|Location||Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio|
|Number of tapes||J's version 2 @ 60 -- same for DM|
|Other recorders audible?||No|
|Alternate versions exist?|
|Source||J -- also DM|
|No. of MP3 files||four: 27 min, 31 min, 29 min, 24 min|
|Total time||1 hour 51 minutes|
|Transcription status||Sides 1 and 2 first pass. Sides 3 and 4 notes only.|
|Link to distribution copy||http://distribution.direct-mind.org/|
|Link to PDF||http://distribution.direct-mind.org/ Or try http://selfdefinition.org/rose/|
|Published in what book?||no|
|Published on which website?||no|
|URL at direct-mind.org||https://www.direct-mind.org/index.php?title=1979-1128-Values-Ohio-State-University|
|For access, send email to: firstname.lastname@example.org|
Jaqua collection – Four 30 minute tapes
Also Dave Mettle collection.
MF version add 2 ½ min at start.
M Fitz version addendum
[has 2 1/2 minutes extra (formerly missing) at beginning.]
[I have a list of] common [psychological] complaints. Constitute, I tried to get a cross section of complaints, the things that people generally complain about when they enter an encounter group, sometimes when they come to a psychiatrist. This is their, unless there’s something extreme, of course that’s, maybe they’re out of control or something of that sort. But let’s say we’re dealing with a more peripheral or shallow type of complaint, where it isn’t something serious to commit suicide over or something of that sort. But it might lead to that.
Sometimes this is what people leave behind in notes, as complaints, when they commit suicide. “I wasn’t loved.” “The stock market collapsed.” Which means, “I don’t have the proper economic contacts or opportunities.”
And just as a means of examining how we treat this – can you hear me back there [so at start of lecture] – ow does our psychological system treat this? I think it changes it every generation, or every hundred years at least. you see a pronounced change maybe every 30 or 40 years. But this is what I encounter now. And if you find anything that you might want to add, put up your hand and throw it in.
The reaction to this, if you go in to a therapist today, there’s a current set of reactions to this patient or inquirer or complainer. And the one is that the sufferer is to blame. For instance, that was in one of the complaints, that the person will actually get this guilt complex, that they are the cause of all the things that go wrong with them. They virtually put themselves up as God, that they’re creating the events of their life. And there are also positive systems of thinking that would life for us to believe this.
[now switch to MJ version minute marks]
Total time: 27:09
00:00 [starts mid-sentence] ... systems of thinking that would like for us to believe this. That we, perhaps by just thinking in a positive manner that we’re going to change all the events to the way we want it. People who – there are religious systems, or chanting systems that believe you can get anything you want by chanting. And if this were true, then, this means that there would be a factor for changing the machinery, the cosmic or planetary machinery.
Okay, the next one is that the individual needs to be reprogrammed or reconditioned. And this is predominantly Skinnerian, in my estimation. Skinnerian behaviorism. That if he’s doing something, if he’s too unhappy, if he’s got too much of a complaint, he’s out of tune, and you’ve got to condition him to proper social attunement.
And of course there’s another one, that the parents are to blame.
I noticed this; one of my convictions is – this is on the side [?] I can’t prove it, it’s still my conviction – that possibly out psychiatric-psychological system produces its own patients. But yet they point in all directions.
The reason I say they create their own patients is because these systems today are encouraging “experiential” living, which could be like lighting a match to an explosive keg. And then when the keg goes off you wobble into the psychiatrist and he says, “Well, that was nothing but experience; don’t worry about it.” [but] You’ve only got half a head. Your mental faculties are impaired by the experience.
Then so somebody has to be blamed. That every professional has to somehow project the difficulty in another direction, if he can’t cure it.
Now when you get back to it, why are – I’ve been checking [?] a lot of books on these encounter groups and I find out that at first they were pretty much started by freelancers.
Aside – Can you through the second batch? Then when you get through, I want to count – just those four, the number of yes’es and the number of no’s, and the two different pickups.
I forgot what I was talking about.
Q. The encounter groups.
R. Yes. The encounter groups were started as a result of an inability of your clinical psychiatrist to solve the cases. In other words, the clinical psychologist ? ? ?? his doctrine are rejected today, or at least partially rejected. And what happened – the public started to cure themselves, by getting together and various little non-professional supervision. [sentence]
And it’s my opinion then that these encounter groups were ultimately taken over by – well, there’s an outfit on the west coast, I think they called it, what was it, the Technical Group or Tactical Group? possibly T-group , ] They brought in a whole bunch of individual systems, took them into Stanford University, and oversaw the results.
Now they used every encounter system they could get ahold of – I have some notes here on that – the Marathon encounter, Fritz Perls, Gestalt, Harris’ system, I’m OK, you’re OK. They took all these and observed the way the groups worked. And there was a book written about it by several professors at Stanford, and they came up with the conclusion that although they were run by, or supervised by capable personnel, they were more or less not infallible; they were subject to questionable results.
I think of course that one of the reasons is that the therapist lays down a limited number of things that could be wrong. And I think that there is [are] more than that limited number. I think this is where the difference lies.
Getting back to these things of the systems, the blame is placed sometimes on a segment of society. This is a whipping boy – that this party is, he’s got a psychosis because he grew up in the wrong part of town, or he was born of the wrong race, and therefore the rest of society persecuted him and consequently he’s not to blame. Or she, being a woman, is not to blame; because she was born a woman and men created her as she is. So this is a passing the buck from the person themselves to society.
And of course the last one is that the psychiatrist or therapist says nothing, and just takes it as an accident, like a surgeon says, “Here’s a person’s got injured and we got to do what we can to heal them, and we’re not going to guess at who’s to blame or what the cause of it is.
And again as I say, if there’s any other attitudes, well, you can let me know. But I, the thing I come up with is, there’s a tremendous big factor in the human family, besides this little circle of parents, neighbors, events, geographic location. And that is that’s it very possible that many of us have an individual destiny.
This is the feeling that I’ve had for quite some time. That – I’ve heard stories of, well, to give you an example, a person went through a certain thing because they had to purged by some way of a misconception they had. have? Where do they get the misconception? Well, it may have been genetic. It may have been acquired.
There’s another school of thought that says, “Well, it was karma.” It goes clear back – as I said, why not get to the grandparents. Or, did this guy do something before?
Now, to the scientist this may seem [to be] reaching way out, to be illogical. But – the only thing I’m trying to point out is: How can we get away with thinking that nobody else is here but us? That we created this thing, we starved/started? this thing called society, and if we are capable of managing and manipulating every little cog in the machinery, as though nothing else is here but people, and [that] people created people. Just because we can’t see the start. And I’m not saying there is anything here but people – but isn’t it possible, something started somewhere, and that there was an architectural design?
And if this is true, why isn’t this fellow blamed, this architect? Why isn’t there some blame put in that direction? And if you start to put the blame in that direction, won’t that give us a new insight into possibly things that happened to us? Instead of blaming the neighbor, we wait maybe four or five months and find out that the adversity that hit us somehow was for our own good.
Now I read a, I read various books on psychology – I have a hard time reading them because I get rather upset, when I start to read them, because of their terminology, the loose way they handle such things as the mind. I read one place where the fellow said the mind is the collective response to the environment. In other words, he didn’t know what the mind was, so the best thing is not saying too much. So it’s just what’s [whatever is] reacting to the environment
possible source – marathon groups: http://yalom.com/tapencountercontent.html
I read a definition of reality in this same, i think it was the same book that they had the case histories of the encounter [groups] in them. And this psychiatrist says, “We can accept reality – as that which proves itself pleasant in the long run.”
In other words a state [?] – supposing it’s pot as opposed to booze. Booze can prove itself pleasant in the immediate future, but unpleasant in the long term, looking at the liver and the effect on the arteries, the blood pressure, etc. But pot may not have the same long-range unpleasantness. I think you can apply that to a lot of other things, such as sex habits. But they’re all defined as the writer or the author sees fit.
But the main thing is that this is not reality. Do we ever think about reality? What is reality? My estimation is that we’re avoiding, possibly, the greatest set of values – you talk about values [the title of the talk] – and we are equating ourselves with sheep and goats – at the same time demanding that those sheep and goats assume responsibility.
In other words [that] we are flesh bodies, our mind is a collective reaction to that flesh body, and there is no spirit, nothing inside. And again, I’m not preaching; I’m not saying that I’m advising some doctrine. I’m saying, how can we afford, under this brave new thinking process, to dump out ten thousand years of previous psychiatric practice? Ten thousand years, and we redefine the words and redefine the terms – and fail miserably. Because that’s exactly what we’re doing. We’re failing miserable.
Aside: Have you finished that up? [gathering questionnaires] I don’t know what’s going to become of this, it’s just a shot in the dark with this, but this has basically to do with a concept [advise?] and seeing if a person can remember them from one paper to another, and also [if he will] change his mind from one paper to another. I have [?] them ready. That take care of that. Tore it [?] [laughter]
Hi. Good to see you.
looking at papers
Q. You complain about the definition of mind; would you give us a better one?
R. Well, yes. I think I could. See, I’m a dualist. Now I’m not asking you to agree with me. I believe there’s a body, and another. And I believe that this “other” is also – it inhabits and reaches into, if you want to call it that, another dimension. This is another mistake that I think we make: we think that there are no other dimensions – except those that Flash Gordon has penetrated, or might penetrate.
but I believe that the mind is our contact with the mind dimension. Now I have pretty strong reasons for making that statement. But as far as proving it, that might be something else. But I maintain of course that this too is the immortal aspect of man. In other words, it survives in the form of awareness. I don’t like to state that every synapses survives the decay at death, but I’m quite sure that there’s an awareness that does. And I equate this with the ability of the mind.
Q. Would this be the soul of the person?
R. Well, yes. I think of course that, when you get back to the Greek idea of the soul, and let’s say the Zen idea of the soul, they are two different things. There’s such a thing as we’ve encountered in occult investigation, an astral body, and there are quite a few people today who – well, as opposed to say thirty years ago – who are taking interest in it, and who even profess to be able to travel this way, where they’ve checked each other, where somebody would do something to prove he had travelled astrally. There was a book written on it by Robert Monroe.
Monroe was a successful businessman and had no profit in writing the book. I don’t think he made any money off of it anyhow; not many people read that sort of material. But he was a fairly wealthy man, who had this ability. So he decided to sit down and tell about it. And Herewood Carrington and Sylvan Muldoon also wrote books on astral projection.
Now this is what I think the Greeks referred to as the soul. When you get into theology and esoteric philosophy there’s quite a clutter of definitions. For instance, the spirit and the soul are not the same [?? ???] a spiritualist, for instance, considered there’s an astral [world?] and then there’s a higher spiritual world, and that sort of thing.
But I don’t care to identify them. I’m just saying that the idea of a soul means a replica. My idea is that, I see no need for a replica, or a ghost, identical to the person. This may exist. In fact, in present Greek tradition – I talked to a fellow who just came over from Greece. His father died. And I said, “Why didn’t you try to get back home?” And he said, “He’ll come to me. He’ll travel the earth for two years.” And that’s the soul that would cease to exist, and that he would enter into another experience, or something of that sort.
But if you want to get some additional literature on this, get the Tibetan Book of the Dead. The Tibetans for centuries believed that the soul after death found itself in a similar vehicle, believing that it was in a human body. And this was the equivalent of the Christian purgatory that you hear about, where they refuse to give up the idea that they were dead, so to speak. So they held onto this form, believing in it. And it [this] caused another hell, similar to this one.
And the transcendence of that, of course, was finding an unparticularized, undifferentiated form, and keeping the mind still active – meaning awareness, not the memory mind or let’s say the philosophical or thinking-cogitating mind, but still a tremendous awareness.
So these are the different grades. And incidentally, I don’t think – we talk about the human mind – and I don’t think that everyone has the same type of mind. Some of us, they would like to pin everybody down as just being reactive people. And I think this is very true, that the majority of people are just reactive people. They are just you might say responding to stimuli. I maintain that you don’t have to be stuck in that groove. That we can reach our awareness.
And again, the proof of that is not in me saying it. The proof is in getting there behind it, and then looking back on what you’ve achieved. In other words, there’s no sense in saying you’re going someplace after death. This is foolishness. You have to make the trip. Then you get a better perspective of what the mind is, after death.
And I think of course, again, you take the cases of Kübler-Ross and Raymond Moody They wrote case histories of life after life, or life after death. These, if you want to take them, almost 99 percent of them are all cases of people who had never transcended the form-type of immortality.
Now those aren’t the only cases on record. In Readers Digest, I think it was October 1974, there was a case of a man who dropped dead of a heart attack.
He was in an automobile, I think, and it took them awhile to get the emergency car there, something like two hours elapsed, he was pronounced dead, and he came back, he regained his consciousness. Which seems to be miraculous, because supposedly the brain cells are gone in that period of time.
The account that he gave was an entirely different account. He was aware. He was aware of something like a dimensionless dimension. And I was so impressed by this account that – I was writing to a fellow who was undergoing heart surgery, he’s about fifty years of age. And he said, “This might be it. What would you advise? What do you think would happen to me if I died?” And I sent him the clipping. I felt if that happened, that would be the best thing for him, not to come back here working in the mill again. That it would be a more valid experience
This experience, if you compare this, medical experience that he gave – this man was not a religious person, he was somewhat amazed by it, because he didn’t expect anything but oblivion. This compares identically with accounts that come out of the East, in regards to what they call sahaja nirvikalpa samadhi. This is the total experience.
So I look at this from this perspective, and then I look at it from this very limited slave? conscious attitude on the human mind. And I maintain that this may be the reason that we are failing in a lot of our diagnoses. Because we’re playing God. Maybe they think that’s very valid because they’ll never get caught, since there’s no God to catch them.
It [??] up ..
Q. Yes, this is the second group [discussion]
R. [looks at papers]
Q. What is the purpose? Oh, you [wouldn’t?] tell me that? [laughs] I knew I did something wrong.
[discussion of papers]
Q. ?? ?? spiritual aspirations are at odds with modern technology. ??
R. I believe that modern technology, the main function of it is, to prove spiritual concepts. This is the relation. Long after a spiritual concept comes in, let’s say, or a subjective philosophical comes in, it’s almost fifty or a hundred years before the thing is validated by our scientific field.
Seemingly – well, to give you such things as hypnosis, magnetism. there’s very little known yet about magnetism. There’s very little known about hypnosis. The majority of people refuse yet to believe in a lot of the phenomena that occur. There seems to be enough evidence that you can examine? to give you an example? of flying saucers. That some of the accounts must mean something besides shooting stars or illusions. Now I don’t pretend to know what they are. It seems hard for me to believe that everybody’s lying, especially all over the world, that everybody’ lying. So consequently, science refuses to accept this, absolutely; I mean the people in charge of that branch of science, which would be our military science. They just say it’s impossible. Hypnosis at one time was considered a fraud and a game – or the work of the devil. That was when the church was in charge of science. It was just written off.
And again, I think now that ultimately, our expansion of knowledge of DNA molecules – for instance Jung came up years ago with this idea or archetypal memories. Since then, biology has come up with the idea of the DNA memory – besides the genetic memory [?] – that you’ve got a molecular memory.
So that which comes by inspiration – it waits awhile for validation from objective science. And I think a lot of stuff can be – this is [a] subjective field – a lot of stuff. And again, there may be an inductive thinking that would lead us to the concept that there are forces beyond – I read a book one time, a man tried to demonstrate this – that there must a force beyond the human being. and then mere? mirror? a business of getting a ketone enzyme lined up with another ketone enzyme in the sludge along the shore, in the early day of the planet’s birth, creation, that would cause life to exist. The monumental statistics of a happening, of a protoplasmic enzyme forming by accident, and from that the whole scheme of life following is harder for me to take than the idea that there was an architect or architects.
So I think that science sometimes can be in its negation as preposterous, or moreso, than the people who say, “Hey, the leader of our religion created this thing.” This is invisible too; we can’t validate it. I think the opposite is equally ignorant, where we say, “Hey, we’re in charge.” It’s like this idea of trying to regiment people, or program everyone – as Skinner would say, like you’re taming the lions.
[But] who’s going to do the programming? Who’s going to have the guts to get up there and say that he is going to create the modes of living for the rest of humanity? And of course that’s what’s going on today: people are definitely trying that. And not only are they getting away with it, they’re wanting to be funded.
[MF tape breaks here – at 28:08 his time] 26:53
Yeah, okay. See, what I brought out here, I took those two, four questions: Number 2 is “I want to be loved.” Number 6 is what was it? number 6 is “I have no peace of mind.” [ No break in tape ]
[File 1 ends at 27:09]
MJ version - Total time 30:38
Number 6 is, “I have no peace of mind. Number 18, “I’m the cause of my own unhappiness,” and number 19 is, “My parents caused my unhappiness.”
So, number 2 in the first run, twenty-five people agreed with number 2. Twelve agreed with number 6, twenty-six with number 18, and six with number 19.
When the papers were re-run, you have a change of twenty-seven, an increase of two, which doesn’t mean anything because it stayed about the same, because that looks like two more people – we got two more papers the second time. We got thirteen for number 6, but on number 18 we went from twenty-six to eighteen.
And on 19 we went from nine down to two. So it looks like the same number of papers may have been there, and some of those shifted over.
So what I’m getting at is, in the pace of what, ten, fifteen minutes? We changed our values. That this is possible for a person upon examining himself. With no, there’s no pressure here, nobody knows anybody’s name, nobody knows their problems.
The question and number, the two critical ones were numbers 18 and 19. “I’m the cause of my own unhappiness.” Now I think the response may have been possibly to the confrontation of, “Are you God?” Maybe somebody stopped and thought. That simple question can alter an encounter group. The attitude in [an] encounter group. Then there is some hope for the reappraisal of values by a certain type of encounter. I’m not saying that you can heal. I’m not saying that. I’m just saying that I think a tremendous lot of the misery that occurs in society today is caused by false values – improperly explored values that we hold with great conviction.
And if they are momentarily explored, why, there’ll be, and what would happen say if there were more than say one word thrown out.
And I think that the, there is a system that you can get into that starts with this. I don’t think that anything you get into should start by trying to objectify – and of course first of all I do believe that you, if there is a possible physical relationship, if a person has an inferiority complex because of some physical impairment, that’s something else, and that can be a cause, probably an insurmountable, not necessarily insurmountable, but a justifiable cause, a complaint.
But I think that the, one of the things that’s missing in a lot of our encounters is the lack, or the absence of an ability for direct-mind communication. (And if you don’t know what I mean, you can ask me.) I believe that the, as I said, if you want to judge your fellow-man, walk a mile in his moccasins. And if the therapist can’t do this, he should get out. You can’t sit there with a pencil. We did it here [tonight, ] just for the purpose of statistics, but not to tell what that person’s trouble is.
You can only do that by knowing that person. And of course if you’re getting fifty dollars an hour, and you’re not going to spend any more than that hour, you may not find out anything. Because it might take a little longer than that. Or it might take, if you have the ability, just a few moments to ?? correct appraisal.
But we are trying to do everything, we are trying to push objective buttons, instead of having a compassionate attitude, compassionate to the point of feeling the person’s pain. Now I call this rapport. I say that people, a therapist has to have, a necessary rapport. Or you don’t have to be a therapist. It could be, possibly the best therapist is some old lady on a farm. Why? Because she’s not got the cares. The therapist has made himself a few thousand, and now he’s playing the ticker tape in the back room. So he has to rush back there and keep up with Wall Street and see what’s happening. See if he can get his wife to go to a psychiatrist, because she has to live with him. So he has a lot on his mind too.
But the little old lady on the farm, who doesn’t do anything but take care of the cows or something of that sort, and think about other people, seems to have a lot more wisdom about those people. And that’s what I’m talking about, with 10,000 year of previous psychiatry, where people knew. They just knew.
But today we have to objectify everything, and we are drowning. The student of psychology today in being drowned in such a welter of newly created and twisted word, such a reality, psyche, mind, where there is absolutely no hope for your mind of ever challenging those book. You’re never going to be able to take those books and ay, “Is this true or false?” You’re going to memorize them – to pass the test, and enter into the general mainstream of another group of impostors, taking your nickels from the working man, or whomever can afford it.
So I believe that there are systems, there are methods, of abruptly helping people, once you know. I’m not talking chemotherapy – if this is necessary, I’m not talking about that. I’m talking about the cases where people are troubled. But it may lead to something that gets into chemotherapy. And I’m not talking about something where there’s brain impairment, or where there’s a physical trauma. I’m just talking about this business of giving advice. Or sometimes not even giving advice. Sometimes advice isn’t even given. It’s just data – endless data is taken, and sometimes the person is blamed. [?]
Now, again, I’ll go a little step further: I know of cases where criminal pressure was brought against people, in order to intimidate and show the power; the psychiatrist has the power to pick up the phone and put you in jail – they do it. And this is an awesome power for somebody [to have] who doesn’t know what they’re doing, who doesn’t even know the mind they’re [he’s] talking to.
So what are we going to do with these people, that do this? Oh, we’re going to cure ourselves. We can’t do anything for them. We’re going to have to find some way of curing ourselves.
I think with a little trouble people can get ... 08:42 [gap in tape – maybe 45 min cut to 30 min]
There’s a book called Dianetics by Ron Hubbard, and it started out with a hing called “auditing”. I thought it was a good little system, one of the forerunners of the heavy encounters. And auditing only required two people; one person sat down with a pencil and the other person sat there and repeated a word. And he took the word and repeated it rapidly without thinking – you’re not supposed to think – until another word popped into your head. Then you’re supposed to repeat that word at a certain given pace, so that you wouldn’t be planning what word you were going to say next, until something would pop into your head. Ultimately this would take you back in your life to a point in your life in which trauma occurred, which had caused a shift – and a future misery for you. And once this thing occurred, once this thing was recognized, something would happen which he called “clearing” – that you became clear.
Now this is comprehendible because I think all of you have had these experiences where – you might have been angry with somebody for years. And all at one day [?] it dawned on you that you were the one that was to [blame? ] – something you had said may have keyed in the whole event that caused the trouble. And there’s a letdown of your anger, there’s a realization that you were all wet, and a new start for you almost begins. Your perspective broadens, your tolerance of other people broadens by this recognition.
Now I think we’ve all had this. And this was something, just a technique to bring it about. And I thought this was good. This was good. What’s wrong with two people sitting down. He wrote a book, and take the book and follow it. [sentence]
So a lady in Steubenville, Ohio said to me, “Do you know what I can do? I can’t afford to travel, I don’t know anyone I could get together and have an encounter with, to shake their heads up. What would you advise?” And I said, “Why don’t you try this auditing? Get yourself a friend. Be careful what you put don because, you know, this might be some personal material you’ll blurt out.
So she got herself a friend and she started auditing, and she became fascinated by it. And then I got a post card, “I’m on my way to Los Angeles to take the $7,000 course. [year unknown] Before her – first, her husband, he thought that was wonderful. He thought she was going out there – he had been fighting her for thirty years or so. And this was like leeching, leeches in there, leeching so much blood you’ll feel better, you know. You’ve got to settle down and start to work then. You can’t, you just, roaming around all over the earth just playing games.
But I could see what happened. This same thing then was expanded then into a whole system – of visualization; where you could visualize anything you wanted. It was almost like, “What do you want? Name it. Okay, picture it in the corner of the room – there it is. Believe it.” You know: “Do you want a soul? Okay, step behind yourself, observe yourself, now you can see your soul,” Things like that. It covered every range of human desires, practically. And it got very expensive.
I think of course that there’s another thing too: I don’t want to get into it too deeply, but there are pronounced disturbances – that are not caused by normally, normal accidents or the average things that happen in a person’s daily life. And these are on the increase. And – I’m not a professional man, don’t get me wrong – but I have – a tremendous lot of people are coming to me recently, telling me flatly that they are possessed – and can they be helped?
This is only in the last four or five years, that I’ve even heard people talking about this, much less anybody admit it. But there are increasing numbers of people. I’ve given lectures and people walk up to me after the lectures and say, “Hey, you’ve got to help me.” In Cleveland, a fellow was willing to hit me in the head with a hammer so that I wouldn’t leave before he could get helped, before I could help him – just because I touched on a [the] subject.
This is another thing that psychiatry chooses to ignore rather than treat. Don’t get me wrong – it’s treated. It’s treated. I have a little thing I brought along here. To give you an example of how it is treated, on the cover of a recent Newsweek – there’s a picture with the e top of a head sawed off, and the therapist dropping pills into the various compartments where they’re needed. 14:11
Okay, so this is our brave new science. But what’s the allergy rate? What are the allergies to this? In other words, after a guy is cooked so long on downers, does he need another psychiatrist? How can they balance these chemicals so he’s going to have the uppers at the right moment – and he won’t go into social uselessness?
There’s a number of things that I think are also, that people can do to help themselves if they want to – it doesn’t cost a lot – and that is journal writing, which seems to be good. I’m not saying that this is going to cure it; I’m just saying that these are things that might help straighten out the little troubles you might be having. I don’t know if you’re acquainted with it – you can get it – Ira Progoff is the person who writes about it, the Intensive Journal Method. He’s a disciple of Jung’s.
And dream analysis; sometimes – I’m not saying that the thing’s in the dream even. But nevertheless, the observance of your own behavior under different circumstances will help give you an insight perhaps, just by accident if nothing else.
I want to give you a case in this book I ran into about the encounter groups, and then I’d like to have you have a sort of a dialog and give your own opinions if you wish or ask questions.
They were talking about the failure of the encounter group to help certain people, and some of them seemed to get worse after the encounter group. Which – the advice was to return to the clinician. This was a case, there were several of these mentioned that I remember in particular. There was the case of a girl who joined an encounter group and she wasn’t making out too well, she wasn’t doing too good. And she became increasingly depressed, instead of them solving the problem for her. She was, there was confrontation, she seemed to be attacked, because she wasn’t responding and because she didn’t, the system should have been endorsed [by her] or at least she should have shown some cooperation and all this sort of thing. Everything she did was wrong.
And I read this account to 3 or 4 graduate psychologists and I said, “What do you think?” And they diagnosed her as an “encounter failure”. The words she used were that the longer she stayed in the group the greater void she felt. There was a tremendous gap in her life. She felt empty. And toward the end of her experience with this group she had thrown signals to the leader, who was a man. And he decided that, he either didn’t see them or ignored them. These were distress signals: “Hey, I’m really in trouble and you’re not helping me.” And she again repeated later on in her interrogation that she had felt, instead of being helped by it she felt increasingly desolated, useless, meaningless – these were the words she used – and empty. And I said to these three psychologists, individually, “What do you think? What’s wrong with the encounter group? What do you think was wrong with the situation?”
What do you think was wrong? Does anybody have an idea? Was it [name]?
Q. [?? that her real needs were not being met.]
R. Yes. What were her real needs?
R. Okay, does anybody else have an idea?
Q. She probably felt that she wasn’t getting any cooperation; no one was making an effort towards her.
Q. I thought of two things. There’s lack of rapport and ?? her herself, and she was coming to a realization bout her life, about herself.
R. What do you think?
Q. [a woman] She wanted a baby.
R. Right. I’m glad it was a girl who told you this. Because if some man had stuck up his hand and said she wanted a baby, they would have ?? or something. The words “void”, emptiness” – she wasn’t talking about getting along. She repeatedly complained about being empty, meaningless. What mood does a woman get into when she finds out she can’t get pregnant? She feels no meaning to her life. What’s she doing in there in the first place? What was her objective? Was it to take over as the president of a corporation?
But why wasn’t this detected? Because they were supposed to go according to – this was not supposed to be normal, necessarily. This wasn’t a normal complaint. This wasn’t supposed to be even contemplated. She was supposed to get along with these people, those people present, as though they were neuters.
But I feel that this, there are some very basic things. A lady came to my place the other day. She had heard some of my theories and she thought that she’d better discredit me as fast as possible because her brother was hanging around. And she said something to the extent that these were just different degrees of ignorance; everybody was ignorant and basically ono one really knew anything and basically all therapy was useless.
And I came to the conclusion that, what was it, no, she came to the conclusion that what’s the use of just digging, because things either happen or they don’t happen, and why pursue it because you can’t make them happen.
Well, all this may be true. But I think the realization alone can change a person’s life. You don’t have to, this isn’t an indictment that we have to rush out and get pregnant. But I think that if a person knows why the anxiety is there, the real answer[?] just knowing, and that should relieve at least some of the anxiety. I think we like to give credit – first of all we presume that everybody knows what’s wrong, or that they’re going to tell you. Or it’s just a matter of whittling everybody down to a common denominator and have one big weeping session, and then you’re back to normal.
Q. I wasn’t exactly following closely enough, this complaint, and this is coming off the top of my head. You think that that would begin to, that was this woman’s problem, and you’re allegedly, you’re the ??, unless I misunderstood you. I think to put this very succinctly sir, …
R. I don’t have enough evidence
Q. Well, that’s a kind way of putting it.
R. You can be unkind if you wish. [laughs]
Q. I mean, I was willing to, I was more or less taking it in ?? given? forgiven? for that. But that’s an arbitrary judgment. I can’t …
R. Well, we’re choosing – no, it’s not arbitrary – I’m using quotations. The only thing I had to go by.
Q. Oh, you mean she said this herself?
R. These are quotations. These are the only quotations that we had to go by. I’m just saying, this was something that was, we all knew, myself and the other three psychologists knew only exactly what was before us in print, in the quotation. And I asked for their diagnosis of that, from the quotations. The words themselves spoke of being unfulfilled and being empty. And what fulfills you?
Q. How about salvation?
R. Well, this is true too. But I maintain that even a person who wants salvation will still want to, they [still] have the drive for reproduction.
Q. Yes, but that’s beside the point. I mean really, you’re mixing up areas, I, um, I just can’t for the life of me …
R. What’s wrong with having babies?
Q. Nothing. But what’s wrong is to say that a woman who comes with a cry of emptiness and the like – this is her problem. You know, I can’t imagine …
R. Okay, what was her problem? What can you diagnose from those words? This is the point.
Q. Everybody knows what emptiness is. It’s a universal problem of our culture. And to single out this particular woman and say that’s the particular answer for that – that’s farfetched, to say the least. Everybody knows what emptiness is.
R. Yes, what is it? What is it? Isn’t it possible though that – I think the proper thing would be to get a more or less consensus, which I did, from quite a few women. And I find that the reaction is this. That people get, especially once a girl passes the age of say 24, 25 years of age, that there’s an apprehension that sets in. That if there’s ever going to be anything happen – there’s an apprehension sets in when they’re 15 years of age, but it gets worse when you get to be 25. And this is it: either now you’re going to fulfill this or do this. And I’m presuming that these people have ovaries. And these ovaries cause thoughts, and they institute patterns of thinking.
But the idea of – I can’t see where somebody would have such a trauma about it. Why look for the political or economic structure of a country, when first you look inside the body of the person who’s talking. Then if you miss, if you’re wrong then, then look for the social structure as being at fault, for causing a wholesale emptiness in the feelings of people.
See, my belief is that – it’s more than a belief with me, it’s not a random judgment, the majority – and I have run into hundreds of women, who when, when you can get them down onto, and I’m talking about young women, not people 60 years of age, [or] who may have given up hope of having children, that this is a prime concern. This is a prime concern in what I consider the feminine woman, the woman who’s capable of having kids. Maybe there are people who aren’t capable of having children, so they decide, maybe automatically decide, “I need another type of life.”
But this is so much a part of their drive – and especially if they talk to somebody or are around somebody who has had a child, and this person is telling them how wonderful is, what a spiritual experience it is or something of that sort. Then there’s this haunting thing that will follow them until they experience it. And it’s not necessarily sexual. I don’t believe it’s sexual thing at all; it’s a programming. Nietzsche brought it out very aptly, quite a few years ago. This is the purpose
What are we here for? Are we here basically to create a super-culture on the bones of immorality, or are we here to answer the purpose that we were put here for, and not ask too many questions?
Q. Well it strikes me right off the top that, again, it’s curious that you’ve got such a big-handed, especially where women are concerned in that regard, trying to, seeming to know what their purpose is. I think a lot of enlightenment[?] whether that is a satisfactory understanding of what their purpose is.
R. Hey, they don’t decide. They don’t decide. What are you talking about? I don’t decide what my purpose is. I only hope to Christ that someday I can find out what my purpose is, so I can go do it. Who are these egotists who pop off about their purpose? Don’t tell me people know their purpose. You’ve got ovaries? That’s the present indication of your purpose. Maybe it’s only a natural thing; maybe there’s a divine and sublime thing, I don’t know, but try to get to it without carrying out your normal functions and see what happens. Political purpose you’re talking about?
I don’t know. [to somebody else] What did you want to say?
Q. I wanted to know how many people answered the question … were there more men or more women that responded to your question?
R. Oh, nobody did. [Rose was quoting from an article; he didn’t do the survey.]
Q. She was the only woman?
R. Well, she just had an answer for the diagnosis.
Q. What I’m saying is, 3 or 4 men answered the question, responded to the question
R. Yes, that’s true. That’s understandable to me too, because men don’t have ovaries.
Q. [omitted fragment]
[break in tape]
[side 2 ends at 28:08
Total Time 29:22
R. … I agree with you. [go back to omitted fragment and check] It is. Especially from the point of suffering that results. but regardless, what do you got that gear hanging on you for? Is it there to, is it a compass point or something you’re supposed to go by? [laughter] Are you some sort of super-creature or is that your key function? I don’t say it is your key function, but I’m saying, sure, you didn’t put it there. They didn’t put it there.
Q. And my purpose is exhausted by procreation?
R. I don’t believe that. I don’t believe you have to. I do not mean that.
Q. Or even both have to define …
R. No. I don’t mean that. I hope I conveyed that. I am not avoiding – I’m avoiding it in this respect, and I think it causes[?] a hell of a lot more trouble. But I do not believe that that’s the end of, that’s the real purpose of humanity. I believe the purpose of humanity, as I can see it, the – there are certain things we have to do because we’re cut in that mold. But I think that the leeway and the direction is in self-definition.
That’s ?? have you as the ?? That’s my definition. I believe that we should strain for higher things or for greater revelations – while being compelled for maybe some ?? thing like peace of mind for periods of time; to go through the purpose. [?]
I don’t believe in rebelling against – let me put it this way – I believe that the nations that rebelled against it, had wholesale rebellion against the normal reproductive processes ceased to be in domination. Those civilizations went down. And I think this country has fallen this way already. With China, for instance, pulling up a new banner and saying, “Hey”. This is the problem we’re in. And I’m not communistic, don’t give me that. I have no regard for communism. But I’m just saying that – if you take votes – that’s another mistake that people make, they think you can vote on [this] in this country. And he says, “Hold up your hands.”
Well, yes, I’d like to see – the people here take a vote. [?] But basically, if you take the Chinese voting against the Americans and the British combined, they’ve got us outvoted.
[ NOTES ONLY FROM HERE ]
I think that they’re going to have a healthy nation
I don’t believe you can find self-definition by lying to yourself
no use in doing anything
floundering around like a blind fish
I define first what I see, like an animal
throw a saddle on the animal
protoplasm protects itself from a foreign body
same way with philosophy
I don’t like to use the word spiritual because
this has been a life’s investigation
he can live his life as a human being
doesn’t have to sacrifice
they do not teach morality
just sew it up and send the guy back out
Q. Jung, Christianity, Nietzsche, and I wonder where you stand
R. I’ve only read one book by Nietzsche
this is poppycock
according to the normal curve
is 51% of people are murderers, that’s normal
R. I think you read that wrong
I think the complaint was, ‘I’m fed up with religion.”
they feel as though they’re lost
still somewhat inadequate or unfinished
leaning to self-definition
this is very valid
it’s not worth committing suicide over
answering the question about life and death
everyone is concerned about it
all of humanity works toward the solution of the truth
with each generation we get a better understanding
the reproduction drive is just one
down to the DNA molecules, is curious
amoeba is curious
so they go out and join a cult
something equally absurd
the two great motivating forces
curiosity and desire
are both programmed
we just get tired of fighting for our eternal youth and give in
Q. Could it not be said that God
if a child sticks his finger in the fire
I do not believe in sins
decide what is good and what is evil
get rid of this guilt
let’s presume there’s an almighty creature, and we’ll upset his plans
step on a snake
genetic things inherited from your parents
go out and carry the cross for humanity, this is crazy
Q. How do you ..
R. I don’t. Do I hve to?
okay, let’s accept that as your belief
Gurdjieff, individuals are basically mechanical
unable to guess the factors
you’re not very much in charge
they may have been born on a mountain top in New Guinea
again, I’m not endorsing Gurdjieff; I considered him an astute psychologist
Q. well what do youthink then, the way people function, I have to function like a robot to function efficiently
R. There’s more than one way of
there are methods of escaping by trickery
Q. with the political climate now, secular and materialistic
R. I thought we were the sickest culture in the world
just don’t make any enemies, play it cool, and hope somebody else fights your wars
R. I used to say that if a man rays and hears himself, he can answer and acquire
I believe that the individual is practically zero
have to be honest
you can’t get anywhere lying to yourself
the deepest prayer is where a man becomes, not talks
R. My most important value? That you stop
and I think it’s one of the most absurd things I do
I like the idea of not having any value
not too hard to check out
I was studying to be a priest at the time
I became disillusioned
put here to doubt
I got into Thomistic theology
Aquinas – as an advocate for the church
we feel mighty as hell here
this ant is suddenly going to understand the infinite
the finite mind cannot comprehend the infinite
he was right. But there was a catch
the mind does not need to be finite
systems of direct-mind observation, comprehension
[break in tape]
[file 3 ends at 28:21]
Total time 22:31 – M Fitz version times
Q. [the blowhard] ?? ??
R. That’s what they say. But you also have to treat the mid with it.
R. The holistic thing. That is not, they only recently came across it. Sure. When I was a kid I was studying yoga, and I was going through the, in my search for something I considered more sensible that what I was doing before, I was doing the yoga diet of no meat. Their explanation of it was not so much the killing – everything’s got to die, and I don’t think it matters too much whether you eat it or let it rot. But the thing was that it did something to your system and poisoned you to a certain extent. Okay, if you want to develop a sensitivity to certain foods and watch the effects on your personality. And I’ve seen this happen.
you might not be able to get the protein out of the soybeans. Especially if you’re a descendent of carnivores, meaning western civilization
but I do believe that a man is what he eats, to a great extent.
Q. [blowhard] It sounds like a rationalization for indulging yourself for the taste of red flesh.
R. What’s that?
Q. What you just said, it sounded like a rationalization for … R. No, I said …
Q. a personal taste for dead flesh. etc … participating in an incredibly cruel ritual etc
R. How about if the only place you can eat is McDonalds? What do you eat?
Q. You don’t have to eat at McDonalds. You can eat at home etc. [talks over Rose]
R. See …
Q.[list of food he can eat, like cheese burritos.]
R. Write that down, will you? [laughter]
Q. You don’t have to eat meat.
R. I agree with you. But I do believe that there are certain peoples who had a higher protein diet than others, and it’s pretty hard for them
R. I eat everything that isn’t moving.
It’s not what you put in your mouth, it’s what comes out of it. No, what I said was that I do believe in the value of a vegetarian diet.
Q. The point – what you just said was really interesting, because I think the people who
[gap in tape]
Q. … but that’s why eating meat. But the real thing is to stay with compassion, not just to other people, but with all creatures …
R. ?? [laughter]
Q. Do you ?? universal compassion?
R. I think it’s good. Of course, I don’t know what the motive is. Because I think you’ve always got to keep in mind that you’re in the jungle too. I saw this in myself, that I went through a stage in which I loved the world and – I was in my twenties – and I thought everything was peace. And I got a lot of opportunities to get punched and guns stuck in my ear because I looked harmless. You don’t dare look too harmless. Now you’ve got the hair. If I word that hair when I was 23 years of age I would have got the hell beat out of me every day. So we’re living in a jungle yet, an sometimes it pays to sharpen your teeth and at least put up a little bluff to keep them off.
Q. [blowhard] Sir, I noticed that, it seemed to me curious that …
R. Yes, I know that. [laughter]
Q. For example, you talk about the fact that the psychiatrists have forsaken morality, and yet at the same time you say that there’s no such thing as sin. And I don’t think you notice that morality doesn’t have immorality. ?? And therefore I just find it hard to see where you leave off …
R. Yes. Well, I feel this way about it. I agree with what you say, that to have one you have to have the other. I’ll take the morality and you can have the immorality. How’s that? [laughs]
Q. No, you’re not answering the question. What I want to know is what you? have? to? do? with sin.
R. Sin? Sin and morality are two different things. Morality is something that is say a biological law, whereas sin is an eternal, or superstition put upon some human act. It might be for failing to go to church on Sunday. It has nothing to do necessarily with morality
Q. Morality has to do with biology you say?
R. Sure. It has to do with biological functions of the human being and his interrelationships.
Q. [blowhard] Alright, I’ll give you a very concrete example. I happen to be involved in an insurance agency. The other day I received my commission statement from the company, and they credited me with a commission that belonged to another agent. A fellow agent said, “Well of course you’re not going to say anything about that are you?” I said, “Of course This is falsely credited to me with a commission I don’t deserve.” So how the hell can you make a biological issue out of that?”
R. Well, we’re dealing with biological …
Q. My problem is that there is right and wrong …
R. On what levels, though?
Q. Human decency, or indecency.
R. Okay, what’s this got to do with missing church on Sunday?
Q. I didn’t say anything about church. You introduced church. I’m talking about …
R. You’re talking about right and wrong. Is it wrong to miss church on Sunday
Q. [loudly] Of course not!
R. Okay, but that’s a sin in some churches.
Q. Now you want to define the ballpark …
R. I’m not defining. This thing is defined by other people, not myself. And when you’re talking about morality, in that respect you’re still talking about other people, other organisms. It’s biological, between your body and yourself , and other people and yourself. The herd. It’s herd relationship. And your own relationship to your health.
Q. It’s the health of the agency that he gets his commission.
R. Sure, that’s because if you kept that up, you’re liable to get into trouble.
Q. That’s not the point. He’s going to get into trouble. Maybe he’s going to lose out on the commission …
R. Oh, you’re very noble, but I doubt that that’s the only motive for your actions.
Q. And I’m suggesting to you that a sign that you are sinful, and that maybe … ??
Q. And that’s an arbitrary on your part.
R. You believe in sin, sir. Have fun. [laughs] I don’t care.
Q. No, I believe in morality, immorality, I find lots of it around, and I’m not going to slough it off simply to create some biological gesture in this direction. It’s just ?? ?? I’m saying that here’s a great deal of it ?? by way of conflict between people and immorality between people. And that’s the quote you ?? used, that psychiatrists had given up on morality. And yet …
R. I was referring to a specific – you know what I’m talking about I presume. I don’t think you lack the intelligence to know that I’m talking about sexual habits that cause trouble. I’m not talking about getting somebody’s insurance check. You’re bringing that up. That’s your own nobility you’re talking about. If you’re defending the nobility of the psychiatrist then you’re using the wrong instance.
Q. No, I’m just pointing out your inconsistency in that you say that you’re not interested in morality yet you say that there is no immorality.
R. No, no, no. You rephrased again. You remember you accused me of saying there’s no such thing as a sin or that I didn’t believe in sin but at the same time I criticized immorality. And I explained to you very clearly that I didn’t say the two were the same thing. And that’s the whole thing in a nutshell. If you want to draw cases and go through histories you can do that. But your answer is there. Now I think it’s very clear. I don’t think I can do any better.
Q. I think he’s taking issue with your statement that morality is biological.
Q. there’s a further issue I think, and in particular his case, he thought that when you paid back the guy his commission, this wasn’t biology it was a matter of some Christian morality.
R. Yeah, but sure, I’m not arguing with the fact he paid it back. I think it was an admirable thing to do.
Q. Do you think he had a subterranean or egotistical reason to do it?
R. He may have had a superstition. I’m not saying he knows, even. He’d like to tell us he knows what he’s doing.
Q. [blowhard] Of course I do. I know it was immoral to keep the guy’s commission and I didn’t deserve it. It’s a simple case of right and wrong. I know it and I know it beyond a shadow of a doubt. You know what’s right and wrong!
[pandemonium, discussion laughter in the audience]
R. I think he wrecked your question. you’re going to have to run through it again.
Q. Okay. We can see the human relationships by insanity of close relatives [?] and games, we can see that how they relate to others is governed by biology. And is it possible that because we have a larger brain that we kind of rationalize these tendencies into what we call moral codes? … ??
R. Well, I couldn’t argue with you on that. I don’t know what the evolutionary thing did or was. I suspect that a tremendous lot of this stuff
need to do 8 minutes here
We know we can be wiped out at any time but continue to crawl like lemmings.
Vegetarianism – you’d need a vast effort for it to be economical.
Q. … separation from divine self …
Idea of sin creates an inferiority complex.
This business of logical proof – matters of the heart.
Necessary to develop intuition.
Well. I guess pretty soon
If any of you wish to leave your name
interested in coming down to the farm.
Art wraps it up.
Side 4 ends at 23:09 – dm tape
For access, send email to email@example.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nichiren_Shoshu See Gurdjieff’s “law of seven”. From Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy, (first published in 1970). The following quote is from Chapter 16 of the 5th edition, Group Therapy and the Encounter Group: “Encounter group is a rough, inexact generic term that encompasses a great variety of forms. Consider some of its many aliases: human relations groups, training groups, T-groups, sensitivity groups, personal growth groups, marathon groups, human potential groups, sensory awareness groups, basic encounter groups, experiential groups, and so on.” ... “The term encounter group for an experiential group was coined by Carl Rogers in the mid-1960s. The most common term before then was T-group (“T” for training in human relations).” Ref: http://yalom.com/tapencountercontent.html Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_psychotherapy#History_of_group_psychotherapy E.g., egotism.
For detailed explanation see Alan Fitzpatrick, The Sex Connection, A Study of Desire, Seduction and Compulsion, 2007, Rose Publications. Would include the latter part of the Neolithic Era. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Revolution Physical dimensions. E.g., see Franz Hartmann’s book on Paracelsus: http://selfdefinition.org/magic/paracelsus/hartmann-paracelsus-contents.htm Journeys Out of the Body, 1971. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Monroe Prolific researcher and writer (1880-1958). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hereward_Carrington (1903-1969) Muldoon had OBE at age 12. Published with Hereward Carrington The Projection of the Astral Body in 1929. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvan_Muldoon The Evans-Wentz version was the most known, but modern Tibetan scholarship has resulted in more accurate translations. See notes in Tibetan Book of Living and Dying, revised edition 2012. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisabeth_Kubler-Ross http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Moody See chart: http://albigen.com/uarelove/sahaja.aspx http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_hypnosis Rose was an expert hypnotist, using what he called the direct-mind method. Ref: 1988-0217-Hypnosis-Lecture-Demonstration-Akron and 1980s-Chautauqua-Hypnosis-Demonstration (unpublished, in process) as well as three other untranscribed recordings. Need reference. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketogenesis See Gurdjieff’s Beelzebub’s Tales To His Grandson for his take on this. By piping off sexual energy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._Ron_Hubbard Also see Rose: 1988-0217-Hypnosis-Lecture-Demonstration-Akron: “I don’t know whether Ron Hubbard had a foolproof system. I often suspected that he had a system by which you could blackmail people if you took a notion, because you’ve got a lot of data on people, these memories, recording what they say, their traumas. Sometimes traumas can be trouble for you later, a history of them.” Rose tells this story in 1980s-Chautauqua-Hypnosis-Demonstration, transcribed by Eric Clark. From 1978-0412-Kent-State-University: “But this is what happens when you get this idea that nothing can hurt you. .... You can look around and you’ll see them by the hundreds, these people. And they come to me in these meetings. One fellow followed me out to the car and demanded that I stay and exorcise him. He was possessed, and he thought I had nothing better to do than to tangle with his demons. They’ve come clear down to my house in fact. Some of them have demons that were visible, to me at least; I could see them. They’d locate them and I could point them out. And this is from tinkering with something in a sort of devil-may-care attitude.” Newsweek Magazine, November 12, 1979: Drugs for the Mind – Psychiatry’s Newest Weapons http://selfdefinition.org/psychology/images/newsweek-cover-drugs-for-the-mind-1979-1112.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ira_Progoff http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intensive_Journal_Method Possibly a bad example, due to China’s forced abortion policies.