America. In what, then, does my patriotism consist?
My patriotism consists in this, namely, that I want for America what is good, and right, and just because we are "One Nation Under God." "Ah," you say, "but isn't that what we all want?" Yes, it is what we all want; but we disagree as to what it is precisely that is the good, the right, and the just. This disagreement has caused every war, all poverty, all cruelty, hatred, and intolerance of every kind. The inability to come to agreement on this issue is a symptom of personal fragmentation; and, as a result, the intuition that would normally guide our decision making has been poisoned, crippled, and distorted; indeed, the ills of our society reflect the condition of our intuition in every respect. Every ill we see in the world is of our own creation; and can be remedied only by healing the guidance mechanism that our personal intuition affords us.
This healing amounts to nothing more than personally affirming the wholeness of each individuated consciousness; and we affirm it by finding, identifying with, and living in the self-consciousness of the "I" of "I Am."
I can almost hear the objections to this insight now; claiming that it smacks of religion and that we must maintain the separation of church and state; and that such statements have no business in politics. Well, consider this, I have been repeating the question posed by my classmate these many years and I have yet to find someone who knew the answer; why didn't you raise your hand? We can often benefit from the perspective of another on our problems; as Einstein has noted, we cannot solve a problem from within the same consciousness that created it. And, as the Scottish poet, Robert Burns, also noted, "I wish God would give us the power to see ourselves as other people see us." "I AM" giving you this power right now.
A few days after the recent presidential election the newswires were abuzz with talk of how historic this election was and how great a step America had made. But I have seen a kitten raised with puppies who thought that it was a puppy too until one day, when chasing a squirrel, it was the only one able to run up the tree after it. Should there be celebration? Is that a historic happening? I asked myself the following rhetorical question in the midst of all this news buzz "Am I the only person in America who is not racist?" The jubilation that was, and still is, expressed belies a deeper, although now dethroned, racism; in my America this was expected, and what is expected is no surprise. The deeper question now is: "What is the difference between my America and yours; what is it that I see that you do not; how was my vision of America formed?"
I used to think of myself as, more or less, "the man in the street" but no longer; apparently, I have a perspective and vantagepoint on America shared by few, but available to all. Perhaps tomorrow we should inaugurate a new self, the "I Am" of us; this is, after all, AMerica.
God bless you all and, especially, God bless America!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
