Dialogue On The Way Of Knowledge - Part lll
You can now translate this page to ANY language.
I've added, what I'm calling, Dialogue on the Way of Knowledge, to my site, Carlos Castaneda's don Juan's Teachings. It began Mon, Jun 28th, 1999, when I received an E-Mail from Michael. I will use "M:" to begin his comments, R: to begin mine. This is part three of the dialogue. It continues where part 2 left off. Here, I've sent Michael a few of the E-mails I'd received from others and asked his opinion about some of the content. I've decided not to include those here but rather, just leave Michael's comments. You can kind of guess what must have been said by his replys.
-----------------
M: It is always extraordinarily difficult to learn what others really are. In my approaches, before I can establish a 'link' so that I can "know" through perception (the purest form of knowledge), then the literal word must be used. When people claim to be a (xxxx) [fill in the blank label] it is never obvious if they require a "label" or a "title" to somehow link themselves to something as a matter of dependency. If a "label" is affixed by themselves as a matter of dependency, then it only follows that they have not sufficiently lost the human form and that speaks oceans concerning where they are as seekers of the 'way'.
M: Ever since CC and DJM introduced the world to the term "nagual", it has become rather overused, I fear. The overuse causes me to think of the terms "religious" and "spiritual". I have begun to wonder if individuals really understand what the term means ...
M: Ah, humm, flag flying. The lowest brain as a point of devolution would be the primal brain: the hypothalamic brain. There is no reason in this function only metabolic regulation, emotion, and passion. The center that has been imaged in science during anger has been quite literally shown to surround the center that holds maximal energy during love. From this, it can be surmised, that the center for anger surrounds and blocks the center for love in terms of it's energetic flows. Also, 'the way' simply cannot be a devolution: it must be an evolution.
M: While it is true that our cellular system do, in fact, replace themselves, they remain as energetic systems and are only a continuance of evolution, not devolution. What occurs within our sentience during these physical manipulations, however, is not well understood and certainly cannot be said "with truth", only speculation. The speculation possible is that as the organic system migrates, it can impact the philosophy of individuals, and philosophy drives, in turn, psychology. The two combined are required to be in good alignment in order to cause maximum efficiency and lack of negative (internal) conflict, and find "the way".
M: Having observed CC, and directed perceived him internally (field merged) in empathic ways, on this I agree. I truly do not think that CC really understood that the power was actually not his but was sourced from others. He was the reporter, as intended, and reporters can be teachers particularly because of the experiences he gained under the control of others.
M: The third attention, according to the books, was not knowable, and this is simply not true. The knowledge is brought to fore in a sequence that is commensurate with the ability of the student/traveller/warrior. Anything not experienced and understood only conceptually, is technically unknown, but to call it "unknowable" is an arrogant limitation intended to invoke mystery. Arthur C. Clarke, the noted author, said accurately that "today's magic, is tomorrow's technology". Working on that concept, it could be said that "today's mysteries, are the promise of tomorrow's knowledge" - my own version of the comment - where "true" knowledge ultimately verifies the accuracy of falsity of 'the mysterys' at hand.
M: Any individual, or collective within the student troupe are, well, students seeking to learn. It's difficult to imagine the troupe being the map any more effectively than the blind leading the blind. They may "make a map" and seek mutual comfort by that, however, evolution would be slow and there is a strong possibility that stasis would result. There were many examples of CC and "the troupe" simply being lost in their own noise. In many of the reports they reminded me of teenagers groping for a direction. Carol Tiggs did was only tangentially involved with the "troupe", and she seems to have escaped the inefficiencies that they caused to themselves in emotion.
M: It is fully understood that Toltecs really did miss any real accuracy with their perceptions or map sequence of humanity. CC himself did go through a form of alteration in or about 1994, but this did not occur at his peak: it was a ripple during the decline into secular distraction. CC during this period apparently fell into the hands of others and they were intent on commercialization.
M: Reporters do not have to become 'true masters' to be effective in their intended task of providing information. To "re-evolve" it has to be known that there was evolution followed by reversion, and that is not necessarily the situation. There was, though, toward the end, huge diversion and distraction sourced by others with other agendas.
M: In order to 'find the way' it is necessary to be highly pro-active for self. Certainly, circumstance may isolate us (as in the case of my own childhood) however being cloistered as an adult is largely a matter of choice.
M: Many hunger for 'the way', and many get stuck in the security of preconceptions (which become dependencies quickly) content in their progress. In a way, this causes reflections for myself about my own status when I medically died five years ago. The report was made to you (in a prior E-mail) about my own arrogance about to what evolutionary level I had achieved, and wow, was I humbled and that lesson one does not forget and the recollection of that lesson causes humility when required, and with that a form of detachment (as you have used the term) that in turn causes a form of self-objectivity.
---------- M: Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz was a philosopher and a mathematician, and his philosophical concept, or construction in concept, of spiritual forces of energy actually resemble very closely "the grid" (using the apprentice's term previously noted) that I have conceptualized independently.
M: As projected in my "letter to the apprentice" that I copied to you, it was noted that it is possible that all of this has been known, or at least conceptualized by individuals or groups of individuals for a very long time: the example of Jacob was cited in that 'letter'. Leibniz was very visionary and gifted for his time in his publications between 1675 and about 1714, and was influential. Some of his influences, though, were very misplaced and misdirected by others like Immanuel Kant who distorted the concepts for his own purposes.
M: Indeed, if we connect all of these ideas together, we find that the concepts have been projected and at least partially understood for a very long time.
M: Now, the question that begs to be asked: what has this effort brought as a benefit to.... Certainly his report to you is replete with scholastic thoroughness and even reasonable conclusion. What is missing is any suggestion that he has utilized the information as anything more than, well, academic information.
---------- R: Again, thank you SO MUCH for your time.
M: You are very welcome. It is fully recognized that we are involved in a rather unusual form of evolution and the philosophy that must be ingrained in an individual in order to accomplish the goal. It's delightful having your responses.
R: I think I won't send any more of (snip)'s stuff. While your comments are helpful, perhaps that they were really responses to (snip)'s thoughts, I didn't feel that "connected" to it.
M: They are responses to (snip)'s idea. She has quite a way to go along the path. It will be interesting to learn at what point she recognizes what the requirements are for her to go forward again, although she could stay content with her present evolution for a long time, perhaps forever.
R: I reread (actually, the computer read it, I listened) all of you first notes, (I'm compiling our correspondence on my word processor in one lengthening file).
M: What a very good idea. I'm quite certain that it will form an interesting compilation for you.
R: I will be trying the palm down exercise. I love listening to you. I noticed the references to love and am wondering why the word is never mentioned in CC/dJM's stuff.
M: Don't know. The ability to unconditionally love as an attribute speaks wonders and oceans of the evolutionary status of those who are capable of it. Most individuals have "conditional love". This version of love is basically an economic version, as in, "I will or do love you for the following reasons and based on your behaviour and what you do for me.". This form of love is basically a "dependent" love, and very much in keeping with the dependencies of the 'human form'. Unconditional love is a very broad form that has no dependencies and that condition requires very high self-esteem and sense of self in the very broadest view.
R: I will reread the "intending to be sending love and openness to the power-grid-universe deal. There is much to absorb from your writings and, having absorbed some already I would better say, There is much to be absorbed, understood and put into practice ... being it. Oddly, I just thought, that doesn't require remembering it ... when one is being it, that is. Something there about the power of silence, and yet, I must reread with the intent to become it.
M: Great! A very good observation. Being overwhelms the energy requirement to remember.
R: I discovered the piano when I sat down having never before touched the keys or any musical instrument, and found that the black keys all sounded good together and that excursions into the white keys solicited timing of sorts.
M: It may be that you will have the incentive to revisit composition and harmonic convergencies from the instrument that will impact your soul and stir memories of wonders past.
R: I noticed that you did not comment on my having had the sense of total blackness, of nothing, I'd said that there was terror with that sense; it wasn't terror, it was ... well, I don't know what it was, it couldn't be (that there is such a possibility) because I had the thought of it in the first place. Recalling that, however, I do marvel at why there is everything. It almost seems that the scale of "everything" is so beyond huge that it in some way, I don't even know why I would have the thought; must also be that nothing.
M: There wasn't much point to a comment because it speaks for itself. It is, of course, a requirement within your own impeccability to learn the striations of emotions and boundaries that form these manifestations.
R: But let's say that I learn and experience what I do; well, that will always be the case for everyone. But there can be no end (as in "to what end?," as a goal) to it and if there can be no end then all points along the way are equal: points alone the way ... but it can't be a way TO anything if there is no end so the notion of "total freedom" is just that, a notion. So are we to be learning tricks just for our amusement?
M: Ah, no: for freedom; eternal freedom; continuance as a coherent sentience. The attribute set that we establish in this "prototype" physically/organically based first-attention based existence, it the attribute/ability set that we will carry forever. It's not sufficient "just" to escape consumption by the Eagle, if one is to prosper in the third attention. If you require more description about this concept, please let me know and I'll try to provide analogies, although I believe this was transmitted previously during the description of one of my travels to/through the third attention. I don't remember how much was conveyed to you at that time, however, all information was not provided.
R: ** Is the dreaming I've learned to control just more amusement?
M: Yes. It is the beginning of a basis. It forms the initial gateway to the second and third attentions. Much has to be learned in the second attention and carried "in being" to be prepared for the third attention and what will be learned in that reality. Travels and learning in the third attention have a 'reality' that makes any experience in the first attention seem vague by comparison.
R: When you (Michael) are what you are and when that is labeled, let's say, more advanced along some supposed "way" ... is it for the increased level of joy? of giving? of understanding? ... but "to what end?"
M: Please ask this again after you have become more experienced with the "palms down" exposure and the perceptions that will be derived from this. There are enormous responsibilities poised for us beyond some level of evolution. In accepting the progression for self, one must accept the responsibilities or one cannot progress further.
R: If what I've wondered is true, that there can be no end ... perhaps it is in the realm that I've never even begun to have any sense of, the notion of knowing without thoughts.
M: There 'can' be an end (as in the "food for The Eagle" metaphor) or there can be continuance forever with an attribute set frequently described or assigned to biblical figures. It is amazing as an experience, and validated only by experiences in the third attention. The key combined term, here, is 'forever' then to imply the "quality of existence" (the attribute set, the ability set that is earned by an individual). If you were to experience, just if, that you could continue into the infinity of time and space, with 'what' ability set would you choose: The ability to simply watch and observe but not interact or impact outcome; the ability to continue only by bonding out energy from others (as in the CC descriptions of the inorganic beings); the ability to have sufficient energy to be an ally or protector for others; or, something far larger? Ultimately, the choices we make within 'the timeless now' that moves timelessly through infinity and space, impact in a causal relationship the result of the attribute set we evolve to possess for ourselves. It is a matter of knowledge, intent, and will that eventually cause us "to be" in our being. ----------- NOTE: Keep in mind that my part of this is broken up into sections so this first comment is added after Michael read the whole E-mail.
M: Wow! Much to offer, here, and perhaps not in the sequence that you might imagine. Here goes ..., and hang on.
R: I'm struck with the imperative to proper action. But are you saying then, as don Juan said and I really just assigned to the "Tales of Power" department, that 99.99999% (one in ten million I'm guessing to be liberal) of us are just "consumed by the Eagle" and that's it!!? I don't know why, but I've, and I'm just noticing this, always assumed that "my" consciousness, whatever that is, would always be. Not that I would know a damn thing about it ... and I have compiled CC's books, but I guess I just didn't really take the imperative to heart before as, for one thing, I guess I, before you, had started to stop believing it all true. (please read next paragraph before commenting)
M: I've already read through the whole E-mail, and came to the conclusion that this indeed is an appropriate place to insert discussion. Please try to flow with this thought and concept on a personal basis with me, for this while. For those like myself, particularly those familial in history, there is a huge level of confusion particularly in early life because society offers no "societally sane" explanation of how and why the way 'we know' what we know, and how and why the way 'we feel/perceive' what we feel and perceive. There is some research in science that suggests that mitochondrial DNA (derived from the mother's side of the genetic heritage and attribute map) forms the primary derivative in individuals, however this is not conclusion by itself and only suggests a propensity toward the maternal side for certain attributes being transferred. Contemplate your mother's characteristics, yes?
M: Back to the flow of the concept. As a youth, those endowed with these attributes, at least in my generation, have to overcome prejudices based on the common wisdom (being a bit facetious) of society. When we discovered (mother and self) that we were indeed empaths it was initially between each other. My mother, raised in the classic Spaniard tradition, was a devout Catholic and she raised me in the only value basis (reference) system that she had available to her: Catholicism. The concept that these paranormal abilities between us were "natural" to us, was acceptable to her because it came within the boundaries of her understanding of "god's gift" between a mother and child.
M: When, however, I started reacting to perceptions that exceeded her boundaries of understanding, of "knowing" and perceiving beyond what she had long denied herself through many interventions with the religious orders, and the belief structure that they drove into her, there were emotional problems for her. For example, on one occasion (of many), she had a very wealthy friend who came from European nobility (a titled baroness, and her husband a titled count, that escaped before the Nazi invasion). One summer afternoon, the couple came over to relate that they were going on a multi-month steam ship voyage and would be unavailable to her for that time. I didn't exactly care for this woman. She was loud and boisterous (although appearing something like Marlena Detrich, haughty in her bearing) and tended to embrace me in substitution for the children that she had not born for herself. On learning of her plans, my immediate response was to "go nuts". I was overwhelmed with perception. My physical actions were to: roll around on the floor, screaming; roll to her feet (she was standing) and grab her ankles to keep her immobile; and shout for her "not to leave". It was a profound experience in being overwhelmed by perception, as an out-of-control reflex, and it is very clear and indelible in my memory.
M: My mother's friend heard my message. She did not take the voyage. Ship sank. My mother understood in amazement, overwhelmed amazement on the reported event, that her son ..., heavens ..., I've got to stop this and relax.
M: Okay, returned.
M: My mother's response to the whole matter was to become rattled and decide in her form of logic that intervention through the Church was required. She had been very active as a volunteer in affairs of our local religious orders, and was well known at high levels in the Archdiocese. Using her 'connections', she had learned of an individual priest that actually lived in the estate (in (snip) - a subsection even with that exclusivity that was guard-gated separately) of the Arch-Bishop. This person, Spanish by birth, among other descriptions, was known to be an "exorcist". Dutifully, my mother hauled me to visit this person.
M: It was an interesting experience. The "priest", who I remember to be perhaps aged 55 years, was very protected. For an individual that had no structural title in the hierarchy, he had two layers of other priests positioned between himself and the outside world. Unusual, to say the least, and I was very accustomed to the structure of the organization. In any case, these layers would not allow my mother and her companion (another female friend) to meet this priest. Rather, I was escorted in to a lavish living room where the priest was resting on a sofa. (They did meet after our meeting.)
M: To truncate this long story at least somewhat, the sequence from this point (having established a background for you) was rather rapid. I was positioned in an armchair opposing the priest. There were only a few courteous spoken words. I started trembling, feeling the invasion of power. My body, my thoughts and my very being were being overwhelmed. Non-verbal, non-optical, communication started. The "priest" was "like me". For the first time in my young life, there was another "like me", other than mother and well, mom is always "just mom". He communicated that he had found solace in "the church" within which definitions (for his generation) it was acceptable to "be different with ability". He placed the palm of his hand above me. I dropped to the floor on my knees. His field, which I could see as well as feel, encompassed my body, and for the first time in my life, I merged with another and understood "the burden" of what this is. (Notice, please, no labels spoken here.) He communicated that I should never inform anyone about myself because it would not be accepted unless I became a priest and lived within my own cloisters. (My mother's sister was a cloistered nun in (snip), rising to the position of Abbess of an Order, the "nunnery" hierarchical equivalent of "a cardinal".) For a time I decided to withdraw from the world into the priesthood, but thankfully this did not last more than a year or two in my decision tree.
M: Although there is, of course, more to relate, but the result was that the priest informed my mother that I was "okay" in the eyes of the Church, and in obedience to my instructions, I went into a form of self-imposed hiding and didn't even tell my mother exactly what had happened in that room that day. It wasn't until I fell into contact with the psychological group prior mentioned, which eventually led in a sequence of three individuals, the third of which was "like me", and he, basically, in about 1977 he saved my life. The period from that day with 'the priest' as a pre-teen to about age 36 was filled with depression and conflict and in general high withdrawal from myself. My focus had become on professional achievement, and gains there were initially meteoric - a story that has previously been touched upon. My teachers and my supervisors had decided variously, (particularly my high school physics teacher) that I could not possibly "know" what I reported, and therefore I must be cheating, but eventually in professional life when science-grade "proof" found correlation to statements, there was acceptance.
M: Not you know more. Much more.
M: The exploration into CC/DJM was found refreshing because in digging through CC's poor explanatory form, I could find descriptions of events, perceptions, and 'travels' that I had been intrinsically capable of, and generally hid from, for a very - very long time. It was refreshing, if not reconfirming, but there were elements of CC himself that were "not coherent" and his writing style was not concise, and unfortunately that style of presentation would never find broad social acceptance.
M: Hopefully, now, you really understand and you might have even experienced my emotions as I wrote the above. My progression 'on the way of knowledge' has not been initially based on trying to wade through the written experiences of others that were sourced by their teachers but rather as finding some solace that others, anywhere, albeit in small numbers ... understood.
M: For a very long time, I have been both "troubled" and curious in the same manner that YOU have been relative to "the percentages" that YOU have noted in the paragraph that you wrote that triggered my rattle above. Walking through a shopping mall crowd, for example, and perceiving separately each individual wandering around within the crowd as I selectively "tune" to each and "know" who and what they are (usually this requires only a few seconds to a minute), or standing in an obscure corner of an airport concourse, observing each individual as they hurry by, watching the color and intensity of their fields (for those that have sufficient energy to project a field) there has been the question: "how many circumvent consumption by the eagle?". Looking at the percentage of society that explores the subject; for example, by CC's book sales (about 1 million/book for the first few but over years sales) or those of Depak Chopra (15 books, 15 million sold at that time of review), yielded possibly the conclusion (sadly troubled) that perhaps something approaching less than ten percent "make it": I really don't know; it could be a much smaller number.
M: Immediately connected to the intellectual-curiosity question, "how many make it?" comes the next extension "and at what level?". There are, in my experiences (far more intense than simple perception) several striations of "ability" for those to qualify to the point of making it beyond the eagle (metaphor). Although this has been hinted previously in my transmissions, this elaboration is offered. Suppose we make a scale, it could be any scale, one to one hundred, one to ten, but for simplicity consider a scale of one to five. Although this description will take (for brevity) the form of step-level-descriptions, that it not the case in reality. These are metaphorical examples.
M: At level "0" (below 1) the eagle is not thwarted. [One of the proteges both professionally in technology and an apprentice in "the way", as a form of humor was irritated with a co-worker and referred to this individual as "food for the eagle". Later on, referring to someone else who was even less capable, he said that this other person wouldn't even make a meal for the eagle, so he coined the term "eagle snacks", a sort of humorous encryption that we've used in public for some time.] Back to the point: at the analogy of Level 1, the eagle is thwarted but there is not much ability. The "inorganic beings" CC described are generally rather dependent, can observe, but are rather dependent and accordingly do not possess any real attributes other than "continuing". Jumping ahead, since this is only allegory for description, to Level 3, at this attribute set, the individual can navigate around in the third attention, make decisions where to go and what to observe. An analogy for this condition would be something like that of a librarian: able to study and observe, but not particularly dynamic. Level 5, still by analogy, represents the power of the Arch-angles (at the higher end of Level 4) and of Christ and others like him, at Level 5, with the ability to truly make an impact - Level allegorically 4+ and above.
M: Experiences have provided indication that these attributes are gained 'in the now' as preparation for the ultimate evolution in the third attention. When I have used the term "of biblical proportion" in prior E-mails, these descriptions are what have been intended. For some, probably driven and derived by and through DNA, there seems to be a predisposition toward 'the way' with essentially a "no choice" imperative in order to survive even in first attention life. For others, 'the way' is enabled, but not quite with the intensity that others have to deal with. Many, unaware and uninformed, perhaps and sadly, do not become engaged into 'the way' that they could execute.
M: The important element is that if one can, then one MUST evolve (the ultimate imperative) as that person must in order to be impeccable to themselves. How many are cloistered in the religious orders, as another example, we can never know. How many are trapped into organized religions that seem to be determined to conscript their energy into forms of organized dependencies, (the antithesis of freedom) cannot be said. How many escape these and their own boundaries to prosper as sentient individuals, we cannot really know.
M: For myself, and those like, I have no choice: it is survival itself.
M: Whew.
R: My main reason for doing the compilation was that I thought I had, not proof, but the next best thing to proof, that the teachings were true: I'd found my hands in a dream, as instructed, in about 1975. Those experiences always fit so closely to what I was reading in CC's books, and there seemed to be a very basic logic to the books, but it was the fact that I knew that dreaming as described was possible coupled with, and this had much to do with why I did the compilation, my belief that volitional dreaming was not thought to be possible by the scientific community.
M: Science, in all manner of speaking, only "observes" then "writes rules" for what it observes. Science, although it is said that it "discovers things" really only observes phenomena that already exists. In research medicine, it "discovers" interactions - that already are primed in nature - and "discovers" compounds that cause interactions as manipulations to better humanity's lot. This is a process of evolution of understanding, of course, and it is natural for the inquiry of man. Sometimes, science becomes locked into an accepted theory that it cannot explain so it begins, in typical human form ways, to attempt to write more theories to explain in compensation for what it hasn't discovered yet about the first theory. Science does not understand or provide metrics for far more than it does understand.
R: I don't understand "metrics," or the sentence.
M: "Metrics" in this context really means "measurement parameters" either as an approach to "measurement" or as a "criteria set". What the sentence means is that science understands, or believes it understands, things within certain boundaries and parameters. Beyond that, there is much more, in quantity, that it DOES NOT understand, than that which it would claim that it DOES understand. Since it (probably) doesn't know yet, or rather admit, just how much it does NOT understand, it does not know how to approach setting a criteria for parameters or an approach to the parameters that it does not yet know is "out there" to "discover" (meaning observe and explain).
M:**When the notion of quantum mechanics came around, perhaps "only" between sixty or seventy years ago, it drove a quantum leap of possibilities into the classical systems of Newtonian Physics, which are now known to be quite limited.
M: (For example: In the "big bang" theory of the beginning of the universe, for example, the problem is that about 95% of the matter derived from the energy is missing, which actually disturbs some researchers. A major component of the "big bang" theory is because at a rate described by "The Hubble Constant", the universe is said to be expanding. This is based, in normal human form, on a observational data points made during "only" the last seventy years or so. Well, seventy years of observations in a process that is billions of years old, it not much of a data sample - only a microscopic and myopic view - BUT much energy is expended in attempts to understand. In objective logic, the universe could exhibit a form of outward/inward oscillation that perhaps has an oscillatory cycle of perhaps as little as 1,000 years or perhaps a billion years. Nature, in everything, always seeks an equilibrium, and this is observed in virtually all interactions. The concept of a universe "flying apart" into infinity, just doesn't make sense nor is it logical and based on a microscopic small time-relational data sample.)
M: In the matter of telepathic communication, for example, there are hints that known science facts has not coupled to metaphysics. For example, in any propagational media, it is found that maximal efficiency of energy transfer can occur when the energy within the media is in complementary resonance. In resonance, there is a relatively uniform distribution of energy throughout the media, and this is accomplished with optimal power/energy efficiency. Suppose we were on this planet to exist and evolve within a media that tended to match as a matter of electromagnetic field energy, patterns from our brains? If this were the situation, then we could take point positions of transmitters, and point positions of receivers essentially anywhere within the media, and have efficient energy transfer.
M: It turns out that we do exist in such a media. If one takes the boundaries of the planet's surface itself, terra firma, one finds an inner-sphere. Beyond this sphere, is a layer termed the ionosphere. The ionosphere is electrically conductive, and radio amateurs and others in radio communication, have 'bounced' signals off of the ionosphere for decades in order to achieve longer distance communication around the planet that could not be possible because of the tendency of radio signals to propagate in line-of-sight (and the planet's a sphere). If one studies the intrinsic resonance of the coaxially based spherical cavity caused by the boundaries of the ionosphere and the surface of the planet, one finds that it matches certain properties of brain waves! Any report of empathic responses or telepathic responses tend to indicate that they are not distance dependent. In a coaxially sphere bounded media, the media would be uniformly illuminated and there would be no distance dependency and the energy required would be optimally low and efficient. Perhaps it's possible, then, that telepathic connection is simply a matter of learning to 'tune' to the media and the other.
M: (Apologies for the babble. Please forgive my verbosity on occasion.)
M: Back to the point of our dialogues.
R: ** So in my introduction, I note that I'd considered that perhaps Castaneda discovered volitional dreaming, perhaps through library research, and concocted the whole story around that, but that was really not something I believed, just something I wrote to be "open-minded looking," you know, being as a true warrior, and considering all possibilities.
M: Yes. Understood. Open yourself up to the potential, and see what you can learn. If there's something important, act on it provided it can be of potential benefit. Good! Appropriate! (Better than that: impeccable!)
R: Then the kids and I left Japan in Sept. of 96 and my brother picks us up at the airport in Colorado Springs and on the way home (we hadn't seen each other for perhaps 8 years) I mention the compilation I'd finished in Japan of CC's books. Well, he starts telling me about "lucid" dreaming and a group at Stanford University studying it and he even had a head set to wear at night to help start "lucid" dreaming. I was a bit shocked, no, I was more than shocked, I was crushed, I'd spent countless hours on CC's work, I'd recorded onto tape all of his books and my compilation, I'd listened to the tapes and read the books over and over and even listened to the tapes while I slept. But suddenly my introductory note which I'd included so open mindedly, but not believingly, loomed as a real possibility, and more than that, I guess I stopped believing.
M: Understood.
R: Until you, I just figured that, as I'd told so many, the CC books were like a catch 22: You won't find out if they are true unless you practice them, but if you practice them you won't care if they are true, and somewhere along the line, well, I really never did practice them in the way of don Juan's "you must push yourself beyond your limits all the time."
M: Well, it's not quite as harsh as you seem to imply. A process of evolution, is, ah, well, a process. You "did" engage the process to a point. You have engaged the process to a point. What happens next FOR you, is wholly up TO you. Appropriately, it is NOT a matter of "belief" at least "blind belief" because that denies all possibility of objectivity. Rather, it is a matter only of remaining open to the potentials, and slowly and sequentially attempting to build on layers of experience and awareness that combined together, provide a path for yourself and everyone that you choose to connect with.
R: And now you've approached me like I believe this stuff, and I am totally amazed at the way you respond to what I write to you and your ability, so writing, to show up to me as one who truly knows, yet I'm finding myself to be thinking that I am not up to your expectation ...
M: Why, in heavens (tee hee) name, should I have an expectation of you? When found your posted web site, and downloaded your 180-ish page files (which I have not thoroughly read), all I found was someone who was seeking something and had placed a great deal of private effort in exposing 'the core' of the concept to others. Those facts can only, in logic, mean that the person having done that has been highly motivated to expose himself and others to learn what returns from the outside world in the form of confirmation or denial of the information: it is bait to the outside. That bait is to either instruct others from a position of a teacher, or to cause interchange FROM others to learn as a student that it intrigued and does not want to miss an opportunity.
R: **The exercise! Yesterday I thought I'd try at the beach, but I couldn't do it in public, even though I waded out to waist level in the ocean and had my hands under water. Then this morning I tried to find a place where I couldn't be seen, and I walked all around and found a couple of places where I was almost alone and in the sun, but I couldn't get over the sense that someone would see me and I have this huge aversion to showing up to anyone as "strange."
M: Why on earth would you care about what anyone else thinks when they see you? This can be accomplished on a shopping street with a facilitated mind set, in public.
R: And the 30 seconds in one spot where I started trying the palms down feeling of energy, my stiff shoulder was sending pain and tingling through to my hand and you'd said "a comfortable position."
M: Why not utilize the energy to alter the molecular structure not just to ameliorate the pain, but to heal? There is a sequence, a process, to this understanding.
R: I don't believe I'm just another reporter, however. So I won't give up, though I must admit, I don't know exactly what to do other than to just keep intending the internal dialogue off and ... listen to your tape (of compiled E-mail exchanges I've recorded) too!
M: Anything that is derived from myself, is only a form of facilitation. The responsibility is wholly yours. The imperative to engage must be yours. The commit is "not" to "the way", it is to yourself. The process of the philosophy of 'the way' is evolutionary for the individual who engages. After engagement, a process of alteration becomes facilitated and there can (and probably will be) many stumbles along the path. Gathered all together, though, the process can alter your existence.
R: Although there is a fundamental difference here now with you ... if I could just fully accept that. Don't you feel a bit like you've missed the boat with me, that I'm one of the ten million rather than one in. I honestly don't know.
M: You say it, but you also say that you don't fully accept it. As to "missing the boat with you", my imperative was to approach you. Impeccability for myself demanded that. I am only who I am. If you really believed in your spirit and soul that you are one of the "ten million" (your analogy to my 90 percent, but still unknown) why on earth would you even put out one iota of effort toward this exploration, let alone wade through the 95% babble of CC in order to make a single-book approximate consolidation?
M: Your effort speaks of more than an idle curiosity. Somehow, you must have suspected something within yourself, something not opened, that caused you to take the actions that you have.
M: You might ask if more is known about you? Yes. It is appropriate that this be a subject of specific discussion? No! It must be your discovery, anything else is only a "belief system" or titillation for some other purpose such as the "dangled out hope" that many find in organized religions that are often exploited toward dependency upon those organizations.
M: Why on earth would I have an expectation of you, or have a feeling of "missed the boat" with you? Would that not imply some form of "need" within the context of the human form from myself? That would represent a very severe regression and these approaches can never be made with those dependencies in mind or concept.
M: You have taught me some very interesting things already. In exposing yourself in public forum such as the Internet, and now I have learned that this has been the situation for about 30 months according to your report which is a sufficiently long period of time to have gained many "sample contacts" from others, you have indicated that our dialogue is rather unique at least in terms that you find credible. For me this is more indication that as you have indicated, there are not many wandering about society that are thus engaged, and this is both confirming of other perceptions, and sad simultaneously.
M: Generally, I do not approach individuals in any manner that is decoupled from real-time perception (knowledge). The proteges and apprentices that have been engaged have been selected on a very personal basis and on direct contact.
M: At this point in this dialogue, although there are many details that have been omitted (Why burden your time with more verbosity than necessary to cause an open and honest communication?) The information provided is intended for you to utilize as a basis as you may wish.
R: N0TE: The following section takes the last part of the above E-mail (that you've not read yet) which begins to ask me questions and adds in my reply to those questions and also, then, adds in Michael's later reply to those answers of mine. About his comments here, to my replys, Michael says, "My inserts are always based on my experiences, not 'the written word' as you have seen it. Remember always that cc/djm was primarily a comfort to learn of others ... (not a source of new information)."
M: You might be interested ... to learn that I have been in a major dilemma for myself for very long time. Here is something for you to consider as one that has offered himself toward some "limited" public exposure. Allow yourself to consider, just for a moment, that what I have related to you personally is thoroughly and wholly real.
R: Done
M: Pleased.
M: Please allow yourself to imagine that everything personally related to you has significant expansions to what has been described, and that society simply loves (being facetious) to place many labels on these.
R: Yes, OK
M: Try to place yourself in the position of what all this might mean, and go a bit further, about what it can expand to be in a new reality.
R: A thought full of grand expectation.
M: Ah, but all abilities have commensurate responsibilities. At evolved levels, the responsibilities can be immense ... and occasionally overwhelming ... not just to ourselves but to what can be accomplished with others in altering their lives - forever.
M: Now the question: what would you do? How would you approach 'normal' society? Given that it is not acceptable that titles or labels may be used (because even the implication of self-importance or dependency causes negative effects, and this is being allowed because our discussion has become personal thanks to your openness) what would be your approach, considering that in agreement with your experiences, there don't seem to be many individuals around ... ?
M: Interesting, what?
R: That "what?" Is not something I would usually ask about, usually I would just let it pass as something I didn't understand, but since it is right there, I can't help asking, "what?"
M: The what is an invitation to expand ... into the what (could be implied).
R: And you've asked me why I don't want to stand out in public? It seems to me that don Juan's teaching of being unnoticable works very well to support, in my case of doing the exercise you gave me -- and I don't see why not -- yours as well of being "yourself."
M: Yes, however in a form of stalking particularly in the sense of 'the exercise' we've discussed, no one would actually know what you were doing, although they might notice something different, so it becomes not important in itself and being self-consciousness is very different from being an observer in the shadows.
R: Don Juan: "The art of a sorcerer is to be inconspicuous even in the midst of people. Concentrate totally on trying not to be obvious. To learn to become unnoticeable in the middle of all this is to know the art of stalking."
M: Wholly true. No question. To be 'real', the process must be subtle. It would be an immediate warning flag if someone approached you with a 'come follow me' advertisement ... and you would immediately be suspicious, - to your credit!
R: Don Juan: "I have taught you to be dispassionate. The world of people goes up and down and people go up and down with their world; as sorcerers we have no business following them in their ups and downs. The art of sorcerers is to be outside everything and be unnoticeable. And more than anything else, the art of sorcerers is never to waste their power."
M: Wholly true, in the most validated sense.
R: Don Juan: "Alignment has to be a very peaceful, unnoticeable act. The sobriety needed to let the assemblage point assemble other worlds is something that cannot be improvised. Sobriety has to mature and become a force in itself before warriors can break the barrier of perception with impunity."
M: Yes. And add to that, the coherence that high self-esteem (which is the antithesis of high ego) brings the uniform cohesion required to fore. Without high self-esteem, which also means loosing the human form, the 'way' is rattled and shaky, bringing with the instability a new set of limitations and boundaries.
R: Don Juan: "Stalking is an art applicable to everything. There are four steps to learning it: ruthlessness, cunning, patience, and sweetness. Ruthlessness should not be harshness, cunning should not be cruelty, patience should not be negligence, and sweetness should not be foolishness. These four steps have to be practiced and perfected until they are so smooth they are unnoticeable."
M: Good.
R: And I'm reminded as well of don Juan, in Journey to Ixtlan, saying of don Genaro that he is the only real one for him. I think your 10% is an amazingly optimistic number and that my one in ten million is probably even high. Not that I know anything. You at least, know of yourself and others, I know of none! But that I trust that you are only yourself and that you've reported parts of your life accurately to me.
M: Yes. At some point, you might have discussion with others within my circle. There will be time for that when you are more aligned. It is important that you understand and experience these processes through your own being, not with dependency on the others.
R: That presumed fact has given me a huge boost. I do find you totally credible and that is not something I'm use to doing. It is through what I pride myself with as a keen sense, not in any out of the ordinary way, unfortunately, but out of experience with many others in life through my almost 49 years and an ability to follow discussion logically. I've taken much heart in don Juan's statement about such "reason":
R: Don Juan: "Only a human being who is a paragon of reason can move his assemblage point easily and be a paragon of silent knowledge. Only those who are squarely in either position can see the other position clearly. That was the way the age of reason came to being. The position of reason was clearly seen from the position of silent knowledge."
M: It amazes me still today, after many years, how dead-on-point this statement agrees with the concepts of Ayn rand, who was about an un-metaphysical of a philosopher as could be possible.
R: Don Juan: "The one-way bridge from silent knowledge to reason is called "concern." That is, the concern that true men of silent knowledge have about the source of what they know. And the other one-way bridge, from reason to silent knowledge, is called "pure understanding." That is, the recognition that tells the man of reason that reason is only one island in an endless sea of islands."
M: Very good, and if you project this further, it implies the responsibility noted earlier herein.
R: Don Juan: "A human being who has both one-way bridges working is a sorcerer in direct contact with the spirit, the vital force that makes both positions possible."
M: The bridges can be bidirectional. The apprentice initially, (and this is significant for you, especially now) builds the first bridge and that bridge(s) is (are) initially one-way. This, in a matter of knowledge, 'signals' into the attentions that there is an apprentice who is identifying him/her self as a candidate. Having established that 'signal flare', and after proving him/her self after a time, trial 'return' bridges will be established -as tests to learn the impeccability of the apprentice. Then things become interesting, since the prods, provocations to regress into false modes (some flatly scary) will test the coherence commit and self-esteem of the apprentice. This process causes the 'ramps' and plateaus noted several E-mails ago, to proceed. If the tests are met with commensurate ability and impeccability, then be bridges become increasingly bidirectional. After a point of evolution, the bridges are always available to gain further knowledge, on command.
R: So, I really do expect a lot from myself to come. And the fact that not the slightest feeling of anything has come so far in my day to day world somehow tells me, as I recall don Juan's teachings, that when it does it will be all the better.
M: Yes, when you are prepared to accept without hesitation. This acceptance may not be gained by reading or study. It is gained through experience and personal knowledge gained through perception.
R: I'm wondering, were you really asking me: "what would be your approach, considering that in agreement with your experiences, there don't seem to be many individuals around ... ?" or was that question just for drawing forth the above on my own? I suspect the latter.
M: Yes.
R: And back to, "and that society simply loves (being facetious) to place many labels on these." Yeah, and all the labels start with crazy, or charlatan! So much for showing up in public. At the same time, couldn't you write your story under a fictitious name and remain anonymous? You've described Castaneda differently than I'd assumed. I surmised that he was presenting the pretense of "fool" for expedience sake.
M: There is always a catch-22 toward effectiveness. Something left out from the descriptions and admonishment - to hide - from 'the priest' revealed earlier today, was "they would worship you as a god or saviour, or condemn you as evil, both out of fear". Try telling that to a ten year old boy, and you'll begin to understand me and my history better.
R: I even danced around letting it be directly known that I'd done dreaming in my introduction. Of course, that was, as I noted, written before I learned of the Stanford U stuff, now I tell anyone because it's a "common" thing. So when will going into the second attention be common?
M: The Stanford - U stuff, is simply in confirmation of potential, not denial. Dreaming in the sense they implied carries only so far. It does not direct or project one into the other attentions, but it can open a gateway.
R: Don Juan: "Nothing can be done to give people a more balanced understanding of the glow of awareness. At least, there is nothing that seers can do. Seers aim to be free, to be unbiased witnesses incapable of passing judgment; otherwise they would have to assume the responsibility for bringing about a more adjusted cycle. No one can do that. The new cycle, if it is to come, must come of itself."
M: The problem is that "the new cycle" is that of each individual, not the collective. Here's something that also describes something of responsibility that requires contemplation: if knowledge invokes the failure of a human, there is nothing that can be done per se. Agreed. What is seen is simply seen.
R: How could "knowledge invoke failure" except that one doesn't live up to the knowledge that is one's highest standard of what is right action. But would -- not living up to one's "standards" -- be equal to knowledge invoking failure. I suppose that is what you mean, isn't it? But your next line has me thinking that I'm missing something of your meaning: "What is seen is simply seen" ... in other words, do you mean, that if one's knowledge isn't acted upon properly; that is, according to one's highest standard of right within that knowledge at each point of evolution, then what is seen, learned, experienced, in effect loses its value? Yes, OK, I think I've got it now. That is it, isn't it?
M: I believe you 'have it', but to be certain the following clarification is offered. "Knowledge", or course however derived, is information. In terms of perception as a media of knowledge, there are primarily two forms: a) the form that instructs; and, b) the form the demands 'action'. If another is perceived to be in a failure mode, and the failure is preordained, then "what is seen, is simply seen" and there is no responsibility for any invoked intervention simply because there's is nothing to do that would be effective in any case. The 'able one' has always (emphatically said) a requirement to conserve effort and energy as a matter of impeccability, therefore, the "highest standard" of action in this situation, is no action whatever, adding quickly that observation of the events and the processes of others, even in the failure mode, provides confirmation of 'knowledge'.
M: Suppose, though, that the perception provides knowledge that 'it is intended' (in a manner of speaking) that effort be extended toward "the other" who is initiating a failure mode, in order for "the able one" to: learn from the interaction; and, alter the course of "the other". In this situation, "the able one" is driven by impeccability, in his/her own interest, to extend him/her self toward the other as a facilitator. If this were not true, then there could never be a progression of apprentices and the grid of power in the universe would be at a loss for the energy gained by the apprentices not joining. DJM invoked CC primarily as a reporter to distribute information with the intent that others, albeit small percentages, would gather new awareness of themselves (that society normally blocks, or at the least - does not facilitate) even though the reporter himself did not have much natural ability.
M: In the matter of the energy conservation of the nagual (the able ones) as mentors, a major segment of the test and validation structure that is coupled to loosing the human form, is (of course) the matter of dependencies, and high ego is a very significant component of those dependencies. Therefore, the mandate is that information be gained while quietly stalking, observing, perceiving (gaining information/knowledge) on a continual basis, impeccability driven, about self and about the relationship of self to others and "knowing" if "another" is intrinsically to be an apprentice. Failing to act, extend oneself, to another in the situation where knowledge instructs that it is appropriate, then fails impeccability and any failure extracts a price.
M: Hope that helps.
M: **However there is another condition: knowledge can drive those able into fully "knowing" that they will be responsible for the failure of an intended candidate - if - they don't extend themselves.
R: I was once told by a numerologist that "if one knows before hand, the reaction his words or actions will elicit from another, then he is responsible for those elicited responses. This is the meaning above. Yes?
M: Yes. In these (rather delicate, in terms of judgement, to be certain, meaning that caution is an important component of impeccability) matters of self-extension, the result is already "known" and, accordingly, there is culpability on the part of 'the nagual'. However, assume that the apprentice candidate does NOT respond in the affirmative in real-time, and that this non-response was (probably) known also. The "contact" with the apprentice candidate does start a low-level cycle, in the sense that the candidate was identified. In a allegorical manner of speaking, the candidate was "marked" (some might say, "tagged") by the contact and eventually there will be alterations as the candidates' evolution progresses and his/her candidacy will become activated. (Taisha Abelar thoroughly reports how she was "tagged" in her book "The Sorcerer's Crossing", for example.)
M: Somewhere, somehow, you were tagged but I'm not certain by whom although it was perhaps 25 or 30 years ago.
M: In that construct, failure to extend means that 'the able one' would be partially responsible for the failure of the intended other, and that is not acceptable.
R: As I just said, with "not acceptable" added to the point.
M: Yes.
M: The impeccability of 'the able one' is limited to the extension toward the candidate. If the candidate rejects 'the able one', then the requirement of impeccability is met and the able one is not culpable in the failure. Please think about that, deeply.
R: Done!
M: Good!
R: Well, shall we engage in a little idle talk now? Ha Ha, ... ah, didn't you just turn up the heat?
M: Tee heee ...
M: In any case, back to the point of this discussion - you. Considering that you have found this discussion to this point informative, there are decisions that you will process in your own manner. At any time, it is very easy to stop: just say stop; and I will be gone; with full acceptance and no negativity.
R: Not a chance!!
M: Point is, my impeccability demands that energy not be foolishly expended, and that the initial imperative must be yours or your commit to self will not, cannot, occur. Energy conservation for those with 'the ability' also requires navigational skills to maintain course, including that of the candidate.
R: I feel that I float around your writings and would like to start drawing back some pieces for clarification, if you don't mind.
M: Hope so. It's needed but as a very careful exploration. You have, at this point, a great amount to work with, some of which within the text, you have not yet discovered. You might expect to find some "wow's" as you carefully re-process what has already been sourced to you.
---------------------
R: Moving on with a few observations:
R: 1) Impeccability is this moment defined by me as vigilance in intending off the internal dialogue, rhythmic deep breathing, and most important, being that "unbiased witness" to life and lives experiences and interactions. And then intending the openness to the ... whatever it is ... "spirit," "indescribable force" ...
M: Yes. You're on a roll!
R: My sense is that "unbiased witness" is the key to the preparation but that truly believing must be equally important and you've indicated as much.
M: Very true: the role of the stalker/observer TO LEARN - GAIN KNOWLEDGE, so that "knowledge" becomes the operative code, not belief system.
M: NOTE: I read the intact paragraph below, and there are some very direct and a few subtle elements within your text. Accordingly, the responses or comments will be inserted within your paragraph.
R: I feel I stumble there. Though my connection with you has given me a huge expectation, and yet ... having no experience with this, whatever it is, ... Phenomenon of a wakeful second attention experience, I don't know.
M: As said and emphasized, it cannot be a 'belief' system but rather an experience system. Heisenberg accurately projected, based on his vision of quantum mechanics, that the act of observation alters the result of what is being observed! There have been several hard-science experiments that demonstrate this, and I'll write about one at the end of this letter just to provide an example. Okay, now you are motivated to become "an observer" (in DJM-speak, a stalker). How are you going to approach activating this motivation? With doubt as a bias, or with objectivity that would allow whatever will happen TO happen - what ever is to be learned TO be learned; and what ever is to be experienced TO BE actualized into experience.? Certainly, it's up to you and impeccability for me requires that I do my best to emphasize the point above. The only thing that you've got to loose is the ignorance of non-experience.
R: You've experienced it from very early, but imagine not knowing it at all and only having read some wild descriptions. While I've long been attracted to the don Juan reasoning and now to yours, and it does make sense to me, there is still the doubt. I think it is partly because I've not had much success in turning off the internal dialogue.
M: It can only be suggested that you explore your source of doubt, and it's probably an extension of something from early childhood. There is no doubt, somewhere, you were 'tagged' (using the analogy from earlier) by something or someone, at some time. Perhaps in your early years you blurted out something that "you knew" and were chastised for it. Perhaps you saw or perceived something that scared you. Perhaps, rather unfortunately but accurately, you (as many of us have been) have observed humans saying that "they have the power - come follow me (and bring your wallet)" and have been SO turned off by the plethora of these that it's become systemic within you.
M: All that is really required is that these 'whatevers' as suppositions (grin) above be exposed to be biases which are in turn the antithesis of objectivity. All that is really required is to drop these veils and allow what is already within yourself to be free into exploration. Book reading, or Michael reading, won't accomplish that because these are only facilitations. Many times I feel very much like the Jodie Foster character in the movie "Contact" who has vast experiences but they mean nothing, zippo, zero, to those who have not had the experiences.
R: Though I must say, having met you, I have more success while walking in intending listening, and that seems similar to turning off the internal dialogue. I've read the CC books countless times and heard my tapes of the compilation probably 1000 times, and yet, do you know that, with all the repeated description of the second attention experience, I have not a clue as to what it is like. And so my grounding in pure reason is magnamic (a word I just made up combining magnanimous and gigantic) ... and all I have to base you on is my sense that no one could write the way you do without being in the second attention and having it flowing through you from some great source. It is too pure to be anything else.
M: The acceptance is of course, appreciated. This can only be YOUR agenda, not anyone else's. You would be amazed how 'close' you really are to a breakthrough and while that might seem provocative, it's "only" a perception. Something that fascinates me (and many-many things do - by the way, I really like your coined word) is that somehow second or third attention experiences do not seem to fall within the boundaries of "reason", or for that matter, "grounded reason".
M: Phooey!
M: Knowledge, and the ability to gain knowledge, is the essence of reason! CC/DJM called this process "the way of knowledge", not the "way of magic that no one could experience based on a religious belief system"! More phooey!
R: And I am at the same time disgusted with myself for knowing that and not being able to experience it myself, and thrilled that it is being directed to me. I truly don't know what else to do. As you say, I can re read your notes and more will open, well ... I suppose I am relegated to that and I will do it without judgement as best I can.
M: There is no doubt that 'the way' will open to you, and all you have to really do is just open up yourself, feel in quietude and peace, drop the veils of boundaries and protections. Another fascination is that people think that they have to work, in the sense of expending energy, to gain the peace that facilitates opening the gateways to knowledge - like it could be forced. It opens, you open, by passively intending to perceive, to feel, in peace and objectivity, and it can open in any environment whatever.
----------------
M: Re Heisenberg/quantum mechanics, the act of observation alters the result of that being observed. One "pure" attempt at demonstrating this was a famous "lensing" experiment (my words for description) with subatomic particles. Without going into all the details, and using a few analogues and metaphors for description while still being accurate, the process is described.
M: Suppose one could "isolate" an electron. It has been observed in science that electrons always come in pairs (more evidence of symmetry in nature). Of the pair, one electron spins in one direction (like counterclockwise) and it's pair spins in the opposing direction (this is now called up-spin, and down-spin). Suppose that the two electrons could be isolated and suspended, and that the isolation occurred between the electrons as well as from their environment. This was accomplished, and a field of energy was applied to ONE of the electrons to reverse it's spin. The force of the energy did indeed reverse the spin of the electron targeted. The "pair" electron, remaining in isolation, did NOT have a force applied. It was just observed. Surprise: the non-impacted and isolated electron reversed is spin. Science does not have a clue why or how, but it did.
M: There was an experiment performed with a heart surgery patient, by memory in Chicago area. The rhythmic beating of a heart muscle occurs at the cellular level as well at the whole organ level. If one collects a few cells of a beating heart, the cells themselves, cut away from the host heart, actually electrically and mechanically maintain the same beating sequence. The heart-bypass patient had some heart cells removed and taken several miles away to be monitored during the heart-transplant operation at a remote location. In the process of the surgery, it is required that the heart be stopped then restarted by electric shock. The remote isolated heart cells, removed from the heart and taken several miles (by memory, seven miles) away from the patient, reacted to the stop and the jolt of restart as if they were still within the body of the host heart.
M: Back to the "lensing" experiment to provide some indication if Heisenberg might have been correct. The experiment setup a flow of particles. Although I remember that they were electrons, my memory might be flawed. The particles were "aimed" at what might be called a "lens" or "wedge". The stream of the particles was in centerline with "the wedge" such that there would be an randomly equal opportunity for the path they took to either go right or left. The experiment was setup so that the path would be recorded automatically by detectors, without human observation in real time. The recorded "after the fact" data indicated that yes, indeed, the particles randomly propagated either left or right of the wedge, with equal probability in time or quantity distribution.
M: Subsequently, with significant quantified data of the intrinsic randomness of the experiment, the experiments were re-performed, this time with humans directly observing the "action" as it occurred. There was a dramatic change in the result: the electrons would propagate dramatically either to the right, or to the left, with significant distribution and alteration of the original results, and, the decision about going right or left, was depending on the exact individual person observing the result.
M: A professor at Cornell University, a couple of years ago, decided to test the theory of work-function derived from the mental focus of people. He setup experiments like fine streams of water, and measured the path of the stream while human observers stared at the path and attempted to move it. They did. A mild form of telekinesis was proven.
M: Some colleagues of mine at (snip) wanted to explore the possibility of energy projected from humans. They didn't have a clue what to look for, or what the metric might be, however, they had a concept: if a field involving electron (like an electromagnetic field) propagation is possible from humans, then although they might not know how or what to measure, perhaps it was possible that the human-derived field would interact with another "known" electromagnetic field. In this manner, they considered, they could continually measure the lab-setup "known" field to see if humans could displace or alter the field. They even connected with a local para-psychological/metaphysical group, including "healers" to learn if "healers" had more energy available than others. To make a long story short, the result was yes, that humans could displace and alter "known" lab set up fields, and that healers had far more ability to do so, on will and direction, than "normal" people.
M: You might want to revisit the piece that I copied you that was extracted from the dialogue with the apprentice in (snip).
---------------
R: Thank you, once again. I look forward to today and will write tonight, if not sooner.
M: You're welcome!
--------------
More to come ... let me know what you think about it. - Rick
Introduction
The Teachings of don Juan
A Separate Reality
Journey to Ixtlan
Tales Of Power
The Second Ring of Power
The Eagle's Gift
The Fire From Within
The Power of Silence
The Art of Dreaming
The Active Side of Infinity
Appendix A thru E
Dialogue on the Way of Knowledge - Part l
Dialogue on the Way of Knowledge - Part ll
Dialogue on the Way of Knowledge - Part lll
Dialogue on the Way of Knowledge - Part lV
Dialogue on the Way of Knowledge - Part V
Dialogue on the Way of Knowledge - Part Vl
Dialogue on the Way of Knowledge - Part Vll
Dialogue on the Way of Knowledge - Part VllI
Please send e-mail to me by clicking on my name.Rick Mace
My pottery page is here. Rick Mace Pottery