You have my permission to laugh at me about this. I am SUCH a dork!
So I was talking about how, a few days ago, I got very frustrated about how I just don’t find ‘corroboration’ of my weird ‘the Four’ and ‘the Consortium’ experiences anywhere, still don’t know where it comes from or why it’s so incredibly consistent for 15 years now, etc.
I had ordered myself a book I got several days ago (Multidimensional Mind: Remote Viewing in Hyperspace, by Jean Millay), had read a tiny bit and put it down. I put off reading it further so instead, I could do a couple days of googling about the above in my sudden wish to see if I could find anything that might make me feel a little better about it. After two days of a ton of complex, confusing and assumptive stuff, I was grouchy and not much helped at all.
The irony is, I was about 4 pages in my book from coming on this following text. Which was perfect timing; my desire would have felt like I called it up (as often happens when I am reading books). I even FELT like I shouldn’t really be doing the googling. But did I go back to reading? Noooo. Ironically one of my friends/clients is a founder of this school and field, which probably would have made me pay even more attention to this. But I was ignoring my gut and my book both, so I missed this until now. Emphasis in original text:
At the International Transpersonal Psychology (ITP) confererence in Prague in 1992, one of the founders, James Fadiman, PhD, [...] reviewed some of the historical theories about personality, such as the idea that we are a single unified being; the idea that there is no self; the idea that we are merely a collection of behaviors; or the idea that we are all multiples. Dr. Fadiman said:
There is a model of the mind which seems to fit both historical experiences of every early people and seems to fit the experiences of most people I meet (except for psychologically trained professionals). [Ed. note: There is much laughter from psychology professionals present.] And the model is that *we are multiples.* Pantheism is a representation of our internal state, and it is not a surprise that psychiatry has used the Greek myths to suggest many aspects of the self because the Greek Pantheon is a more normal representation of who you actually are. So the self, I suggest, does exist. It is not unified. It is a collection of personalities.
And the model says that if you work on yourself for many, many years, and take psychedelics, and go to India, etc. etc., that you will become a collection of selves, not unified, but that the collection of selves will be better behaved and you will get into less trouble…. When I listened to Ram Dass’s talk, and heard about the demons that used to be large and dark and now are small and friendly, it suggested that as one improves in mental health, one gains a better understanding of the totality of one’s multiplicity and is more likely to have the correct Being at the correct time. …
The other thing that I keep totally boring my friend on the phone about is my brain-crunching over Nedlund being about ‘sound’, and my trying to imagine the different kinds or levels of ‘sound’ that make up my experience/self/reality. In the book is this really big scale of sound, never seen anything like that before, very cool.
I mean seriously, I would have considered the book and its timing to be totally synchronous, more than coincidence, right in line with my inquiry of the moment. If I had been reading it, like I’d planned to be. But since I was busy ignoring my gut feeling and googling instead… well I guess that is a good example of how reality experience can differ so greatly at one point, based on some seemingly trivial decision made at another point!
P
Recent Comments