jump to navigation

What am I? December 2, 2010

Posted by ekarlpierson in 16) Alternate Questions.
add a comment

These are questions that we’ll be able to find some answers to, unlike the previous questions that can have only fabricated answers. These questions that we’re going to look at are for someone with a sincere mind and resolute intent. It’s interesting to see some recognized authority ask a great question with a stern look and an important tone in the voice. I’ve seen it a thousand times in some way or another. They appear to be so serious, so important. They think they are so advanced, so clever, when just about everyone who’s not mentally impaired have asked the great questions. Making the questions important is not the same as asking a serious question.

What am I? What’s the difference between What am I? and Who am I? … Who am I? implies or seeks out identity. What am I? objectifies the self. Isn’t that what we want to do—to objectify the self? That’s one reason that I like the word “troll.” We can perhaps see a troll more easily as an object. How in the world is a person to see the self objectively without seeing the self as an object? That goes against the grain of our natural instincts. We don’t like the idea that we may be a point of awareness with no other ability than to place a value on what we see as “what is.” We want to be a somebody! Have you ever heard a person say that they want to be a nobody?

People say that we have a survival instinct. I can say that the trolls have a survival instinct. Our selves have become ballooned up with belief and ideology. It appears to me that we have a fear that if the self dries up, there will be nothing left of us with which to go on.

What am I? We have already established that—a point of awareness that was born to be a servant of Delta. This isn’t a belief in some philosophy that we picked up somewhere; this is a simple observation. We must be servants because that’s all we can do. What other abilities do I have? I see none! I can serve as the awareness function of an intelligence that’s immensely greater than I, or I can serve the ideal, the illusion, Mammon.

What am I? Am I not highly privileged, in that I get to be here on the face of planet Earth to see the events of life transpire as if by magic? Would you have your awareness function, along with its access to memory, your lifetime experience, totally disappear, only to take up someone else’s position? I can’t speak for anyone else on this one, but I wouldn’t trade places with anyone on Earth. Just look at it! To do so you would have no recollection of yourself. It’s a wish to be dead! Let’s make this complete. If you did trade places with someone else, and you kept your own recollection instead of theirs, you would just be you all over with the same trolls and a different outer circumstance!

Didn’t I end up in this place, Earth, through a great deal of effort from life and through no effort of my own?
If the previous points are true, then what am I? Perhaps I am a privileged and invited guest of life. What do you think it would be like, if just for a few moments, I quit the self and its baggage and began to see myself as a privileged guest? Do you think my attitude and behavior would be reflective of that?

The trouble is that we cannot serve that intelligence—whatever and wherever it is—that master intelligence that is greater than I—as long as we serve the master troll. We just cannot serve two masters at once.

PARTICIPANT: “Serve two masters” is sort of a bible quote.

WW: I just can’t resist the analogies.

PARTICIPANT: The quote actually refers to serving God vs. serving money or material things at the same time. Are you saying that we should quit trying to make money?

W.W. Certainly not! If you didn’t starve, you’d become a burden on my taxes! We’re talking about being aware of our inner motives—to confess regarding our true nature—to admit to ourselves, that is, not to confess to the authorities as guilt. Perhaps then we can experience the occasional surrender of greed, which is the obsession to serve the basic urges. Perhaps then, we can turn around and move in a different direction and keep the trolls at bay. Please don’t think that you need to give up your material possessions to make things work.

Let’s move on to the next question.

Where am I? December 2, 2010

Posted by ekarlpierson in 16) Alternate Questions.
add a comment

Where am I? I am at the planet Earth party. Does that answer sound too frivolous for a serious question? Look around. The institutions, whether macro or micro, are based on the great questions that are quite frivolous. Are we to take these things seriously? Are we to make these things important? Are we to become anxious over frivolity?

This is a unique place in the known universe—a place inhabited by the most advanced known beings—a place where we have resistance as a gift. Here on Earth, it’s quite unlike that other place that they described to me in church many years ago. You know; do you remember our discussion about that heavenly place with no resistance and everyone is dead? Earth: the most fantastic place in the universe known to us. I am a privileged and invited guest on the fantastic planet Earth. How ungrateful is it of us to want to move on to a better place?

Questions, comments, confusion?

PARTICIPANT: No contest.

WW: Then on to another question.

What’s taking place here? December 2, 2010

Posted by ekarlpierson in 16) Alternate Questions.
add a comment

What’s taking place here? Now, let’s remember that we’re looking for a legitimate observation, not some counterfeit idea that’s posed as a question we have no means to check out. I don’t know how many times my mentor of many years ago said, “Check it out, check it out, check it out.” What’s taking place here? Games. Some little games and some great games, but games. Is that inappropriate? I did say that we’re here at the Earth party. We have the sociopolitical games, the business games, religion games, traffic games, sports games, the apparel games, and so on. The list of big games, little games, and sub games goes on and on. We spoke earlier of seriousness. Doesn’t this answer sound serious? Man fabricates all that goes on in this world, although man may be an expression of life. It seems to me that the importance of institutionalized ideas would have to be in question if we can determine that they’re man-made. Would the ideas have a built-in, inherent level of importance?

I worked at a place where the noontime talk was usually centered on sports. Each of these guys identified with certain teams and they took the outcome of the games quite seriously. They really didn’t see these games as just games. They were so strongly identified with the teams that some would say, “We traded so and so for someone else.” “We drafted a certain person on the second round draft.” “We’re paying a certain person too much money for what he does.” They made it sound as if they had some financial or personal interest in the team. They made the games important. Are these games inherently important? If they saw the game as only a game, would they still make them important? They became seriously emotional about the whole business of a sport.

This brings to mind an interesting observation that you may want to check out. Look at yourself and others to see if you can find the urge to become attached. We like to become attached to sports teams, ideologies, clubs, political parties, certain brands of religion, and the list goes on. This list includes our personalities, the trolls. Did you notice that all of these things to which we become attached are man-made? Can you see the way these attachments hold us down to a small space? It’s the natural thing to do. I’m interested in exposing the natural for what it is.

Let me make a little analogy here. You may have made an observation that a person who’s materially wealthy, if not careful, becomes controlled by the things that he or she owns. It can take a great deal of energy to look after one’s wealth, one’s material attachments. How about our wealth of ideas? How much energy do we expend on caring for our ideologies? Are we not wealthy when it comes to ideas and ideals? I assert that this wealth of ideas prevents us from entering the direction that we were intended to move.

I have an explanation for the drive to seek attachment or connection, which seems to me that we are all born with. This is just an explanation, so you can take it for what it’s worth. The drive for connection is designed to bring us to the recognition of our connection to an intelligence that is far greater than I. I don’t mean I personally, but the I that is each of us. The connection has always been there, but we have failed to recognize it or listen to it. Instead, we have become connected to the exoteric ideas—the trolls. We recognize and listen to the trolls. We have become humanists and hedonists.

I see Ed shaking his head. Ed thinks he’s exempt.

PARTICIPANT: Are you asking me to give up my sports channels?

WW: For some reason, we keep coming back to behavior. Correct me if I’m mistaken, but the closest thing I’ve suggested regarding behavior, is the suggestion that you keep track of your goals and methods on a counting device. I play sports, but I see it as a game. It’s not about behavior; it’s about perception. If we didn’t play the games, we would merely sit and vegetate.

We live a world of man-made institutions that are based on the great and frivolous questions that have completely fabricated, fragmented, and untested answers. Doesn’t it sound as though we live in a world of games? Wouldn’t our emotions be at least partially kept in check if we saw an event as only a part of a game?

Suppose you saw the world as a huge party that is hosted by life. The party is full of games. The games have rules, points, prizes, and penalties just like the sports games. The games have other players that are also guests of the host. Do you think that way of seeing the world would change your attitude? Did you ever tell the host at a party that you don’t like his choice of guests?

Here’s the trick to the games. Play the games; don’t let the games play you. Become the master of your act.

PARTICIPANT: So am I supposed to just up and quit my job because it’s just a game?

WW: No, no, no. Keep your job, keep your car. I’m not advocating that you change what you’re doing. This isn’t one of those wacko cults that wants you to sell off your goods and give it to the cult leader. That would be to work backwards. A world idea proposed by the sociopolitical advocates is that if we change our circumstances it will change our behavior, which will then change our attitude. I’m interested in how we see the world and the rest will follow. The idea of forcing changes of attitude, behavior, and our state of being has been a dismal mess in our own experience and throughout history.

If we’re going to discuss anything at all regarding behavior, let’s look into what a person might do, how he or she may begin to act, as the outcome of cleaning out some of those trollish ideas from the self. This brings us to the last of our four alternate questions.

PARTICIPANT: May I ask a question before we go on?

WW: Sure. Excuse me for trying to move on without asking for questions. I mistakenly assume that I’ve made everything clear and understandable for everyone else.

PARTICIPANT: I can see that what you’re saying would be of great use to see the world as a party with games. Trouble is, there are some very nasty things going on. You even talked about them …beatings, mutilation, murder. Are we not supposed to judge these things as evil?

WW: Great point. First, if man were not subject to falling into these violent practices, it would mean that there would be no resistance and we would have to go back to our earlier talk about the necessity of resistance for life. Remember our talk? No resistance, no life. If man is not subject to a fall, we could not be alive. This is a hard saying, difficult to see, difficult to apply.

Second, I’ve been around long enough now to be gray and I’ve never been beaten and obviously haven’t been murdered. I wouldn’t want to count the number of times, however, that I have experienced inappropriate feelings, emotions, as if someone or something was attacking me. That is where we have 99% of our trouble. For those situations that turn to physically interactive violence, I relinquish my position to the problem-solving approach and the experts that do that sort of thing. I don’t think that I’ve stated that the problem-solving approach has no value. If someone was about to hit me over the head with a big stick, I hope that I would see it as evil and do whatever I could to defend myself.

I think we can address a little bit more of this with our last alternate question. Are we ready to move on? No questions? Let’s go.

What Can I Do? December 2, 2010

Posted by ekarlpierson in 16) Alternate Questions.
add a comment

(Understanding and Consideration)

Last of the four questions: What can I do?

You may take note that the question is not what should I do? There is a difference, and that difference may become evident as we move on.

What can I do? We’ll look at four points to this question. This will take a little time to address. We’re going to look at this with a genuinely serious intent, a serious mind, not some frivolous lily pad jumping crap about how “good” people act. To do that would be to ask, “What should I do?” Frankly, I don’t know what you should do.

The first point…Understanding. How about if we break away for a few minutes and check out understanding according to the exoteric ideas? Related to understanding is the admonition that we have all heard: “Love thy neighbor.” This is apparently something that’s very difficult to live up to when we see the condition that the world is in. The world teaching, the exoteric teaching, is one of anti-love. Political science, sociology, even religion, so often teach tolerance, which I assert is anti-love. I happened past a television recently while a children’s program was playing and the television character was instructing children to have tolerance for people who are different from us. I’ve even heard this from religious and political leaders! How would you like to know that I was tolerating you? How would you feel if you were tolerating me? It looks to me that we only tolerate someone we don’t like or don’t understand. We’re just fooling ourselves if we think we’ve done well to tolerate someone. That’s an indicator of the upside-down world we live in. I suppose it’s better to tolerate someone than to hit them over the head with a club, but it teaches nothing of understanding. It teaches inner turmoil, which must eventually be expressed outwardly. We’re right back to the same old inner turmoil that we live with, unnoticed. Inwardly, we hold resentment toward someone, which we either ignore or try to fix. Again, it’s better than committing antisocial acts, but it’s a poor substitute for the real thing: understanding. Tolerance is an exoteric idea because it focuses on forced attempts at changes in attitude and behavior, rather than a different way of seeing. Tolerance is an exoteric idea because it is superficial in nature. Social science requires this approach, partly because behavior can be measured for achievement of success. Researchers can’t take quantitative measurements on the way a person sees, therefore they can’t use seeing as a measure of a successful social idea.

PARTICIPANT: Aren’t you just overplaying semantics here? When I hear the word, tolerance, I don’t think of it as something to avoid, I think of it as the proper way to treat other people.

WW: You may think that I’m nitpicking a word to pieces, but words convey ideas and we use words and ideas without thinking. We absorb the words and connective ideas that work on us inwardly without an awareness of it.
You used the word, proper. Do you treat your wife in a certain way because you love her or because you’re patient with her and it’s the proper thing to do?

PARTICIPANT: Well, since she’s sitting right here, you know how I’ll answer that question.

(Participant laughter.)
WW: I knew I’d get you to see it my way on that one. Tolerance and patience are not required when you have a genuine care for someone. We do the proper thing when we don’t feel the same on the inside as our behavior indicates on the outside. Duality. What about intolerance? There’s no difference inwardly between tolerance and intolerance. The difference is behavior, an exoteric idea that’s a poor substitute for seeing differently. Social planners and political scientists don’t have much concern for the way we see, except when they want us to see them as great planners or leaders.

PARTICIPANT: You just don’t like politics and preachers.
(Laughter from participants.)

WW: It’s not the people; it’s the ideas, the trolls. The trolls are not the person.

Okay, I’m going to go back to the subject of understanding. Let’s take a look at some of the people who exhibit behavior we don’t like. Obviously, we’re not including the ones someone had to shoot or send to the penitentiary. We can eliminate the extremes at one end of the spectrum or we’ll end up debating about which social ideas are the best.
With the possible exception of sociopaths, we all develop a feel that we know the right thing to do, early on, as we grow older. I’m not saying that it necessarily is the right thing to do, but that we do have that feel. We do what we feel is the right thing to do. The only time we go against that sense of right is when we can justify it. Have you ever tried to do something that you thought was not right or justified? I, personally, have never been able to do that. Even if you can do what’s not seen as right, for the sole purpose of demonstrating that it is possible, then you still used the test as a justification. If anyone in this room can do something that they perceive as not right or justified, I’d like you to call me on my cell phone right away because that would be some sort of anomaly that I’ve never seen. Of course, I’ll call the authorities right away and report you as some sort of brain damaged sociopath. (Chuckle)

PARTICIPANT: You’ve repeatedly gone over good and evil, knowing good and evil, but you just spoke of knowing the right thing to do. Aren’t those two ideas at odds with one another?

WW: Not in the least. “Knowing good and evil” refers to a judgment call of an event that’s taking place, regardless of whether we see it as an outside or inside event. It’s an incoming perception. To know the right thing to do refers to our act or our intended behavior. I think it would be fair to say that the “good and evil” judgment is incoming, a sense of the right thing to do is outgoing.

Just for the sake of clarity, let’s get our pencils out and make a small addition to our picture. Draw an arrow horizontally with the point of the arrow touching the side of the awareness function. Let’s label it: Perception of events. This is where our perception of good and evil comes along. Behavior comes along later.

Remember that this is an abstract picture. In literal practice, the perception of events comes in first through the physical body, then to the awareness function. If we take a big dose of Valium, the physical body chemistry is altered, which in turn alters the perception, but I want to keep this picture simple. We also have a perception of our own being, but if we keep drawing lines, we’ll be trying to draw neurons and flow charts and we’ll end in an intellectual pursuit that’s way beyond my capacity. I like the simple-minded, non-intellectual type of picture.

That reminds me of a humorous nickname my mother had for me as a youth. Non compos mentis. It’s Latin. It means the mind doesn’t function. I’m sure Ed would agree with her.

PARTICIPANT: You brought up incoming and outgoing in regard to the awareness function. What is incoming to me may outgoing to someone else. There are all kinds of things flying back and forth.

WW: I can only perceive for self. Some other person must be responsible for his or her own perception. What a mess we would have if E.S.P. were a reality. Everyone’s perceptions and intentions all intertwined. We could trust in nothing.
Back to understanding. Have you ever tried to perform a completely unselfish act? It’s very, very difficult to do by intent or force. Even if you succeed in doing it, you still would have had a selfish motive of doing it to prove that you could. The first time I presented this postulate was to a young man, some 35 years back, and he adamantly denied that it was the case. He got sort of defensive and cranky about it, so I knew that I hit on a sore spot. He said that he had, on many occasions, performed completely unselfish acts. His untarnished image of himself would not allow such an idea to enter his little world. I asked him to describe one of these unselfish acts. He said that he found an injured bird at the side of the road, took the bird home, nursed it back to health and then let it fly away. I asked, “If you had no selfish motive, then what was your reason for doing it?” His reply; “Just for the good feeling that it gave me!” Now, mind you, this occurred back in the days when I rattled people for the sport of it. I said, “Well then, you got your selfish reward, you got a good feeling!” He spouted out a couple of four-letter words and then stomped away mad. I wasn’t very considerate. I was intentionally trying to get his goat.

Motive. Wouldn’t it be something to experience an act that didn’t arise from motivation?

So, what then does all of this have to do with understanding? Let’s suppose that you had expended a certain amount of energy investigating self …the motives of self …the interests and methods of self. Let’s suppose that you’ve checked out the hypothesis that you always do what you feel is right or justifiable. Let’s suppose that you’ve checked out the hypothesis that your acts are always selfish, directly or indirectly in your own interest.

When you’ve sufficiently checked out these hypotheses, it might be interesting to take a few minutes at work or at a dinner party or at the bowling league to look and listen to the other people around you and see if they are doing the same thing that you have been doing for your entire life. You needn’t say or do anything, just make the observations.

Wouldn’t you then see that they are all chasing the ideal with some method? Wouldn’t they all have a self-interest motive just like you? Wouldn’t they all feel that they are doing what’s right or justified? Wouldn’t you have a spark of understanding for their predicaments and behavior? I’m not talking about feeling sorry for them! I’m only saying that we may experience an insight into their condition. To feel sorry for them would gain nothing but damage to one’s own consciousness.

One more point before we move on. We’ve talked about the hypothesis that we do what is right or justifiable. A man is undercharged on his check at a restaurant. He says nothing, pays the check, walks away, and finds some justification for not bringing it to someone’s attention. A woman is given ten dollars too much change at the grocery store. She says nothing, walks away, and finds a way to justify it. By the time a person moves along with this line of study far enough to ask, “What can I do?” it’s unlikely that the person will any longer be involved in actions that require justification. I had a family physician for many decades. After the physician’s death, his son told me a story about him. The physician wanted to obtain several copies of a certain piece of copyrighted sheet music. He tried to obtain copies of the sheet music from a store, but found that it was no longer in print, so he made several copies, wrote a check for the retail price of all the copies, then mailed it to the publisher. It’s highly unlikely that anyone would have ever known that he made the copies or that they would have questioned his integrity for doing so. It may be that he just didn’t like to feel guilty, but perhaps he saw the value in living a lifestyle that didn’t require justification. We’ll never know.

If you can remember, we stated right from the start that we were going to look at self without condemnation or justification. If a person looks carefully, justification is born of duality and breeds duality. When a person sees that it is not in his or her best interest to lead a life of near-constant inner duality, that person will begin to cease doing those things that breed duality. This is not something that one does with force, but rather, it is the result of objective observation, making self into an object.

Questions? Silence. Does that mean that we’re too confused to know what to ask, or that we got it?

PARTICIPANT: I think you made it clear.

WW: What can I do? Second, I can be considerate. A person with understanding would have consideration for his neighbor. That consideration is based on the understanding that we’re all in the same boat. We have all become idol worshipers. We’ve all been tricked into serving the same god—the god of ideals. That consideration is based on the understanding that our servitude has produced a near constant stream of internal stress and conflicting ideologies that have left us with a fractured awareness. The considerate man can see these things working in his neighbor as he has seen them working within himself. He sees that his neighbor is addicted to these ideals and methods and has been unable to free himself. I don’t like to get mushy, but there may even be a spark of compassion for the neighbor.

Watch out for a trick by Mammon and his trolls on this one. There is a “compassion” of the world that can sneak up and catch you. That’s what happens when you identify with the other person’s predicament or trolls. If that happens, you will begin to feel his or her emotions. Now, instead of one person with emotions and one person with compassion, we have two people with emotions. That is not compassion in the esoteric sense. That’s two people feeling sorry for themselves! Compassion has no emotion. I’ll repeat this like one of those hot rod preachers. Compassion has no emotion. A person with compassion realizes that the other person’s painful emotion is a necessary wake up call from Delta, or whatever name you would call a higher intelligence, that they’re going in the wrong direction. If you could take away their painful emotion, you would take away the resistance to their drive to be non-disturbed.

Questions before the next point?

What Can I Do? December 2, 2010

Posted by ekarlpierson in 16) Alternate Questions.
add a comment

(Being Harmless and Making a Contribution)

WW: What can I do? A considerate man would be harmless. I have a small analogy to accompany this one. I told you about the family physician. Upon an office visit with my young daughter, he said that he frequently practiced something that he called “masterful nonintervention.” In other words, sometimes it’s best to leave things alone and let the events run their course without any help. The treatment may be of more harm than benefit.

A considerate man would understand that in many cases, it’s best not to help someone with their predicament. A person can still be kind to another without trying to solve the person’s problem. Of course, we’re not talking about someone who is in need of medical attention or is about to commit suicide.

The word predicament: it’s from Latin and it means “something predictable.” People get themselves into the damnedest situations and it is so often predictable. They have predictable perception, attitude, and behavior that gets them into predictable trouble and they react in a predictable manner, then they say that they’re in a predicament. An understanding person would consider these things and be harmless in his relationships. This is not something that is easy to figure out and it requires a great deal of effort and a great deal of self-observation and consideration to answer, “What can I do?”

There is one thing that we can always do. We can make a contribution to the life that has blessed us with resistance. It will probably be that none of the other persons around us will see resistance as a gift, but that need not stop us from behaving as it is a gift. Mind you, I’m not telling you how to behave; that’s entirely up to you. A person who sees resistance as a gift will have a different attitude and therefore will exhibit a different behavior than those who see resistance as a curse. A person who has begun to see that there is little value in chasing ideals will also begin to cease to be caught up in the soap opera lives of those around him. This different behavior doesn’t come about from a behavioral code that is dictated by an accepted authority or the authority of the past, but rather from seeing differently.

This contribution comes about without behavioral effort or motive. This contribution comes about without trying. Have you ever experienced a motiveless contribution, a contribution that is not done to get so much as a good feeling? A person doesn’t give this type of contribution; rather, it is experienced. It happens. A tenet of this teaching is that it is not possible for a person to give. A person experiences giving. Furthermore, the person receiving the gift will probably not recognize it as a gift and the person from whose direction the gift came will probably receive no credit. This line of teaching promises no success, no rewards, no gain.

If you really do follow through with this line of teaching, a few people may see that that you’re not reacting to everyone else in the usual way. They’ll probably think that you’re just not paying attention to what’s going on or that you’re some kid of dolt who doesn’t have enough sense to react to the other people because you don’t act like one of Pavlov’s dogs. They may see you as a non compos mentis. This line of teaching also offers no respect. You could end up like Rodney Dangerfield.

PARTICIPANT: One of who’s dogs?

WW: Pavlov. You didn’t read about Ivan Pavlov in school?

PARTICIPANT: Never heard of him.

WW: I suppose they don’t teach the same things in school that they did when I was a boy.

Pavlov did research with dogs regarding conditioning more than 100 years ago. He worked on many experiments over a period of years, but I think the experiment for which he is most known was when he turned on a light every time he fed the dogs. After doing this a number of times, he found that the dogs would salivate when he turned the lights on, even though the dogs had no food put before them. The implication of this is that conditioning plays a role in physiology. Implications have also been extended to human psychology and behavior.

Humans become conditioned, just like Pavlov’s dogs. Some people believe that there is no way out of it—that we’re just conditioned pieces of meat. Those who are involved with sociology and psychology like to point out that a person behaves in a certain way, has a certain attitude, according the childhood experiences or some similar factor. I suppose the conclusion is understandable when so few people in this world are not living the lives of reactionaries.

PARTICIPANT: But studies do show that we do react according to experiences in youth.

WW: I have no argument with that, but are you then concluding that you must react according to your conditioning?

PARTICIPANT: No, I’m saying that it is a factor.

WW: And I assert that there is a value in checking out the possibility, the hypothesis, that the factor of conditioning is a destructive one—that to function according to our design we must drop that conditioning. If it cannot be done, we are wasting our time with this discussion because we’re pieces of machinery that must see according to the way we were raised or according to some genetic factor. Our behavior must then be written in stone because we can only act according to conditioning. It does appear to be difficult because people don’t question their ideas.

One of my favorite questions to ask of people is, “For what reason do you say you are a Catholic (or whatever religion they belong to) instead of a Hindu or a Buddhist?” By far, the most common answer is, “Because I was raised that way.” What they’re telling me is that they profess to be a Catholic, not because they checked it out to see if it’s true or valuable, but because they’re conditioned. Isn’t it a sad commentary for someone to unknowingly admit that they’ve been conditioned like Pavlov’s dogs and they see nothing wrong with that? Could we ask, “Am I acting out of conditioning like one of Pavlov’s dogs? Do I keep a certain set of drives and methods because I was programmed by some person or event?” For God’s sake, this is a simple question! It isn’t that people don’t have the capacity to go beyond conditioning, it’s that they go down the same path for decades without asking a simple, honest question.

Question, question, question. That’s what we’re doing here today, questioning our conditioning. Maybe if we question it enough, we’ll quit sending messages to Delta that the conditioning has value. As long as we keep sending those messages, Delta will give energy to the conditioning and it will remain active. Delta gives energy to whatever we value: nerve impulses, stress hormones, ideas, thoughts, and beliefs. Our silly ideologies run our lives because we haven’t questioned their value.

I’ll offer another hypothesis here. If we cease to value physical activity, Delta will allow the muscles to atrophy. If we cease to value an aspect of conditioning, Delta will allow it to atrophy. This is not some strange philosophy, it’s the simple recognition that Delta, or something beyond the awareness function, makes active whatever we see as “what is” and valuable. “What is” and our value of it are the only two abilities we have.

Back to the subject of making a contribution. I believe that’s where we were when I got going on a tangent about Pavlov. Perhaps, if we question our values, it may be possible to begin to give up reactions. Not reacting is a contribution in itself. Somewhere, sometime, someone may see that you are not reacting to every stimuli like one of Pavlov’s dogs. They may be attracted to your sense of calm in the middle of a soap opera storm and you may have the opportunity to make some small remark that will make the person question his decision that the purpose of living is to drive disturbing events away. On a rare occasion, a person may find the opportunity to pass this information on to someone who will take the ball and run with it; a very rare occasion. That would, indeed, be a contribution.

Questions, comments?