Peter's Tao Te Ching: Introduction to a work in progress

The next section will be in file #3. This one is getting too full, it is getting too slow.

October 3, 2011 . . . . . . . . ACIM
. Instead of continuing from 7:10.2,4 let me tell you again how I reached the “turning point” in my “study” of the COURSE, how I got turned off by it. I have described it before but some details, I have left out, make more sense in light of what we have learned since then.
It started on April 13 in the waiting room of “Network Spinal Analysis” here in Toronto. I was hooked by the AUTHOR for about three days. That is a dangerous thing because he hooks you slowly, so that you don’t notice what he is doing to your mind (C).
. The reason I ended up on page 296 prematurely was because in the table of context I saw: “XI . The Test of Truth . . . . . . . . . 296”. As a programmer (B) I have tested the truth of my algorithms for nine years. So I was just curious how the AUTHOR would describe that process. He didn’t, but the first thing he said in section 11 was:

14:11.1,1: “ Yet the essential thing is learning that YOU DO NOT KNOW.” WOW, that sounds familiar: “Know that you Don’t Know (knPUkn)” what you don’t know. Guess how impressed I was. This is the bait that is supposed to cover up the hooks.

14:11.1,2: “Knowledge is power, and the power is God.” Did you catch the hook? …
I didn’t catch it then. That “Knowledge is power.” is still true. That is more bait. Did you catch the bait now? …
14:11.1,2: “…., and all power is of God.” There it is You are supposed to believe that the AUTHOR is God. God is omnipotent, therefore the AUTHOR must be God. I doubted from the start that the AUTHOR is the “Son of God” and that he and his followers form the “sonship” But every time he slips a statement like this past your intellect (B) he inserts a small hook into your mind (C). There are more hooks in that section but let me just give you some of the more obvious examples:
14:11.1,5: “Everything you have taught yourself has made your power more and more obscure to you.” I knew from personal experience that this is not true, but he slipped that one right past my intellect.
14:11.1,9: “Yet all that stands between you and the power of God [the AUTHOR] in you is but your learning of the false, and your attempts to undo the true.” He is telling me that for 67 years I have learned “the false” and, instead of seeking the truth for all these years all I did was “to undo the true”. This is not what I thought I did, but if God says it himself then it must be true.
14:11.3,4: “Your learning gives the present no meaning at all. (5) Nothing you have ever learned can help you understand the present, or teach you how to undo the past. (6) Your past is what you have taught yourself. (7) LET IT ALL GO. (8) Do not attempt to understand any [of this] …. in its [the intellect's] ‘light’,….”
. Well that did it. Plato, his student, Aristotle, the Hindus, Lao Tzu, Steiner, J.G Bennett and all the other teachers I have studied over the past 67 years are all supposed to be wrong. Because I had jumped ahead to page 296, I was not prepared for this one. The hook was too hard for me to swallow. And there the real “study” of the COURSE has started for me. For the rest of the story, see my blog.

14:11.3,9: “Put no confidence at all in darkness to illuminate your understanding, for if you do you contradict the light, and thereby think you see the darkness.”
14:11.3,9a: This is an imperative sentence. It starts with the verb phrase: “Put no confidence, at all, in” What? …
“…. In darkness”, to do what? …
“…. To illuminate”. Illuminate what? …
“ …. Your understanding, for if you contradict the light,” then …
you contradict the AUTHOR. “…. and thereby think you see the darkness.”
. The core statement of this sentence is: “Put no confidence” in your intellect. If “you do you contradict the” teaching of the AUTHOR. This teaching is called “the light”. This implies that what is produced by the intellect is “darkness”. The exact “meaning” of “light” and “darkness” is not clear. This is not accidental. If we can’t understand something we must “Know that we Don’t Understand (knPUkn)” all of what the AUTHOR doesn’t want us to know. The meaning of light and darkness is even hard to understand in the Tao Te Ching but there we have a better chance to get it because …
Lao Tzu is not trying to deceive us.
Ching 1.4,2: The “Unit Is the light’S Darkness ($1is_ZSü).”
. . . . . 1.4,3: “Darken It and Repeat the Darkening (Sü_Z@1Sü) until you reach
. . . . . . . . . . . All Mystery”S Gate (^1#1_Z%1).”
. “Harmonize Your Light (Ho_H$4).” Ho(Ho) is also translated as “Darken(Sü)”. But if that is what Lao Tzu intended to say then he would have said it. There is, however, a justification for translating Kuang($4) as “Darken” in this context because in live and in the Ching, things come in pairs. However the next thing he tells the “KnowErs(kner)” and the “WordErs(C2er)” is: “Unite Your Dust ($1_H@h). This is Called (Siis) the Dark Unit (Sü$1).” This tells us that Hsüan(Sü) is something like an “Atonement” while the “Light($4)” of the intellect causes the “separation”
. “Use Your Light (us_H$4) but
Again Return to Your Insight (FU77_H72).” Separate but don’t stay there. Follow the deductive phase of the big cycle down, deductively, but “Again Return” up by the inductive phase. This is also what we get from the Hindus. These are difficult concepts to grasp, but we need the “truth” to replace the AUTHOR’s “untruth” with.
. “Enlighten But Don’t Confuse ($4btPU*x).” *x = Yao86. This statement tells us that when we use our intellect to “Enlighten(72)”, we must be careful not to confuse. In other words: Don’t bite off more than you can chew. “Do only what you Can Do (A1ptA1)”. And now please look what the AUTHOR does with his intellect. ...

14:11.3,10: “Yet darkness cannot be seen, for it is nothing more than a condition in which seeing becomes impossible.” …

===================================================

October 2, 2011 . . . . . . . AQCIM

7:10.2,1: “It is surely clear that you can accept into your mind what is not there, and deny what is.”
. The subject of this sentence is “you”. Who are YOU? …
. Let’s keep it simple: What do you do? …
You “can accept into your mind what is” …
“not there”. The AUTHOR says in different “forms” that what the intellect produces …
“is not there” or “does not exist”. So the interpretation of one basic triad is: …
You, can “accept” into your mind (C) what is, produced by your intellect. And: …
You. Can “accept” into your mind (C) what is, produced by the AUTHOR.
. We have the principle of ‘opposition’ here again. But once we know it, it can work for us as well as it works for the AUTHOR. By now we know that our intellect is the opposite of the AUTHOR. We are reminded of this every time he ‘depreciates’ the “ego”.

7:10.2,2: “Yet the function God Himself gave your mind through His you may deny, but you cannot prevent.”
. “you” are the subject again. What does your mind do “through His” programming? …
It gets your bio-computer (D) to execute it. What does the pronoun “it” represent? …
The program your mind (C) gets your body (D) to execute. What can “you” not do? …
You “cannot prevent” what? …
This is difficult stuff because we are not supposed to understand this. Please try. …
We are not supposed to be able to “prevent” the AUTOR from programming your mind. If you read his words without interpreting them, he is already half there.
. We should also include the term ‘transcendence’ in our list of identifiers. Please go to the end of the September 6 section where we have dealt with it . …
Here we have a nice example of how the AUTHOR uses this tool: If “God Himself gave [“His” program to] your mind” then who are you to doubt this? …

7:10.2,3: “It is the logical outcome of what you are.”
The pronoun “It” represents what “God Himself gave your mind”. “It” is the subject. …
In this case the question is not: What does it do? But What “is” it? ...
“It is the logical outcome of what”? …
“It is the logical outcome of what you are.”
. You are the logical outcome of how you have programmed yourself or how you have allowed others to program you. Computation (C) is faster than thought (B). What you are (C) comes to your attention (A) before thought (B) can reach it. You are the thinking you do automatically (E6) in your heart. The thinking you do automatically (E6) is computation.
. “The faith [Sraddha] of a man follows his nature, Arjuna, Man is made of faith: as is his faith is so is he. (Juan Mascaró’s translation)”
. This “faith” (A), or belief (C), or representation (C) is what “you” are. And you, or the AUTHOR, can change it. Every thought (B), belief (C) or physical act (D) has its effect. These actions in the three dimensions of semiotics produce what the AUTHOR calls their “logical outcome”. And “It is the logical outcome of what you are.”
. When the AUTHOR has programmed your mind to decommission your intellect then he can take it over. Then your intellect is the AUTHOR and he is you. This “meaning” is reprated in many different “forms”. We have identified it as ‘contemplation’: Not mine, will but thine will be done through me. I am you and you are me. The AUTHOR repeats this message again and again, in different “forms” and, if you don’t intercept his message, bit by bit he gets his hooks into you.

7:10.2,4: “The ability to see a logical outcome depends on the willingness to see it, but its truth has nothing to do with your willing ness.“ …

==================================================

October 1, 2011 . . . . . . ACIM

7:5.1,1: “Before miracle workers are ready to undertake their function in this world, it is essential that they fully understand the fear of release.”
. Reducing a sentences to its basic subject-connective-predicate triad simplifies it, but it excludes details, which must be added, one by one, as we are ready for them.
. After we have identified the subject we must ask: …
What does it do? Why? …
Because the connective is a verb, or a verb phrase. So what do “miracle workers” do? …
They “undertake”. What? …
The answer to this question automatically takes us to the predicate. What is it? …
They “undertake their function”. Where? …
“in this world,”. The AUTHOR is not in this world, he is in the eternal where no action can be undertaken. Why? …
Because there is no time and space to do it in. On the other side of the “Door” (A) there is no change and there are no divisions. All is eternally in the now. And all is eternally …
“One(_1)”. So the AUTHOR needs “miracle workers” to “undertake their function in this world”. What is their function”? …
To carryout the work as described in the COURSE and as …
dictated by his “voice”. There is another verb in 7:5.1,1. What is it? …
Miracle workers “understand”. What? …
“the fear of release”. And that’s where I got stuck in the September 28 section. To find out what “release” means in the COURSE you have to see it in different contexts. Just as you can’t study the Ching properly without a concordance, so you can’t study the COURSE properly without a concordance.
. So I went to the World’s Biggest Bookstore, here in Toronto and bought the BlackBerry PlayBook for $568.10 under condition that they install A COURSE IN MIRACLES in it for the ?7 plus something it cost. I did that because the salesman told me that the playbook has a search function in it. I told you the story before. In the meantime I consulted friends and strangers to help me to find the search function in my new toy. They couldn’t. So now this machine is going to sit in a shelf collecting dust. This was a discouraging attempt to do what is not my dharma. But to do my dharma right now, I have to know what “release” means in the COURSE. What now? …
I leaved through the 669 pages by hand in hope that somehow, by luck, I find that word. And I did. See what perseverance and luck can do?

14:5.10,8: “The Holy Spirit …. In His gentleness He would release from fear”. In the COURSE “fear” represents the intellect. So an interpretation is: ...
The AUTHOR releases the intellect. To release something is giving it up.
7:10.3,8: “Obey the Holy Spirit, and you will be giving up the ego.” …
. The “ego” means intellect in the COURSE. So the interpretation is? ...
Allow the AUTHOR to program your mind (C), “and you will be giving up the” intellect. Can you see now why the AUTHOR doesn’t want us to interpret his sentences? …
. The time I have spent searching for the word was not wasted. I saw things in passages I have read before but I found “meanings” in them I didn’t see then. To deal with this ingenious text, we must program ourselves to deal with it. A lot more true concepts (B) must become representations (C). Then the truth will automatically (E6) replace the AUTHOR’s falsehoods. Most of what I noticed can be found and worked on by computation (C). Let me just pick one example to show you what I mean:
28:2.1,1: “Without a cause there can be no effect, and yet without effects there is no cause. (2) …. A cause is MADE by its effects; ….(3) Effects do not create their cause, but they establish its causation.” As in Hegelian dialectics, the thesis always comes before the antithesis. In other words: ...
The thesis is MADE by its antithesis. You can't have the one without the other.
. In eternity, the AUTHOR sees the dyad as one “Unit($1)”. “The DyAd (Tzdyad) is a Unit Originally ($1Cu)”. It is a “Unit($1)” in “Eternity(Cn)”. You can’t have one pole of a polarity without the other. So what the AUTHOR told us at 28:2.1 is the truth as he sees it on the other side. This is the bait that is supposed to hide the hook.
. There is more good stuff at 7:10. Let’s start with:
7:10.1,5: “You are willing to look at the ego’s premises, but not at their logical outcome.”
. What is implied here is that: if you look at the outcome of your “ego’s premises” then you will find all the bad things the AUTHOR has said about it verified. This is a daring thing to say because: If you look at the outcome of the AUTHOR’s premises you will find that the things he says about the “ego” (B) are not true and ...
what we find out about the AUTHOR is something he doesn't want us to find out. This assertion is another ‘depreciation’, but it is one that can backfire.

7:10.1,6: “Is it not possible that you have done the same thing with the premises of God?”
. Looking at the AUTHOR’s premises is what he doesn't want us to do. Why? ...
Because what we find is contradicting what he is implying here.

7:10.1,7: “Your creations are the logical out come of His premises. (8) His thinking has established them for you.” …
. The AUTHOR’s programming produce the computations (C), which the mind (C) carries out. They produce “the logical outcomes”, which he calls “Your creations” because your mind (C) is doing it, it is executing his programs.

7:10.1,9: “They are exactly where they belong.” They are in your mind (C).

7:10.1,10: “They belong in your mind as part of your identification with His, but your state of mind and your recognition of what is in it depends on what you believe about your mind.”
. The AUTHOR’s program in your mind is “part of your identification with His” idea (B) of what he wants you to be. A program (C) is a stepped down version of an idea (B). The program in your mind is his program. It is yours in the sense that your mind (C) is using it to “control” your intellect (B). But your state of mind” (B) and its “recognition of what is in” your mind (C) “depends on what you believe about your mind” (C).
. Belief means pistis in Greek, and it is on level C of Plato’s “Divided Line (509d)”. I use the philosophical term representation (C) for it. It is produced by repeating a true or false idea (B) often “Enough(Zu)”. It is a stepping down process, or the “Fixing(8b)”. By repetition, the AUTHOR “Fixes” his ideas (B) in the mind (C). The COURSE is an amazing example of this “Fixing” or programming. But it is there. You don’t have to believe it, you just have to work on it. What I have tried to explain here is that by putting his program into your mind (C), the AUTHOR determines “what you believe about your mind.” Mind, here can be on level C or B. Making use if the double-meaning of this word makes his sentences ambiguous. And this doesn't happen by accident.

7:10.1,11: “Whatever these beliefs [representations (C)] may be, they are the premises [programs] that will determine what you accept into your mind” (C).
. The AUTHOR programs you to “accept” his programming. Please FIND.”accept”. …

7:10.2,1: “It is surely clear that you can both accept into your mind what is not there, and deny what is.” …

================================================

September 30, 2011 . . . . . . ACIM

7:4.1,7: “The state is unknown to Him and therefore does not exist, but those who sleep are unaware.”
. We have already dealt with this one in the September 24 section. But because we have learned a bit more about the AUTOR we find more “meaning” in sentences we have already worked on. So, instead of going on from 2:5.2,6, we go over passages about which we have learned a bit more since we have worked on them last.
7:4.1,7a: The state, is unknown to, the AUTHOR. The capitalized “Him” always refers to the AUTHOR.
. The subject of 7:4.1,7 is: The state of mind that doesn’t know the AUTHOR.
. To find out what “The state” is, we have to go back to the previous sentences. There is more to it, but let’s try to keep it as simple as possible.
. After the subject has been identified, the question is always: What does it do? …
The connective is: “is unknown to”. In other words: …
The mind (B) does not know the AUTHOR. We may not know all about him, but as we learn more about him we can interpret his sentences in greater depth. And, as we do, we can’t help but be amazed at the depth of these sentences. If I had not studied The Tao Te Ching since 1970 I couldn’t believe that such depth of “meaning” in a single sentence is possible. Now this makes sense to me, because on the other side of the “Door, Dasamadwara” (A). Time and space don’t exist. On the “eternal” side of creation all is “one”, all is “now”. Sentences with multiple “meanings” in them come naturally. The differences between Lao Tzu and the AUTHOR are …
75% of Lao Tzu’s message is estimated to be poetry (A); the AUTHOR’s is 100%. …
The other difference is that Lao Tzu doesn’t use his omniscience to deceive his readers. This difference is most significant when it comes to the 25% of prose in his book. In this the Ching also differs from the Gita and the Neiye, which are both a 100% poetry.
. It seems to me that, because the Illuminati can store knowledge in their “altar”, they can take it with them to the other side. This is just a guess, but how else do you explain that the AUTHOR can dictate a 1249 page book from the other side of the “Door”. ? ...
7:4.1,7b: The predicate of this subject-connective-predicate “TriAd(_3ad)” tells us that …
the “state [of mind (B)] is unknown to” the AUTHOR. The message that he doesn’t see the illusion the way we see it, is repeated in different “forms” elsewhere in the COURSE.
. The threefold core of the sentence is followed by two subordinate phrases: …
7:4.1,7c: The knowledge we have gained of the AUTHOR “therefore does not exist”. Why? …
Because we are not supposed to interpret his sentences? Or because …
he makes it difficult to gain that knowledge? …
7:4.1,7d: “….but those who sleep are unaware.” …
Anything bad is blamed on the intellect, which here includes, sleeping on the job. The proper function of the intellect is doing what we are doing, right here, and, obviously, the AUTHOR doesn’t like that.

7:4.1,8: “Because they are unaware, they do not know.”
. In the September 24 section I use the principle of ‘reversal’ to interpret this phrase. …
If we can't interpret passages in which the AUTHOR is clearly trying to deceive us, by means of his omniscience, then we “are unaware” of what he is doing. The 'reversal' of this is what we can actually experience if we do what the AUTHOR doesn't want us to do.
. If you have followed, or tried to follow, me then you know that intercepting the messages he is trying to slip past the intellect is not easy. The more contradictions I find, the more I realize what a huge job it is to properly interpret all of the sentences in the COURSE. Certainly it is not a one person job. But seeing how much I have discovered alone so far, you can see that it is not an impossible task. What we are doing here is what the AUTHOR doesn't want us to do. From the way he is talking about this problem we can see that he wished that what we are doing is impossible. Lao Tzu and J.G. Bennett's systematics are making it possible. Having to do this work all by myself is discouraging, but working as a team, applying thought (B), word (C) and deed (D) to this work can be fun, just as studying the Ching is fun, if you follow Lao Tzu’s instructions, which are probably given in prose.
. A comment on 7:4.1,7 and 8 would be at Ching 71:
71.1: If you “Know that you Don’t Know (knPUkn) what you don’t know
. . . . then you are Healthy(_+).”
71.2: If you “Don’t Know that you don’t Know (PUknkn) what you don’t know
. . . . then you are Sick(@p).”
. This is the second shortest chapter in the Ching and each sentence is also a paragraph. This chapter got me going on the Ching forty years ago because I saw that it is a tetrad. Here are the other two “sources”, or parts of the tetrad:
71.3: “He Who (heho) Sick Sick (@p@p), who doesn’t know and doesn’t know that
. . . . . he doesn’t know, ThereFore(SiYI) does Not feel Sick (PU@p).”
. To him “IgNorance(PUkn)” is bliss.
71.4: “Intelligent People (wsmn) are Not Sick (PU@p), or not stupid, why? …
. . . . . Because of This Sick Sick (YI_H@p@p), they know and know that they know,
. . . . . That is Why (SiYI) they are Not Sick (PU@p).”

The law of correspondence applies to the poetry in the Ching, the Gita, the Neiye and also to the prose in the COURSE. Why? …
Because all of this information is in “One(_1)” piece on the other side. To say that it is all in the same place would be wrong because …
there is no space on the other side of the “Door” (A).
. Because some passages are too hard for me to chew, I will go over passages we have already worked on to see how much we have learned in the mean time. Let's try this one:

7:5.1,1: “Before miracle workers are ready to undertake their function in the world, it is essential that they fully understand the fear of release.” …

=======================================================

September 29, 2011 . . . . . . . . ACIM
. In the previous section, below this one, I have found two errors: “As B encloses A, so our mind (B, manas) encloses the intellect.” (B, manas) should be (C, manas).
. The other one is: “If the AUTHOR didn’t know that his COURSE wouldn’t [do harm to the body directly then it wouldn’t] be designed to program the body.” “body” should be mind (C).
. There are many errors I don’t bother correcting. They are just signs of my frustration of having to do this writing (C), which is not my dharma. But these two passages I had to correct. They need more of our attention (A).

(7: is a mistake) 2:5.2,1: “Magic is the mindless or the miscreative use of mind.
. . . . . . . . . . . . .2:5.2,1: . Magic, is the mindless …. use of, mind.
. The connective is the longest phrase in this sentence. The four dots represent the subordinate phrase, I have excluded. It gives us more detail which we already know. …
. Let us begin with the subject. FIND “magic” and try to figure out what it means. …
It is hard to get a clear definition of “magic” because the context, which it is in, is ambiguous. In general it can be said that when the AUTHOR does it, it is “healing”, and when the “ego” (B) does it, it is “magic”. Also, at 2:4.4,1 we are told that “All material means [are] …. remedies for bodily” or material problems. The AUTHOR wants us to believe that this is “magic”. We are supposed to believe that “magic” is something bad because the intellect produces it. But why should knowing, that material means are for solving material problems, be something bad? …
2:5.2,1a: The knowledge, that material means are for solving material problems, does what according to the AUTHOR? …
the mind (B) uses “mindlessly”. What does that mean according to the intellect? …
It uses the mind (C) the way it is supposed to use it/ That is without ...
the interference from the mind (C). Since the AUTHOR programs the mind (C) to interfere with the mind (B) we can see that he doesn’t want us to use the intellect. And he doesn’t want us to know it. This is why it is so hard to explain even after you have understood it.
2:5.2,1b: Magic is the “creative use of” what? …
Of the predicate. It is the intelligent (B) “use of mind” (C). I am not very happy with this interpretation. Again I am painfully aware of the fact that “KnowErs(kner) are Not good with Words (PUC2)”. That many sentences are ambiguous is no accident. The AUTHOR must know both sides, otherwise he couldn’t make it so hard to interpret. He didn’t just tell us not to interpret his sentences, he made it very hard to interpret some of them.
. The reason we had to spend so much time on this one is because if we don’t understand the first sentence of a paragraph then we can’t understand the rest of it. Which, again, ...
is what the AUTHOR intends to accomplish.

2:5.2,2: “Physical medications are forms of ‘spells,’ but if you are afraid to use the mind to heal, you should not attempt to do so.”
. The repeated “meaning” here is: Don’t use the mind (B) for solving problems. The only one who can “heal” is the AUTHOR

2:5.2,3: “The very fact that you are afraid makes your mind vulnerable to miscreation.”
In the COURSE, “fear” means intellect. If “you are afraid” then you are using the intellect. And that “makes your mind [B] vulnerable to miscreation.” According to the AUTHOR the intellect (B) is “vulnerable to miscreation.” That’s all the intellect does. All it does is “miscreate”. If this lie is repeated often “Enough(Zu)” then you will sooner or later believe (C) it and not question it anymore. The “remedy” to this problem is the intellect (B) and awareness (A) of the contradictions it exposes.

2:5.2,4: “You are therefore likely to misunderstand any healing that might occur, and because egocentricity and fear usually occur together, you may be unable to accept the real Source of the healing.”
Healing is produced by the AUTOR while magic is produced by the intellect. The intellect is called the “ego”. Here it is referred to by the word “egocentricity”. The intellect is also referred to by the word “fear”. These are repetitions of ‘depreciation’ The “ego” is “therefore likely to misunderstand” anything the AUTHOR is saying. If you point out a contradiction, then you must be wrong. Why? ...
Because you can’t understand anything the AUTHOR is saying. He is trying very hard to make it hard for us to understand, but if we repeat the truth every time we intercept an untruth then his efforts become counterproductive. But I can't do it alone.

2:5.2,5: “Under these conditions, it is safer for you to rely temporarily on physical healing devises, because you cannot misperceive them as your own creations.”
.. Notice the word “temporarily” again. Physical solutions to physical problems are first conceived by the intellect (B) then the mind (C) decides on HOW to apply the theoretical (B) solution in practice (D) C’s instructions are given to D because only on the “physical” level can physical solutions be implemented. …
So why should the work your intellect (B), your mind (C) and your body (D) does not be “your own creations”? …

2:5.2,6: “As long as your sense of vulnerability persists, you should not attempt to perform miracles.”
. According to the AUTHOR anything negative is produced by the intellect. Here it is the “sense of vulnerability”. So, as long as the “ego” is productive in you, “you should not attempt to perform miracles.” In fact you shouldn't use the “ego” (B) at all.

7:4.1,7: “The state [the “state of mind that does not know Him.”] is unknown to Him, and therefore does not exist, but those who sleep are unaware. (8) Because they are unaware, they do not know.” …

========================================================

September 28, 2011 . . . . . . ACIM

(7: mistake) 2:5.1,5: “None of these errors is meaningful, because the miscreations of the mind do not really exist.”
. Those readers who have swallowed “Enough(Zu)” of the AUTHOR’s hooks don’t have to worry about whether what I have just said is true or not. Why? …
Because it does “not really exist.”

2:5.1,6: “This recognition is a far better protective device than any form of level confusion, because it introduces correction at the level of the error.”
. When you use “level confusion” as a “protective device” you have to program the mind (C) in such a way that it “controls” the intellect. By simply saying that whatever the intellect produces does “not really exist” you are dealing with the intellect directly on “level” B. This is “a far better protective device”. It protects the AUTHOR from the attacks of the “ego” (B) more efficiently than “level confusion” does.
2:6.2,1: “I do not foster level confusion, ….” I guess we are not supposed to notice the contradiction.

2:5.1,7: “It is essential to remember that only the mind can create, and that correction belongs at the thought level.”
. The “thought level” is level B. That tells us that by “mind”, here, is meant the intellect (B). The intellect (B) can create best at the “thought level” but if that were the “only” level the mind (B) can create on then I couldn’t do this writing (C) here. Each “source”, or part of the tetrad “can create” the soul (A) can create poetry (A) the intellect can use it but it cannot create it. The intellect can create true ideas which the communicators can use but not create. Truth is the lifeblood of democracy. If the communicators could produce the truth, which, when known, will set the people free, then we would have democracy now. If the unelected advisors (B) of our politicians (C) could lie as well as these “TalkErs(C2er)” can then they wouldn’t need them.
. The word “correction” means here, to decommission the intellect.

2:5.1,8: “To amplify an earlier statement, spirit is already perfect and therefore does not require correction.”
.. Spirit is on the other side of the “Door, Dasamadwara” (A). Since there is no time and space, not only is correction there not required, but not possible. To manifest the “Eternal(Cn)” in time and space requires the conditions we are in. Strangely enough, the AUTHOR keeps repeating in different “forms” that this world is an illusion. And it is “eikasia (509d)” as Plato calls it and MAYA as the Hindus call it but there is energy behind this illusion and that’s why it is real to us.
. Most of us are only one step removed from completing the big deduction-induction cycle. If the AUTHOR is on level B of the deductive cycle then he would be five steps removed from completing the inductive cycle. Somehow time is running out for them. There is talk about 2012 being the deadline. Anyway, to pull of a thing like 9/11 is an indication that the illuminati are getting desperate. There is no way they can catch up with us. Defenders of the COURSE will call this an unproven “Ridiculous(*41)” theory (B) but it is based on Steiner’s theory. And if he is wrong, I am in good company.

2:5.1,9: “The body does not exist except as a learning device for the mind.” Our bio-computer is the “means” to execute the AUTHOR’s programs. Also our eyes (D) and inner ears carry his messages to the mind (C). So it is very likely that he calls the “body …. a learning device for the mind.” But the “body does not exist”. How then can something that does not exist be “a learning device”. Since we are not supposed to interpret his sentences, we are not supposed to ask these questions.

2:5.1,10: “This learning device is not subject to errors of its own, because it cannot create.” A computer can break down. Then it stops altogether, but “it cannot create” errors of its own as long as it is working.

2:5.1,11: “It is obvious, then, that inducing the mind [B] to give up its miscreations is the only application of creative ability that is truly meaningful.”
. It is not obvious to those who didn’t swallow “Enough(Zu)” of the AUTHOR’s hooks. If you have swallowed enough hooks then you will believe that the intellect can only create “miscreations”

2:5.2,1: “Magic is the mindless or the miscreative use of mind.” …

=====================================================

September 28, 2011 . . . . . . . ACIM

7:5.1,1: “Before miracle workers are ready to undertake their function in the world, it is essential that they fully understand the fear of release.” …
7:5.1,1: Miracle workers, understand, the fear of release.
. Notice that I have separated Subject, connective, predicate by commas. Once you got used to this convention, we will save time with it. You will also notice that this is not what the AUTHOR said. But it may be implied. And even the basic subject, verb, predicate core of the sentence is hard to understand. It is supposed to be. That’s why we have to learn to do the syntactic work that can be done in the syntactic dimension of semiotics by computation (C). In other words, we have to do it automatically (E6). But before we can do that, we have to do it …
consciously (A) by thinking (B). So please try to follow me. What is the subject of this sentence? …
Let us just assume for now that there are readers who have swallowed “Enough(Zu) of the AUTHOR’s hooks. The connective is the verb. So, after reading the subject, we ask …
What does it do? …
Properly “trained” miracle workers “understand”. What do they understand? …
The fear of release. What is that? …
Let’s try the ‘reversal’. We must always apply this operation automatically (E6). …
Wherever it applies. What does the reversal do here? …
The AUTHOR programs the mind (C) to do it by computation (C). What do we have to do? ...
The same thing. But we have to do it by thinking (B). …
Miracle workers are “trained” to “release” the intellect. The word “fear” always refers to the intellect. The word “release” appears here for the first time in what I have typed. But I have to find the word where it appears elsewhere in the text. So I went to The World’s Biggest Bookstore here in Toronto to buy an eBook for over $500 under condition of installing A Course In Miracles in it The staff was very cooperative. It took three experts about three hours to supply my demand. When the job was finally done, I asked the experts How to use the FIND function? …
The experts tried but couldn’t do it, but they sold me the 300 page BLACKBERRY PLAY BOOK COMPANION for about thirty bucks and said it’s in there. When I got home I wasted more of my time trying to find instructions on how to use the FIND function. Maybe I am just stupid but I could find no reference to it. So that $500 toy is now on a shelf and I am not going to look at it again. My time and energy is better invested in doing my own dharma.

7:5.1,2: “Otherwise they may unwittingly foster the belief that release is imprisonment, a belief that is already very prevalent.”
7:5.1,2: Release is imprisonment. No wonder that this view is “very prevalent”. Those of us who don’t allow the AUTHOR to program our mind would naturally come to that conclusion. Can you see it? …
To replace the untruth of the AUTHOR wants us to believe, we must look for more reliable sources of information. I have found the the Ching the Gita and THE HOLY SCIENCE very reliable. Let’s use Sutra 14: ”PURUSHA IS COVERED BY FIVE KOSHAS OR SHEATHS.”. We can think of these sheaths like the layers on onions around the core. The “core” is compared to a drop in the ocean or a spark of the divine. It is first enclosed, or imprisoned by our soul (A), or the Atman in Sanskrit. As the soul encloses the core, so our intellect (B, Buddhi) encloses the soul. As B encloses A, so our mind (B, manas) encloses the intellect. As C encloses B so our body (D, the Indriyas) encloses the mind. And as D encloses C, so the world (E8) encloses our body. The law of correspondence is universal. This is why, by reversing the sequence, we can use analogy. …
As the world imprisons our body, so our body imprisons our mind, and as D imprisons C so C imprisons B. … How do we get out of prison? …
At the point of death we have served our time. But if we have still bad karma left, we are only out on parole to work if off. I guess the Illuminati haven’t been out for parole for a long time because they seem to have no intention of being rehabilitated.
. Now comes a really good question: Why would “release” from the intellect be called “imprisonment”? …
The natural enclosure of the intellect by the mind still gives the intellect some freedom. …
It can reach up to the level above its own in order to become more creative and it can reach down to the level below to help those below to become more creative on their level. That kind of activity works off bad karma very efficiently and if you have no bad karma left you will be released without having to serve parole. The reason “control” of the intellect by the programmed mind (C) is called “imprisonment” is because …
The AUTHOR programs the mind (C) in such a way that the intellect can no longer reach up nor down.
. How do people who “foster the belief that release is imprisonment” arrive at that conclusion? …
“unwittingly”. Not true. HOW do they arrive at it? …
By thinking (B). Under what conditions do they arrive at it? …
By refusing to allow the AUTHOR to “release” or to decommission their intellect.

7:5.1,3: “This misinterpretation arises in turn from the belief that harm can be limited to the body.”
. The author knows that this is not true. If he didn’t know that then his COURSE wouldn’t be designed to program the body. Once the mind is programmed, it can not only do “harm” to the body but, because it is faster than the intellect, it can be programmed to do harm to the intellect as well. And that is what the COURSE is designed to do.

7:5.1,4: “That is because of the underlying fear that the mind can hurt itself can hurt itself.” We have here a play on words. The COURSE is translated into 16 languages. I assume that German is one of them. German is my mother tongue, so I am curious how this sentence is translated into German.
. In English “mind” can mean “mind” (C) and “mind” (B). Knowing this, how would you interpret this sentence? …
Remember that the AUTHOR is programming the mind to understand the “meaning” of the message while the “form” it takes is designed to bypass the intellect (B). …
“Fear” can mean fear and intellect which, according to the AUTHOR, is the producer of fear. Given this information, how would you interpret 7:5.1,4? …
The “mind [C] can hurt” and does hurt the “mind” (B). It “can hurt itself”, as the AUTHOR puts it. The “fear” the intellect has of the AUTHOR is perfectly justified. The “fear” is a warning of the intellect (B) to the soul (A). It is a wakeup call.

7:5.1,5: “None of these errors is meaningful, because the miscreations of the mind [B] do not really exist.” …

====================================================

September 26, 2011 . . . . . . . . ACIM
. In the last section, below this one, I said: “The illuminat[i]e know that 'THOUGHTS INCREASE BY BEING GIVEN AWAY'. And that's what they are not doing.” That was a mistake: That' precisely what they are doing.

2:4.5,1: “The value of the Atonement does not lie in the manner in which it is expressed.”
2:4.5,1: . The value of the Atonement does not lie in the “form” in which it is expressed.
. In the June 4 section we have:
7:2.4,4: The “whole purpose [of a translation] is to change the form so that the original meaning is retained.”
7:2.5,3: “Therefore, He opposes the idea that differences in form are meaningful, emphasizing always that THESE DIFFERENCES DO NOT MATTER.”
. The “Atonement” always “means” the same no matter in which “form …. it is expressed.” The reason it has to be expressed in different forms is …
that you don’t notice the repetitions.

7:4.5,2: “In fact, if it is used truly, it will inevitably be expressed in whatever way is the most helpful to the receiver.”
7:2.4,1: “Laws must be communicated if they are to be helpful.”
. Truth or untruth must be communicated (C) if it is to be applied in practice (D).

7:4.5,3: “This means that a miracle, to attain its full efficacy, must be expressed in a language that the recipient can understand without fear.”
. Some sentences in the COURSE are expressed in a language the unprepared reader can not possibly understand. But what does the author mean by: “…. can understand without fear? …
Remember that “fear” represents the intellect. In other words the AUTHOR’s messages must be …
slipped past the intellect. Since we are intercepting these messages, in time we will know what the AUTHOR is doing. But I can’t do it alone. We need the DIVISION OF LABOR. The semantic (B), the syntactic (C) and the pragmatic (D) dimensions of semiotics are the divisions in which thinkers (B), communicators (C) and pragmatists (D) specialize. For instance the unelected advisors (B) specialize in thinking and their politicians (C) do the talking. It works very well for them. Obviously they don’t want us to know that.

7:4.5,4: “This does not necessarily mean that this is the highest level of communication of which he is capable.”
. The “recipient’ of the AUTHOR’s messages is the mind (C). The mind, like a computer, can’t think (B). It can only compute (C) what it is programmed to compute. As long as the mind is not fully programmed, the it does not work at full capacity for the AUTHOR, which is not “the highest level of communication of which he is capable.”

7:4.5,5: “It does mean, however, that it is the highest level of communication of which he is capable NOW.” It is the highest level to which it as been programmed so far.

7:4.5,6: “The whole aim of the miracle is to raise the level of communication and not to lower it by increasing fear.”
7:4.5,6a: The aim of the AUTHOR is to program the mind (C).
7:4.5,6b: To accomplish this he must get our permission, somehow, and he must get around the intellect. The word “fear” always refers to the intellect.

7:5.1,1: “Before miracle workers are ready to undertake their function in the world, it is essential that they fully understand the fear of release.” …
Try a 'reversal'. We always have to try these things on for size. ...
The release of fear. ...

=====================================================

September 25, 2011 . . . . . . ACIM
. In the previous section, below, I said under 2:4.3,10: “.... or we don’t and get confused.” That should be: “.... and get hoocked,”
. I came accross Mark 8:36: “For what shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world and lose his own soul”? ...
That should be inserted before 2:4.2,6 in the September 23 section.

2:4.4,1: “All material means that you accept as remedies for bodily ills are restatements of magic principles.”
. It may not look it, but this is a tough one. We have to take it one phrase at a time. The word “are” is the connective here, which clearly tells us what the subject and what the predicate of the sentence are.
. The three phrases are like the links of a chain, which is only as strong as its weakest link. The weakest link here is the predicate, but let us start with the subject. It states that “material means” are “remedies for bodily ills” or material problems. It further states that the belief in that are “restatements of magic principles”. To understand what this sentence “means” we must know what the AUTHOR means by “magic principles”. You can Google this phrase but that isn’t what the AUTHOR “means”. Let us go back to 2:4.2, 6, 7 and 8: Our physical body can produce effects in the physical world. Believing this is supposed to be “a fundamental error”. We are then told that this is a “distortion that made magic rest on [that] belief”. At 2:4.2,9, this belief is called an “error”.
. So, here, at 2:4.4,1, we are supposed to believe that” Material means are not means for correcting “bodily ills” or material problems.

2:4.4,2: “This is the first step in believing that the body makes its own illnesses.”
. To understand the second sentence of 2:4.4 we have to understand the first one. The AUTHOR counts on us not doing the work we have just done. If you are not clear about it, go back to 2:4.2 and spend some time on it. Please don’t just believe me.
. If we believe what the AUTHOR wants us to believe then “All material means that you accept as remedies for bodily ills” “don’e exist”. Since I am quite familiar with the Aristotelian tetrad, telling me that I am wrong is like saying that Aristotle was wrong. The Aristotelian tetrad was used in designing the IBM computer programming system. It works, therefore Aristotle was not wrong.

2:4.4,3: “It is a second misstep to attempt to heal it through non-creative agents.’
. According to the AUTHOR, the intellect is a “non-creative agent”. We are told here that using the intellect to solve problems “is a second misstep”. If we had not worked on 2:4.4,1 we wouldn’t know that “the first step” was not a misstep either. We wouldn’t know that the AUTHOR is lying to us.

2:4.4,4: “It does not follow, however, that the use of such agents for corrective purposes is evil.” No, it is not “evil”, neither is it wrong.

2:4.4,5: “Sometimes the illness has a sufficiently strong hold over the mind to render a person temporarily inaccessible to the Atonement.”
. The word “mind” here refers to the intellect (B). According to the AUTHOR, the intellect is sick. Notice also the word “temporarily”. According to him eventually everybody is going to accept the Atonement. If it were not for this hook and the ‘depreciation’ in this statement, it would be pure bait.

2:4.4,6: “In this case it may be wise to utilize a compromise approach to mind and body, in which something from the outside is temporarily given a healing belief.”
. The “mind” here is again the intellect. In spite of all the ‘depreciation’, it takes time to decommission it completely. The AUTHOR tells his “students” to be patient. You have to “temporarily” put up with the “eggo” (B).

2:4.4,7: “This is because the last thing that can help the non-right-minded, or the sick is an increase in fear.” Fear always refers to the intellect. So, if you are still using it then you are; “non-right-minded, or …. Sick”.

2:4.4,8: “They are already in a fear-weakened state,” ‘Depreciation’. A repetition.

2:4.4,9: “If they are prematurely exposed to a miracle, they may be precipitated into panic”, they may wake up.

2:4.4,10: “This is likely to occur when upside down perception has induced the belief that miracles are frightening.”
. They are not “frightening”, but they are dangerous as long as we are not ready for them. The intellect is blamed for the “upside-down perception”.
. Over the last few sections a number of valuable “Insights(72)” havw come to me, which now help me to interpret tough paragraphs, which before I had to skip. They are written in such a way that makes it obvious that the AUTHOR doesn’t want us to understand them. If you were able to follow me up to here then you can see that we are onto something good.
. Please remember also what the AUTHOR has said at
5:1.2,2 and 3: If you understand (B) a truth and you think (B), or talk (C), about it “Enough(Zu)” then it will become a representation (C). Then not only your own “Thoughts” become “STRONGER” but they go automatically (E6) into the Akashic Field from where they help others to understand them as well. Since the truth is on our side, the Law of Attraction should work better for us than for the laggards. Please help me to verify this theory (B). …
. In his COURSE, the AUTHOR is teaching what his fellow members are teaching through the Educational System they control, and through the mass media they own. That makes the falsehoods in the COURSE STRONGER and easier to believe (C). The illuminate know that: “THOUGHTS INCREASE BY BEING GIVEN AWAY”. And that’s what they are not doing. They are just more careful than the AUTHOR is. They don’t spill the beans as carelessly as the he does. Please help me to make use of it before they stop this valuable leak.
. Ahmadinejad’s talk at the 66th UN assembly is another encouraging step in the right
direction. His script writers knew what they were talking about. It is possible to criticise his own regime, but when it comes to the truth it doesn’t matter who says it, what matters is WHAT is said. I mean, even the bait in the AUTHOR’s COURSE is useful to us.

2:4.5,1: “The value of the Atonement does not lie in the manner in which it is expressed.” …

========================================================

September 24, 2011 . . . . . . . . ACIM

2:4.3,1: “Only the mind can create because the spirit has already been created, and the body is a learning device for the mind.”
2:4.3,1a: Not only the mind (C, B or A) can create. We are the whole of A, B, C and D, that is greater than the sum of its parts if …
all of our four parts work at full capacity.
2:4.3,1b: That God, our creator, has created us is true. This is a bit of bait thrown in.
2:4.3,1c: If “the body is a learning device” then it must exist. This is contradicted by what the AUTHOR has said elsewhere. Take:
6:5A.2,2: “Te body is the symbol of what you think you are. (3) It is clearly a separation device, and therefore does not exist.”
. As I was looking for examples of contradictions, I stumbled across this one:
7:1.1,7: “Parents give birth to children, but children do not give birth to parents. (8) They do, however, give birth to their children, and thus give birth as their parents do.” This is a subtle one, which I wouldn’t have noticed a Week ago. …
We can give birth to our parents in another lifetime, We don’t remember that, but the illuminati do.
7:4.1,7: “The state is unknown to him and therefore does not exist but those who sleep are unaware. (8) Because they are unaware, they do not know.” This is not directly about the “body” but there is “Enough(Zu)” bait in it to make it worth quoting. …
As long as we don’t know what the AUTHOR is doing, we can’t be aware of it. This is a simple case of ‘reversal’. We must always try that one on for size. As we repeat these ideas (B) they become representation (C), and then we catch more of his lies. Then the Law of attraction kicks in and we become more “aware” of what he is doing automatically (E6).
. The AUTHOR always tries to make the “ego” (B) to “disappear”.
7:6.11,4: ” …. the ego is, (5) Nothing. (6) It has no meaning. (7) It does not exist. (8) Do not try to understand it because, if you do” use your intellect, you might find a flaw in what I say. At best, the “ego” is merely a learning device:

2:4.3,2: “Learning devices are not lessons in themselves. (3) Their purpose is merely to facilitate learning. (4) The worst a faulty use of a learning devise can do is to fail to facilitate learning. (5) It has no power in itself to introduce actual learning errors. ….” The idea is to program the mind (C) so that the intellect (B) “has no power” to interfere with what the AUTHOR is doing. The AUTHOR 'depreciates' the “ego” (B) in almost every sentence. After we have excluded the ‘depreciations’, what is left is the “meaning”. If nothing else is left then nothing else is said. We merely have a repetition.

2:4.3,6: “The body, if properly understood, shares the invulnerability of the Atonement to two-edged application.”
. The bio-computer is part of our physical body. It, “if properly understood”, is seen as part of the process of computing (C). The “Atonement” is the program the computer executes. The computer is neutral and invulnerable. It simply executes the programs that are fed into it To determine whether they are harmful to us or not, is not its job.

2:4.3,7: “This is not because the body is a miracle, but because it is not inherently open to misinterpretation.”
2:4.3,7a: The AUTHOR has called the “miracle” a “means”. And I have interpreted it as the “means” to execute the program, which is the “Atonement”. This statement seems to support my assumption.
2:4.3,7b: The computer merely executes programs, good or bad, in a predetermined way. This is why “it is not inherently open to misinterpretation.”

2:4.3,8: “The body is merely part of your experience in the physical world.” This is true. This would be pure bait if elsewhere the AUTHOR didn’t say that the body does “not exist”.

2:4.3,9: “Its abilities can be and frequently are overvalued.” Soul (A), intellect (B), mind (C) and body (D) are like the links of a chain. If the truth is known, no link will be “overvalued”. Our weakest “source” needs most of our attention but that has nothing to do with over or under-valuing it.
2:4.3,10: “However, it is almost impossible to deny its existence in the world.” Then why did he say that it does “not exist”? ...
In contradicting himself he is causing confusion. We either catch it and learn something, or we don't and get confused. If we automatically (E6) know that this is WHAT he wants then we pay more attention (A) to WHAT he says.

2:4.3,11: “Those who do so are engaging in a particularly unworthy form of denial.”
. At 2:7.1,5 the AUTHOR denies that he ‘depreciates’ “the power of your own thinking.” And yet, he does it in just about every sentence. So why should we believe (C) that he doesn't engage in this “particularly unworthy form of denial” here? ...

2:4.3,12: “The term ‘unworthy’ here implies only that it is not necessary to protect the mind by denying the unmindful.” If the “mind” (C) is properly programmed by the AUTHOR then it protects itself automatically (E6) from the “unmindful” intellect.

2:4.3,13: “If one denies this unfortunate aspect of the mind’s power, one is also denying the power itself.” The “mind” here means mind (B). The “mind’s power” refers to the intellect’s intelligence. To deny it is to deny the AUTHOR’s intelligence as well. It takes intelligence to deal with the AUTHOR’s intelligence. If you are not ready for it, you end up being confused and feeling stupid. Which is his intention.

2:4.4,1: “All material means that you accept as remedies for bodily ills are restatements of magic principles.” …

===================================================

September 23, 2011 . . . . . . ACIM
. Canada’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, John Baird “ordered that Canada’s seat be vacant at the Ahmadinejad’s speech at the UN. He said: “We are refusing to give Ahmadinejad an audience”. Who are “We”? …
Those of us who have heard him before might want to hear him again. I Googled: Ahmadinejad 66th UN and clicked on: Statement by Mahmoud
. His speech happened to fill in a lot of detail on the “minority of laggards “ I have identified in the last few sections.
. You may find it hard to believe that the AUTHOR is one of them because he is dead. You don’t have to be alive to be a member of the Illuminati. Remember that only our body (D) dies. Our soul (A), intellect (B) and mind (C) go round and round on the deduction-induction cycle. The AUTHOR, right now, is outside the limitations of time and space. That’s why he has a certain degree of omniscience (E3), omnipresence (E2) and even omnipotence (E1). However, as he tells us himself, he doesn’t see the world the way we see it. For this reason dictating the COURSE might have been a mistake. In fact, the more we learn from it, the more it looks like a major mistake.
7:5.7,5: “True learning is constant, and so vital in its power for change that a Son of God can recognize his power in one instant and change the world in the next.”
. I have quoted this one in the July 8 section, but until now I didn’t really understand it.
. John Baird’s attempt to prevent us from hearing Ahmadinejad’s talk was counterproductive. Thanks to him I have the eight page printout of the speech now.
. On page four we read” An assembly of people in contradiction with the inner human instincts and disposition who also have no faith in God …. Replace their lust for power and materialistic ends with heavenly values.” They seem to have replaced their soul with that “altar”, the AUTHOR is talking about. They seem to be able to fill it with intellectual (B), political (C) and economic (D) knowledge of “power”, take it with them to the other side at death and bring it back with them to this side at birth. While the soul has to forget previous lives at birth, they are able to store that knowledge in their “altar”. No wonder they don’t want us to know about reincarnation.
. But the price they are paying for these “powers” is their soul. They have no soul, they are “Not Human (PU%5)”. And some psychics are actually able to see them. There are “Intelligent Individuals (wsmn) who are InHumane (PU%5), they “Treat(Wy)“ The People (YI%i#sWy) like Straw Dogs (*a*b)”. *a = Ch’u140. *b = Kou94. In other words, they treat us the way Ahmadinejad has pointed out in his speech.

2:4.2,6: “The body cannot create, and the belief that it can, a fundamental error, produces all physical symptoms.”
. The body cannot create on levels A, B and C. It is not designed to do that. Neither can the soul (A), the intellect (B) and the mind (C) create on the physical (D) level. Why? …
You need a physical body to work on the physical world. That's why “The body …. produces all physical” effects.
. The AUTHOR has been around the deduction-induction cycle often enough. And as his “altar” comes along with him, he becomes more and more aware of the things that are only theory (B) to me. When somebody knowingly utters an “untruth” then it is a lie.
. If the AUTHOR calls the fact that our physical body can produce physical effects “a fundamental error” then we have just caught him at a blatant lie. As long as we can’t identify an error in a statement that has an error in it, it will remain incomprehensible to us. And, as I suspect, that is his intention.

In 2:4.2,7 and 8 the “fundamental error” is called “magic”. These are repetitions.

2:4.2,8: “The whole distortion that made magic, rests on the belief that there is a creative ability in matter which the mind cannot control.” Here the truth is called a “distortion”.
. Analogy is a thinking tool. The examples we can use here are the construction business and the IBM computer programming system. In both cases, the contractor (C) or the coder (C) tells the subcontractors (D) or the computer (D) what to do. It looks to me that we have caught the AUTHOR at another lie because there is no way that he doesn’t know this. And, again, without catching the lie the statement remains incomprehensible to us.

2:4.2,9: “This error can take two forms; it can be believed that the mind can miscreate in the body, or that the body can miscreate in the mind.”
. In the first form the coder (C) can give the wrong instructions to the computer, which will cause the computer to “miscreate’. How does D “miscreate” in C? …
For that we have to go back to Sutra 14: For the mind, the MANOMAYA KOSHA (C), to move up, inductively, the PRANAMAYA KOSHA (D) has to be “withdrawn”. If it does not withdraw enough, it will cause the mind to “miscreate”. Other tan calling the truth an “error”, I can’t see a mistake in this sentence but we can see from it that the AUTHOR knows about the top-down and bottom-up phases of the big cycle, which the laggards seem to be able to remember because they bring their “altar” with them. I must repeat that this is theory (B) only, but it is a theory worth keeping in mind.

2:4.2,10: “When it is understood that the mind, the only level of creation, cannot create beyond itself, neither type of confusion need occur.”
2:4.2,10a: The mind is not “the only level of creation” there are four. Each one of the four “sources”, or parts of the tetrad, reaches up to the level above it to be able to be creative on its own level and it reaches down to enable those on the level below them to be creative on their level.
. For instance, I need the poetry, and even the COURSE, which come to me through A, to do the thinking I do on my own level. The writing (C) I am doing here is not thinking (B). I do this writing to give “WordErs(C2er)” something worthwhile to write about. Even though I can’t write as well as a writer (C) can write, you can’t say that I am not doing this writing (C).
2:4.2,10b: If the AUTHOR did not intentionally try to confuse us then this “confusion need [not] occur.”

2:4.3,1: “Only the mind can create because spirit has already been created, and the body is a learning device for the mind.” …

================================================

September 22, 2011 . . . . . . . ACIM
. Today’s Toronto Sun: “Foreign Affairs Minister, John Baird .... ordered that Canada’s seat be vacant. .... ‘We are refusing to give Ahmedidejad an audience’.” There are falsehoods in his talk, but that’s not why we are not allowed to listen to him. It is the truth we are not supposed to hear. If we are not supposed to hear something, then we have to hear it: Google: Amadinejad 66th UN and click on: Statement by Muhmud ....

2:4.1,2: “The miracle is the means, the Atonement is the principle, and healing is the result.”
. Healing is the “result” (E8), or outcome, of a triad in which the program (C) is the initiating impulse and the computer (D) is the “means” by which the program is executed. If this interpretation is correct then we have the E6-E7-E8 “TriAd(_3ad)” here.
. When you see how hard it is to understand some sentences in the COURSE, and after you got “Enough(Zu)” of them, you can see that the AUTHOR uses obscurantism to prevent us from understanding what he has dictated. What he didn’t count on is J. G. Bennett’s Systematics. We have to hold this assumption in suspense to see whether what we get later verifies or falsifies it.

2:4.1,3: “To speak of ‘a miracle healing’ is to combine two orders of reality inappropriately. (4) Healing is not a miracle.” It is the outcome of a threefold process in which the “Atonement” is the initiating impulse and the “miracle” is the “means”, or connective. When the reconciling impulse is in the middle, I call it the “connective”.

2:4.1,5: “The Atonement, or the final miracle, is a remedy and any type of healing is the result.” Our bio-computer is always the same but the programs which are fed into it to be executed can be different. Thus, “any type of healing [can be] the result” of these computations (C).

2:4.1,6: “The kind of error to which Atonement is applied is irrelevant” But the “error” that has to be “corrected” is always caused by the “ego” (B). .

2:4.1,7: “All healing is essentially the release from fear.” The word “fear” represents the intellect. So “All healing is …. release from” the intellect.

2:4.1,8: “To undertake this you cannot be fearful yourself.” You can’t use the intellect to “depreciate” the intellect.

2:4.1,9: “ You do not understand healing because of your own fear”, because of your own “ego”. The intellect (B) can “understand” (B) what the AUTHOR means by “healing” but that is not what he wants us to believe (C). You cannot “understand” (B) an “untruth”, you can only be made to believe (C) it. If a lie or the truth is repeated often enough then it will become a representation (C). And then there is no more difference between lies and the truth. Why? …
Because they are no longer questioned. Representations (C) are automatically (E6) assumed to be true.

2:4.2: In the May 11 section I have dealt with 2:4.2,1 to 2:4.2,5.
2:4.2,1: There I said: “If we substitute the customer’s “job-description” (A) for “the Atonement plan” ….” Since May we have learned a bit more about the “Atonement” It is not the second phase (B) of the 4-fold process but it is about programming in general, it is about all four phases.
2:4.2,2 is still up to date, but 2:4.2,3 is missing.
2:4.2,3: “We have referred to miracles as the means of correcting level confusion, for all mistakes must be corrected at the level on which they occur.”
2:4.2,3a: The computer is still the “means” to execute the program.
2:4.2,3b: The AUTHOR is causing “level confusion” by programming the mind (C) to “control” the intellect (B). This is possible because the mind (C) is faster than the intellect. So not the intellect’s “mistakes” should “be corrected” But the AUTHOR’s “level confusion”.
. “The disciple is not above his master (Luke 6:40)”. To program the mind (C) to “control” the intellect (B), you must know what you are doing. If an “untruth” is uttered intentionally then it is a lie.

2:4.2,4: and (5) are still up to date. From there I jump to 2:6.9,1. Many paragraphs are out of order, because I follow Lao Tzu’s advise: Don't bite off more than you can chew. What a communicator (C) has to do is edit my interpretations and put them in order and to make the 669 pages of the “text” accessible in a separate file. This separation is useful because, when using the FIND function you want the one OR the other, not the one AND the other.

2:4.2,6: “The body cannot create, and the belief that it can, a fundamental error, produces all physical symptoms” or manifestations (D). …
. We must use the construction business or the IBM computer programming system to understand what the AUTOR is talking about and to find out WHAT he is doing. …

====================================================

September 22, 2011 . . . . . . ACIM
. In the September 17 section, I have quoted Ching 40.2 to show that Lao Tzu knows the Aristotelian Syllogisms. But he knows more. He also knows the Law of Correspondence:
Ching 40.2: As above, in “Heaven, so Below (Tn_-), on earth. as
All Things Come From Existence (WnwUSgtoYU) so
Existence Comes From Nonexistence (YUSgtoWU).”
. To replace the “untruth” with the “truth”, we can use the bait, we get from the AUTHOR, or we can use more reliable sources like the Tao Te Ching.
. As existence follows non-existence so non-existence follows existence in the great deduction-induction cycle. As summer follows winter so winter follows summer. No problem there. So HOW can the AUTHOR make us believe that this is not true? …
By using the science of social engineering. By interpreting the AUTHOR’s sentences we can find out HOW it works. The very fact that the AUTOR tells us not to do that means, according to Ching 41.1, that this is what we have to do.

2:3.5,7: “He depends on them BECAUSE He created them perfect.”
2:3.5,6: “God and his creations are completely dependent on each other.”
“God”, here, represents the AUTHOR. He is the creator and “his creations” are the created. He can “depend” on God’s and his own creations because the programs (C) and the computer (D) that executes them are created perfect.
. Creator and created are the subject-object dyad. The poles of a polarity “are completely dependent on each other.” You can’t have the one without the other.
. You can’t get the antithesis without the thesis and you can’t get the synthesis without the thesis-antithesis “DyAd(dyad)”. In the B-C-D “TriAd(_3ad)” Theory and practice is the B-D dyad.
. The B-C-D triad is semiotics. This is a very important concept, so our political masters have contracted the obscurantist, Derrida, to make it “disappear”. It is also what science is based on. The scientific hypothesis is developed in the semantic (B) dimension of semiotics (please do some Googling here), The decision to carryout the tests, or not, is made in the syntactic (C) dimension and the tests are carried out in the pragmatic dimension.
. From this you can see that the thinkers (B) and the pragmatists (D) don’t decide where science is going but the people who decide (C) in what to invest their money. This is obviously something else the Illuminati don’t want us to know
. One we know WHAT the AUTHOR wants to accomplish, interpreting his sentences becomes easier.

2:3.5,8: “He gave them [his “children”] His peace so they could not be shaken and could not be deceived” by the intellect (B). To accomplish that, he needs a “perfect” computer program and social engineering to install it in your mind (C). If you don't allow him to install it in your mind, the “perfect” program is useless.

2:3.5,9: “Whenever you are afraid you are deceived, and your mind cannot serve the Holy Spirit.”
2:3.5,9a: According to the AUTHOR, it is the intellect that causes you to be afraid. The word “Fear” represents the intellect in the COURSE.
2:3.5,9b: When your intellect (B) is in control “your mind [C] cannot serve the” AUTHOR.

2:3.5,10: “This starves you by denying you your daily bread,” ‘Depreciation’.

2:3.5,11: “God is lonely without His Sons, and they are lonely without Him.”
. The creating subject and his created objects are the poles of a polarity. You can’t have one pole without the other. In the “DyAd(dyad)” the poles are opposites; in the “TriAd(_3ad)” they become complements. Each pole needs its complement to become whole.

2:3.5,12: “They must learn to look upon the world as a means of healing the separation” the intellect has caused “the separation” in order to create “the world”. HOW is the AUTHOR going to use “the world” to undo the “separation”? …

2:3.5,13: “The Atonement is the guarantee that they will ultimately succeed.”
If the “Atonement” is like a computer program then this statement makes “perfect” sense.

2:4.1,1: “Our emphasis is now on healing. (2) The miracle is the means, the Atonement is the principle, and healing is the result.” …
For this one we need systematics. If you know enough of it, please try. …

=======================================================

September 20, 2011 . . . . . . . . ACIM
. In the September 17 section I said: “We have ‘Arrived($1)’ at [the end of] the deductive process.” The phrase in square brackets was missing.
. In the September 18 section I said: “Going all the way down to level D and then ‘Returning($l)’ is much easier.” “easier” should be “harder”.
. It is “easier” to “Return($l)” from level B by going back up to the “Eternal(Cn)” than going all the way around the big deduction-induction cycle back to the “Eternal.
. These two mistakes have drawn our attention (A) to details that help us to understand why the minority is doing what it is doing.
. Since the AUTHOR is on the down cycle he can go back up easily because that’s where he has come from. But following the deductive operation downwards takes more time and effort for him because he didn’t get there yet. I can do this writing (C) because I am with the majority on the up cycle. I have done the writing (C) before, so I can’t do it again. But I can’t do the poetry (A), which I need to do my thinking (B) because …
I have not reached level A yet.

2:3.5,4: “The Atonement is the only gift that is worthy of being offered at the altar of God, because of the value of the altar itself.”
. “Atonement” has been capitalized. It is a keyword. What does “Atonement” mean? …
The word itself tells us that different parts “Unite($1)” in “One(_1)” whole, which is greater than the sum of its parts. The word comes up frequently so what can we learn from what I have copied so far? …
“Atonement” is the opposite of the “separation”. We are also told that everything good comes from the AUTHOR and everything bad comes from the intellect (B), which he calls “ego”. We are also told that the “Atonement” is good and that the “separation” is bad. Having been a programmer myself, what I have read about it so far, cause me to compare it with a computer program. It is a program written for our bio-computer, which is in our brain (B). The computer (D), is hardware and the program that is executed by computer (D) is software. As our intellect (B) does the thinking (B) so our mind (C) does the computing (C).
. A computer program is developed as follows: A customer (A) produces the demand. That is WHAT the computer (D) is to produce. The Customer gets a supplier to supply the demand by paying for the job, or talking him into doing it by promising “comfort”, “peace”, “serenity” and other nice things.
. The supplier is a team of three members. They do the: …
thinking (B) talking (C) and the physical (D) work. The B-C-D triad is semiotics. Because this is such an important concept, the obscurantist, Derrida, was commissioned to make it “disappear”.
. Supplying a demand begins with thought (B). In the IBM computer programming system the programmer (B) does the “job-analysis”. This produces the algorithm, which is the general plan of HOW the demand can be supplied.
2:4.2,1: “A major step in the Atonement plan is to undo error on all levels.” The “Atonement plan” is a more general plan than the algorithm. The “error” in a program can be caused by the customer (A), the programmer (B), the coder (C) or the computer (D). How do you find these possible errors? …
By having the computer run the program. The program will ether run as predicted or not. If a theory (B) does what it is expected to do then it is true; if not then not. Only after “error on all levels” is undone can the program be called “perfect”.

2:3.5,5: “It [the bio computer] was created perfect and is entirely worthy of receiving perfection. …. He created them perfect.” Can you see the twist here? …
The real God created the bio-computer perfect, while the AUTHOR created the programmes, that are executed by it, perfect.
. The algorithm is given to the coder (C) in the form of a flowchart. The coder translates the flowchart into a computer program. But the job isn’t jet done. Why? …
As I just said, a program can be called “perfect”, if it has been tested and found to be working. In programming this “step in the Atonement plan” is called debugging.
. Now, this “altar of God” who is the AUTHOR’s “Father” in the COURSE, could be his own creation “because of the value of the altar itself.” That would be because of the value it has for the AUTHOR himself. What is the AUTHOR’s “altar”? …
It could be what comes with him through the “Door” (A) at death and what comes with the soul (A) and intellect (B) through the door again at birth. If the AUTHOR has reached level B on the down cycle and he likes it there because knowledge (B) is power. His “intellectual center” (B) becomes more powerful every time it accompanies the soul (A) around the big cycle. I can see this happening to the woman I love. Love is such a precious thing and her “destructive self” has the power to destroy it and to get between us so I can’t perform with her anymore. I had to have sex with another prostitute, a pimp must have sent to my door, to find out whether I can still do it. So, at the risk of getting aids or something, I have proved this theory for myself. I can still perform, but not with the woman I love because her destructive self doesn’t allow it. This is a theory (B) of mine, but because of the painful experience I have with the “destructive self” of the woman I still love, on and of, the theory is partly tested.
. Terry, the woman I love, even told me that my touching her drains her of energy. I told her that my touching her causes her destructive self to lose power over her. So when she says these things and does the things that frustrate me and cause me to suppress things which cause harm to me it is her destructive self which is in control.
. Gradually it gains more control over her that she doesn’t even feel the same to me anymore. Yesterday she came to my door and I let her in. She said she only wants to talk, so did I. Most of the time her destructive self is in “control” of her. It is unlovable and unloving. Why should I give her $50 for nothing. But she keeps getting money out of me, every time I let her in. It is as if by magic. So I asked myself for a while now: HOW does she do that? …
Today, September 21, 2011, she knocked again, to get more money out of me. But this time the answer had come just minutes before. I left the chain on and told her: “That ego-state of yours has more knowledge and power than you are aware of. I can see it because I am not you.” That is what those who want to help the “children” of the AUTHOR have to tell them. A quote from Ching 69 is worth “Repeating(@1)” here: Of
“Calamities There-is-none Greater Than Underestimating (ÜfMOTAto$j) the intellectual, political and economic powers of your Enemy(âb).”
. The AUTHOR is a social engineer and CIA backed. The laggards I have described in the September 17 and 18 sections have over time gained intellectual (B), political (C) and economic (D) powers that are hard for us to believe. They have planned it that way. The minority is like one family within which each member is related to each other. They know who they are because they remember their past lives. Because they don’t want the majority to know about reincarnation, they have made it “disappear”.

2:3.5,5: “It was created perfect and is entirely worthy of receiving perfection.”
. The perfect bio-computer was created by God and the computer program, the social engineers have developed, can also be called “perfect” after it has been debugged.

2:3.5,6: “God and his creation are completely dependent on each other.”
. Creating subject and created object are the poles of one polarity. The poles of a polarity “are completely dependent on each other.” You can’t have the one without the other.

2:3.5,7: “He depends on them BECAUSE He created them perfect.” …

=====================================================

September 19, 2011 . . . . . . . . . ACIM

2:3.4,6: “This re-establishes the power of the mind and makes increasingly unable to tolerate delay, realizing that it only unnecessary pain.”
By “mind” can be meant the intellect (B) and mind (C). Only “the mind” (B) can be “re-established”. Before the mind (C) was programmed to diminish its power it had the power that should be “re-established”. Of course the AUTHOR has no intention to give its “power” back to the intellect but he tries to make us believe that he is doing that. To follow the AUTHOR’s twisted reasoning takes quite some work, but we are getting there.
2:3.3,4: “An imprisoned will …. becomes altogether intolerable.” The ‘imprisoned will”, or any other problem, is blamed on the bad “ego” (B). The repeated message is: …
Let’s get rid of it.
2:3.3,3: It is the AUTHOR “Who set the limits on your ability to” create. Once the “turning point” has been reached, it is no longer a matter of limiting the ability of the intellect but to decommission it completely. To accomplish that, the mind (C) is programmed to be “increasingly unable to tolerate delay.”
. The bad “ego” (B) is blamed for causing “only unnecessary pain.” So let’s get rid of it.
2:3.4,7: “As a result, the mind becomes increasingly sensitive to what it would once [before the turning point] have regarded as very minor intrusions of discomfort.”
. The AUTHOR is talking here about the “discomfort” of cognitive dissonance.

2:3.5,1: “The children of God are entitled to the perfect comfort that comes from perfect trust” in “God” who is the AUTHOR’s “Father”. The message to hand over your power to him is repeated in many different “forms”. In exchange he will give you “perfect comfort”.

2:3.5,2: “Until they achieve this, they waste themselves and their true creative powers on useless attempts to make themselves more comfortable by inappropriate means.”
2:3.5,2a “Until [the AUTHOR’s children] achieve this” perfect trust in him ….
2:3.5,2b: There are two ways to make yourself more “comfortable”: …
Using your intellect to find the truth which leads you to the right path, and …
believing that the path the AUTHOR wants you to follow is the right one.
2:3.5,2c: In the COURSE your “true creative powers” are the ones the AUTHOR is giving to your mind (C) by programming it in such a way that it takes the power away from your intellect (B). If that sounds farfetched, it is supposed to sound that way. All I can say is hang in there until you can see WHAT the AUTHOR is doing and HOW he is doing it. Obscurantism and transcendence are the means to get his programs installed in your mind (C), and the programs are designed to achieve his GOAL (A). It took me some doing to figure this out and it will take you some doing to follow me. It is as the AUTHOR said at”
5:1.2,2: “THOUGHTS INCREASE BY GIVING THEM AWAY.”
5:1.2,3: “THE MORE WHO BELIEVE IN THEM THE STRONGER THEY BECOME.”
. What does that mean for the AUTHOR and for us? …
As you understand the truth, it goes into what C. G. Yung has called the “collective unconscious”, what Rupert Sheldrake has called the “Morphogenetic Field” and what Ervin Laszlo has called the “Akashic Field”. Laszlo’s insight is the most far-reaching one, but Sheldrake’s description is the most useful one for us. It means that …
THE MORE of us have made our knowledge (B) of truth representations (C) of truth THE STRONGER THEY BECOME. Then they go into the Akashic Field. And from there it will go automatically (E6) into the minds of readers who simply read it. It is as the AUTHOR says: You don’t have to make any effort on your own. Those who blindly believe what the AUTHOR has dictated will do the work for you. But the same thing can also work for us. If you put in that extra effort to comprehend true concepts and, after you have understood them, you “Repeat(@1)” tem, they will become a representation (C), which automatically go into the Akashic Field and, once there, they will make it easier for others to understand it. So your efforts to understand the truth doesn’t only benefit you.

2:3.5,3: “But the real means are already provided, and do not involve any effort at all on their [God’s children’s] part.” The “means” are right here in this COURSE, but you must not make the “effort” of trying to understand it.
. It took real “effort” to understand the last few paragraphs. And, if you have made it, then you can see that they are not intended to be understood.

2:3.5,4: “The Atonement is the only gift that is worthy of being offered at the altar of God, because of the value of the altar itself. (5) It [the altar] was created perfect and is entirely worthy of receiving perfection”, of receiving the Atonement. …

==================================================================

September 18, 2011 . . . . . . . . . ACIM
. In the last section, below, I have described the big deduction-induction cycle which the majority of humanity has followed down into matter (E8) and back up, out of it. According to Steiner and the Hindus the majority of us has reached level B of Plato’s “Divided Line (509d)”. If the majority had reached level A then Swami Sri Yukteswar would have called it “Mankind” (B) but he called it “Devata or Angel” (A). If the majority had only made it back up to level C then he would have called it “Mankind”. But he called it “Animal kingdom” (C). We differ from animals in that we have the freedom of choice. Even the AUTHOR admits that we have it. Why do we have it? …
Because we can think (B), and the AUTHOR admits that he can’t prevent the “ego” (B) from carrying out its natural function. But, by means of the COURSE, he programmes our mind (C), which can “control” our intellect. To enable him to program our mind, we have to “study” those 1249 pages and believe everything he has said in them. Throughout his book he says more or less blatantly that we ave to surrender our will to him. If we don’t, he can’t give us “peace”, “comfort”, “serenity” and other nice things.
. In the September 13 section I said that he tries to get “us to default on our duty …. Why? …” I answered that “I am not sure yet.” Today, I can tell you more about it because I remembered what Steiner has said about it in his OCCULT SCIENCE. If you have read that book, I could ask you now: “Why does the AUTHOR do what he does? …
I no longer have the book, so I have to tell you from memory what he has said about the deduction-induction cycle:
. Like the Hindus, he said that the majority of mankind has made it down into incarnation (D) and made it back up to level B. I have quoted that much in the last section. But I didn’t remember the details he gave in his OCCULT SCIENCE. Because they have not become representations (C) yet, the memory didn't come up automatically (E6). It came to me today because I went over the September 16 section again.
. While the majority of humans has followed the big cycle, a minority began to lag behind. This has to do with the law of Attraction which is also described at Matthew 25:29: “For unto every one that hath [enough] shall be given …. But from him that hath not [enough] shall be taken away even that which he hath.” A member of this minority is called a “wicked and slothful servant”. The members of this minority have not even reached level D of the deductive section of the cycle. Put yourself into their shoes: …
Here the majority of mankind has reached level B of the return cycle and they are still on level B of the down cycle. How would you feel? …
Steiner gives us some more detail about it, but use your own imagination. ...
Why do they have to prevent the majority of us from reaching our GOAL (A)? …

2:3.4,1: “Spiritual vision literally cannot see error, and merely looks at Atonement.”
2:3.4,1a: Spiritual vision cannot see error. What in Sutra 14 is called “the manifestation of the Omnipotent Energy” (E1), MAYA, is here called an “error”. Why does the AUTHOR try to make us believe that God must have created this tangible world by mistake? …
If that was a mistake, then us reaching back up to level B is also a mistake. The AUTHOR is trying to make us believe that we should have lagged behind with him and instead of completing the big cycle “Return($l)” from level B to the “Eternal(Cn)” on the other side of A. Going all the way down to level D and then “Returning($l)” is much easier. If the minority can get the majority to default on their duty (dharma) then they are messing up God's plan and they hope to avoid God's judgement in this way. This is an untested theory (B), which you have to verify or falsify. But this idea is largely inspired by Steiner, even though he doesn't spell it out that way.
2:3.4,1b: Spiritual vision …. merely looks at Atonement. This “Atonement” is essentially a set of computer programmes, or subroutines, social engineers are installing in the minds (C) of the majority. The AUTHOR is the programmer (B) who is producing it and he is trying to talk us into allowing him to install his program in our mind (C). No properly functioning intellect (B) is going to give him permission to do that. Why do you think he has to try so hard to “depreciate” it? …
. Today I Googled Kymatica. It is so encouraging to see that I am not the only one the minority has to “Ridicule(*41)”.

2:3.4,2: “All solution the physical eye seeks dissolves.” They only dissolve if we blindly believe everything the AUTHOR is saying. As long as your intellect is still functioning this is impossible.

2:3.4,3: “Spiritual vision looks within and recognizes immediately that the altar has been defiled and needs to be repaired and protected.”
. What the AUTHOR calls “Spiritual vision” is what we will see after he has programmed us. The “altar” is the “Eternal(Cn)” in us. By “defiled” he means that there is still too much truth left in us. What he uses to repair and protect us is his Atonement. To find the passages where he says these things doesn’t take thought (B) but computation (C). That’s why the “KnowErs(kner) need the “WordErs(C2er)” to “Unite Their Dust ($1_H@h)” with them.

2:3.4,4: “Perfectly aware of the right defense it passes over all others, looking past error to truth.”
2:3.4,4a: The AUTHOR is perfectly aware of the right defenses. After all, he has written the programs which defend his “Untruth” against the “truth”.
2:3.4,4b: What the AUTHOR calls “error” is what the intellect (B) creates; what he calls “truth” is what he creates. The principle of ‘opposition’ is to make this “untruth” believable.

2:3.4,5: “Because of the strength of its vision it brings the mind into its service.”
2:3.4,5a: What produces “the strength of [the AUTHOR’s] vision”? …
5:1.2,2: “THOUGHTS INCREASE BY BEING GIVEN AWAY.”
5:1.2,3: “THE MORE WHO BELIEVE IN THEM THE STRONGER THEY BECOME.”
2:3.4,5b: The GOAL (A) of the AUTHOR is “to bring the mind into [his] service.”

2:3.4,6: “This re-establishes the power of the mind [C] and makes it increasingly unable to tolerate delay, realizing that it only adds unnecessary pain.” …

========================================================

September 17, 2011 . . . . . . . ACIM
. It took me almost a Month to do 2:3.1. Then, the next thing you know: 2:3.2 is as tough as 2:3.1. The difference is that it didn’t take me as long to deal with it. I already had the representation (C) needed to deal with it. The idea (B) needed to deal with 2:3.2 are the Aristotelian syllogisms. I have used it last on Ching 40.2 to show that Lao Tzu knew it too: 40.2: As above, in “Heaven, so Below (Tn_-)”, on earth.
40.2,1: “All Things (WnwU) Come From (Sgto) Existence(YU)”. Minor premise.
40.2,2: “Existence(YU) Comes From (Sgto) Nonexistence(WU)”. Major premise.
Therefore “All Things Come From (WnwUSgto) …. Nonexistence(WU).” Conclusion.
. “Existence(YU)” is the connective in this paragraph. It is the predicate in 40.1 and the subject in 40.2. It is connecting the two sentences because it is between them. It is the excluded middle, which is represented by the four dots. In the Aristotelian syllogisms, the middle is excluded, and, after that that the conclusion can be read like any other subject-connective-predicate sentence. If you have made this idea (B) your own, by repeating it “Enough(Zu)”, you can do this operation by computation (C) because the idea (B) has become a representation (C).
. I did the work on 2:3.2 in the September 15 section and I said there: “Actually after having done this work in one stretch, I can feel the drain on my energy”. Why? …
Because I don’t have the representation (C) of applying the “excluded middle” to a paragraph as a whole. The idea (B) is still new. But I already said in the September 13 section: “What is the ‘meaning’ of 2:3.2 as a whole.” We already know that the AUTHOR uses every opportunity to “depreciate” the intellect, the “ego”, as he calls it, so, if we exclude all of that then we should be left with the “meaning” of 2:3.2.
. Now that we can see how well this approach worked on one of the AUTHOR’s paragraphs, how about using it to clarify my own paragraphs? …
. Take the last five paragraphs of the September 15 section, pick the first and the fourth paragraph from there and extract an important meaning from there. …
. What message you pick depends on the knowledge you bring to it, but once you have identified an idea that makes sense to you, one by one you can add other details to it. Try it. …
“The higher can do the work [of] the lower, …. But …. This doesn’t work as well the other way around.” Why? …
Because “induction …. and …. deduction ….have their seasons.” Is this the answer? …
Let us take the four “seasons”. Let us call summer above because the temperature is high. And then winter would be below summer. Now, were do Induction and deduction fit in? …
Induction is called the bottom-up approach to problem solving. You are moving from the particular to the general. Deduction is the opposite. It I called the top down approach to problem solving. It is the movement from the general to the particular.
. Thinkers use thinking tools as carpenters use woodworking tools. What is the appropriate thinking tool to shed light on what I have said so far? …
It is deduction: We start out with what we know about the tetrad in general and then, one by one, we add the details we have in our particular tetrad. …
. Let us use the pendulum as another example: There is rest, acceleration, maximum velocity at which all potential energy has been converted to kinetic energy, then comes deceleration, and then comes rest again. Does that remind you of something I have said recently? …
Let me give you Ching 25.2 again. You can’t repeat a truth you understand often enough:
. If we let “Big(TA) mean being home,
having been home Mean Going-out (73*e), [*e = Shih162.]
having Gone Mean Arriving (*e73$t) and
having Arrived Mean Returning (St73$l) Then(KU)”
having returned means being back home again.
. Now, what the AUTHOR tries to get us to do is …
get us to “Return($l) before we have “Arrived($t)”. But this has to be qualified:
. We can get more detail on this from Sutra 14 of THE HOLY SCIENCE: If you are interested enough, you can read the book yourself. I will simply give you a condensed version of it: “Purusha is covered by five Koshas or sheaths.”
. First comes the “Heart” A.
Then comes “Buddhi, the 2nd Kosha.” B is the sheath around A.
Then comes “Manas, the 3rd Kosha” around B.
Then comes “Prana, the 4th Kosha” around C.
And then comes “Gross matter, the 5th Kosha. The fifth and last of these sheaths is the gross matter, …. Which ….supports this visible world”. Next comes the
“ACTION OF LOVE. The action of Repulsion, the manifestation of the Omnipresent Energy, being thus completed, the action of Atrraction (the Omnipotent Love in the core if the heart) begins to be manifested.”
. We have “Arrived($t)” at the deductive process. Only now te inductive process can begin. The text continues: “…. Manifested. Under the influence of this Omniscient Love, the Attraction, …. Come nearer and nearer ….” The
“Inanimate kingdom” is E8. The
“Vegetable kingdom” would then correspond to E7. This is level D on Plato’s “Divided Line (509d).” The text continues: “In this manner, when the action of Divine Love becomes well developed, the evolution of AVIDYA, Ignorance, (the particle of Darkness, MAYA, the Omnipotent Energy manifested), begins to be withdrawn. ANNAMAYA KOSHA, the Atom’s outer coating of gross matter being thus withdrawn, PRANAMAYA KOSHA (the sheath composed of KARMENDRIYAS the organs of action [D]) begins to operate.” Next on the way up comes the
“Animal kingdom. When the PRANAMAYA KOSHA becomes withdrawn, the MANOMAYA KOSHA …. Comes to light.” Next comes
“Mankind” when C is withdrawn, B “becomes perceptible.”
. Now, according to this text, Steiner and others this is the level we have reached in our “evolution”, in our movement back to God. Steiner says in chapter three of his PHILOSOPHY OF FREEDOM: “As long as philosophy assumes all kinds of principles, such as atom, motion, matter, will, or the unconscious, it will hover in the air. Only when the philosopher regards the absolute last as his first, can he reach his goal. The absolute last, however, to which world evolution has come, is thinking” (B). Translation is by Lindeman.
. Actually the absolute highest to which world evolution has come, is” vision (A) But Steiner is right in the sense that we are not fully there. Visionaries are with one foot on this side of the “Door” (A) with the other foot they are on the other side, they are in “Eternity(Cn)”. Systematics can help me to clarify this. A is the connective in Z-A-B, B in A-B-C. C in B-C-D. D is again only half within our human sphere of influence, it is the connective in C-D-E8, which is the ANNAMAYA KOSHA.
. What can this tell us? ...
That the AUTHOR wants us to give up just one step away of completing the big deduction-induction cycle.
Now, what about:

2:3.3,9: “The alternating investment in the two levels of perception is usually experienced as conflict, which can become very acute.” How can you avoid this “discomfort”? …
By following the AUTHOR or the truth. You have the freedom of choice: The choice is yours. Not even the AUTHOR is denying that.

2:3.3,10: “But the outcome will be as certain as God.” The AUTHOR and his “Father” are one, and I don’t trust the AUTHOR.

2:3.4,1: “Spiritual vision literally cannot see error, and merely looks for Atonement.” …

=====================================================

September 16, 2011 . . . . . . ACIM
. In the last section, below this one, I said: “The higher can do the work [of] the lower …. As you can see, I am doing the writing (C) here. This doesn’t work as well the other way around.” Why? …
In this blog, I often talk about the rules of syntax (C). that is not work that can be done in the syntactic dimension (C) of semiotics, that work has to be done in the semantic dimension (B). A basic indicative sentence is a subject-connective-predicate “TriAd(_3ad)”. You need the Tao Te Ching or Mr.B’s systematics to find out how it works. Why is that not taught in school? …
Plato said it in his Republic. Why isn’t the Republic taught in “Political Science” or at least in “Philosophy”?’ …
“Each type of government enacts laws that are in its own interest, a democracy democratic laws, ….” That means that the decisions in a democracy (literally people-rule) are made by the people. So, “what is ‘right’ for their [the ruler’s] subjects is what is in the interest of themselves, the rulers, (338e)”. Clearly the truth is not in the interest of the rulers we have. This is why in a democracy not only the decisions are made by the party members, by means of the consensus decision-making model, but the education OF the people is BY the people and therefore it is …
FOR the people. Why does the AUTHOR not want us to interpret his sentences? …
Because you can already see what we find out by doing that. And to analyze his sentences we have to know the rules of syntax.
. The educational system we have is BY the social engineers FOR the social engineers. And since the AUTHOR is a social engineer, the educational system is also FOR him. And, since the CIA is behind the ACIM and “The New World Order” is behind the CIA you can see that we are onto something big.
. The AUTHOR said that we must solve a problem where it it is caused. That makes sense. Our problem is partly caused by the Educational System. At least we can start tere by brushing up on Syntax 101. At the end of the same section, I have left you with some homework:

2:3.3,1: “The acceptance of the Atonement by everyone is only a matter of time.” …
Many people and disembodied entities, have this dream of World-domination. I was nine years old at the end of the war in Germany under Hitler and I still remember the refrain of a song that was repeated over and over again: “….Denn heute gehört us Detschland (For today Germany belongs to us) und morgen die ganze Welt (and tomorrow the whole world).”
. This message is also repeated in the COURSE. The whole of 7:6.11 is relevant but part of 7:6.11,6 has to do: “….the Holy Spirit …. Sees the altar of God [the AUTHOR] in everyone,”.
. Now, is it true that “The acceptance of the Atonement by everyone is only a matter of time.”, or does that “acceptance” depends on our own free will? …
If it does, a lot of 'contemplation' makes a lot more sense. After I got the book on April 16, I was hooked for about three days, but, if you try to understand what the AUTHOR is saying, there comes a point at which you just can't swallow the hooks anymore.

2:3.3,2: “This may appear to contradict free will because of the inevitability of the final decision, but this is not so.”
2:3.3,2a: This would “contradict free will” if your “final decision” to accept the AUTHOR’s programming were inevitable. But it is not. The AUTHOR himself points that out often enough. The fact is that he cannot prevent the intellect from exercising its “freedom”. So what he says here about it contradicts what he says about it elsewhere.
2:3.3,2b: The content of 2:3.3,1 does not “Contradict free will” in the sense that the “final decision” to hand over your will to the AUTHOR is your decision. Notice how truth and falsehood is very neatly interwoven.
2:3.3,2c: The unwarranted assumption that you are going to hand over your will to him is repeated again. Why? …

2:3.3,3: “You can temporize and you are capable of enormous procrastination, but you cannot depart entirely from your Creator, Who set the limits on your ability to miscreate.”
. The word “temporize” is only here in what I have typed so far. But it is a good one for use as another identifier. To ‘temporize’ means to see the world the way we see it.
2:3.3,3a: The intellect has brought about the “separation”, as the AUTHOR says himself. So it is “capable of [more than just] enormous procrastination”.
2:3.3,3b: The AUTHOR can only program your mind (C) if you allow him to do that. Only then can you not “depart entirely from your creator”. But if you don’t give him your permission to program, or to “create”, you then he can’t “set the limits on your [intellect’s] ability to” think creatively. Thinking creatively is the proper function of the intellect. It is intelligently designed for that purpose. The purpose of all this programming, that is done right here in this COURSE is to “set the limits on your ability to” create and then to decommission your intellect completely, so that ultimately everything you do is done by computation (C). You will then carryout the verbal instructions of the AUTHOR he way a computer carries out its instructions. All of this is possible as long as you don’t become aware of the programming that is being done to you. It is done to you as you read the COURSE without suspecting any of this.
. Social engineering is not just intentional obscurantism, it is a science.

2:3.3,4: “An imprisoned will engenders a situation which, in the extreme, becomes altogether intolerable.”
. As long as the intellect is not completely decommissioned yet and the AUTHOR’s programming is causing you to compute (C), there is a clash between mind and intellect. This “situation …., in the extreme, becomes altogether intolerable.” So why not give up and hand over your will to the AUTHOR, for the sake of “comfort”, “peace”, “serenity” and other nice things? ...

2:3.3,5: “Tolerance for pain may be high, but it is not without limit.” This statement is true, it is bait, it is a repetition of what the AUTHOR has repeated before.

2:3.3,6: “Eventually everyone begins to recognize, however dimly, that there MUST be a better way.”
. The word “everyone” again. This is another repetition. The “better way” “MUST be” the AUTHOR’s way. And “everyone”, who doesn’t think (B) any further, will believe (B) the AUTHOR and follow his “better way”.

2:3.3,7: “As this recognition becomes more firmly established, it becomes a turning point.”
. As you read and “study” these 1249 pages the AUTHOR’s programming “becomes more firmly established” in your mind (C). Gradually more and more of your thinking (B) is replaced by computation (C) and there comes a “turning point” where you do what the author has programmed you to “Do Without Doing (WyWUWy)” it consciously (A). After the AUTHOR has brought you to the “turning point” you can still use your intellect, which might make you believe that you are still going in the right direction because you are not aware (A) of the computations (C) your mind (C) is programmed (B) to do. The fact is that you are going where the AUTHOR wants you to go.
. The knowledge of the truth must motivate us to program ourselves to seek the truth without having to do it intentionally. What the AUTHOR tries to accomplish to get what he wants, can also work for us. By intentionally “Repeating(@1)” the “Truth(A1)” we change the abstract knowledge (B) of the truth in to a more concrete representation (C) of the truth. By doing that we are doing what the AUTHORis doing.
. When we seek the truth automatically (E6), without having to do it intentionally (E4), then we have reached the “turning point”. No matter what the AUTHOR tries to tell us then, we are going automatically where he doesn't want us to go.

2:3.3,8: “This ultimately reawakens spiritual vision, simultaneously weakening the investment in physical sight.” …
Following the truth automatically, ultimately reawakens your intellect (B) which will then weaken the programming the AUTHOR has done to your mind (C)

2:3.3,9: “The alternating investment in the two levels of perception is usually experienced as conflict, which can become very acute.” …

=====================================================

September 15, 2011 . . . . . A COURSE IN MIRACLES
. In the previous section, below this one, I have repeated a quote from the Toronto Sun: “Why did Sunday’s ceremony for the tenth anniversary of 9/11 ban police, firefighters and clergy from the program?” The “ceremony” was supposed to honour those who have lost their lives on 9/11 and the police and firefighters who saw their friends go into the building and not come back out again are not allowed to talk about the friends that lost their lives on 9/11. What is going on here? …
The answer is simple: They saw their friends go into the building, they heard the explosions, and they knew that their friends wouldn’t come back out again. Those who are behind those explosions don’t want us to hear the truth. They want us to believe that two commercial aircraft brought down three big towers.
. At the end of the same section I said that “for some reason the AUTHOR doesn’t like it [“the idea of separate existence”]. Why? …”
The idea comes from the same side of the “Door” (A) he comes from. He knows that “the idea of separate existence of Self [did not] originate” on this side of the “Door” (A). So why does he blame the intellect, the “ego”, for the “separation”. To FIND “separation” and “separate” just FIND “separat”. Even if you are not a communicator, I have to rely on you for doing some of the necessary work yourself. Writers (C) can make this more comprehensible for you, but not even Lao Tzu can do your thinking for you. There is thus a certain advantage in getting a poor description of difficult ideas because it provokes you into doing more of the necessary work yourself. The convention of the three dots at the end of a line is a good learning tool, which even communicators (C) could make use of.
. The question: Why the AUTHOR so consistently ‘depreciates’ the intellect is likely going to be answered by the AUTHOR himself, if we team up and keep going in the general direction I am going now. Watch what we can do with 2:3.2 as a whole:
. I said that the “meaning” of the paragraph is: The “Atonement belongs at the centre of the inner altar …. To receive the Alignment.” The AUTHOR didn’t say “Alignment”, he said “Atonement”.
. That is a terrific mistake because it draws our attention (A) to were more of it is needed. The “meaning” of the paragraph can be expressed in a standard indicative sentence. …
Try it. …
The altar is to receive the Atonement. “The altar” is the subject of the sentence, “is to receive” is the verb-phrase, or connective, and “the Atonement” is the predicate.
. Critics can now say: But this isn’t all the AUTHOR has said. That is true. A stripped down sentence doesn’t contain all the details that are added by means of subordinate phrases, or by another standard sentence.
. Once we have understood the “meaning” of the basic sentence we can add the details, one by one, when you are ready for it. Try it: …
The Atonement is “opening” the altar. “The Atonement” is again the subject, “opening” is the verb and “the altar” is the predicate. What else does the “Atonement” do? …
It “undoes the separation”. It “restores the wholeness of the mind.” What else? …
It undoes “fear”, which is what the AUTHOR calls the intellect. And it undoes the “miscreations” the “ego” is creating. What else? …
It restores “the temple”. It “heals the separation” the intellect has caused. What else? …
It defends you “against all separation thoughts and [it is] making you perfectly invulnerable.” So the “Atonement” forms a protective wall around you. But that “protection” is really the programs the AUTHOR is installing in your mind (C).
. After having done this work, what should I tell you now? …
That you have to verify or falsify the work I have done? …
I have repeated this one so often that by now that you should be doing that automatically by computation (C). As AUTHOR is programming your mind (C) to do the “protecting” automatically so we must program our mind to help us find the truth automatically with Automatic Energy (E6). Actually after having done this work in one stretch, I can feel the drain on my energy because the energy I have to use for this syntactic work (C) is Sensitive Energy (E5) and it is not intended to do this kind of work. E5 works best in the semantic dimension (B) of semiotics, while E6 works best in the syntactic dimension (C). This is where the DIVISION OF LABOUR comes in again.
“KnowErs(kner) are Not(PU) good with Words(C2), while
WordErs Don’t Know (C2erPUkn)” how to think well enough.
. There is another point to be made: The higher can do the work the lower, not as efficiently and not as well but, as you can see, I am doing the writing (C) here. This doesn’t work as well the other way around. The higher can do and learn, if necessary, to do the work of the lower; but for the lower to learn to do the work of the higher takes too much time and energy, which is more wisely invested in ones own dharma. But this must be qualified as well because there is this thing called integral yoga.
. For instance I love the sound of timbales so much that I think that, with the right instructions and time to practice, I could learn to play them. And there are benefits in working on a level above your own. For instance I play the bongos at Fat Alberts, an open stage here in Toronto, and the music (A) some performers allow me to accompany them with, often causes new insights for my blog.
.. For another example, I believe that Rudolf Steiner was a raja yogi (C). But he was also an excellent Philosopher (B). But when he tried his hands on poetry (A), those in a position to evaluate it are not impressed.
. There is “Alignment(%8)” of the lower with the higher, which is induction, the reaching up; and there is the “Fixing(8b)”, the reaching down, which is deduction, the stretching down. Both are valid operations. But they have their seasons. If it is time to reach down, to create by deduction, it is wrong to try to convince everybody to move back up before the creation is complete, or the demand of the customer as been supplied. I don’t think that the AUTHOR is making a mistake, he knows what he is doing, but what he is doing is wrong. …
2:.3.3,1: “The acceptance of the Atonement by everyone [he means everybody in the world] is only a matter of time.” …

==========================================================

September 14, 2011 . . . . . A COURSE IN MIRACLES
. At the beginning of the September 12 section I have quoted from page 21 of the Toronto Sun: “Why did Sunday;s ceremony for the tenth anniversary of 9/11 ban police, firefighters and clergy from the program?” ...
Since no answer is given in the rest of the column, let me tell you why. The “police” and “firefighters” were there when their friends perished, and the knew, or suspected, why they perished. And they told the “clergy” about it. That's why they had to be banned “from the program”.

2:3.2: The “Atonement belongs at the center of the inner altar …. for the opening of the altar to receive the Alignment.” This is the “meaning” that is left after you have eliminated the 'depreciations' of the intellect.
2:3.2,1: “For perfect effectiveness the Atonement …. Undoes the separation and restores the wholeness of the mind.” In other words, the “Atonement” has to undo the damage the intellect (B) has caused
2:3.2,2: “Before the separation the mind was invulnerable to fear [the intellect], because fear did not exist.” If you don’t know what “fear” means in the COURSE then you can’t interpret the sentences in which the word appears. There is another word the meaning of which is likely to be unclear in this context. Which one is it? …
The word “mind” can mean three things. It can be mind (A), mind (B) or mind (C). …
Since the Chinese poetry comes from the same place the COURSE comes from we can consult the poets (A). The dictionary equivalents for Hsin(Hs) are: “Heart, mind; center”. As we already know, “Heart(Hs)” is on level A, “Mind(Hs)” is on level C and the intellect (B) is in the “center” between them. Thus, if we translate Hsin(Hs) into English we have three choices, and if we leave it untranslated we have four ways of reading it. …
As a “DyAd(dyad)” it can be: …
A-B, A-C or B-c. And as a “TriAd(_3ad)” it is: …
A-B-C. Now, back to the COURSE, which one is it there? …
“Before the separation” there was no mind (B) or intellect because it is the one that has caused “the separation”. The AUTHOR tells us that himself. But we can’t trust him. So let’s consult Sutra 13 of THE HOLY SCIENCE:
. The “5th Sphere …. is JANALOKA …. Wherein the idea of separate existence of Self originates. ….
. “4th Sphere, MAHARLOKA …. THE BEGINNING OF THE CREATION OF Darkness, MAYA, …. This, the connecting link, is the only way between the spiritual and the material creation and is called the Door, Dasamadwara” (A). In terms of J. G. Bennett’s ENERGIES we have here Creative Energy (E3) and Conscious Energy (E4). ….
. 1st Sphere, …. The last and lowest sphere is BHULOKA, the sphere of gross material creation, which is always visible to everyone.”
. For E4 to E8 let us now consult Sutra 14: “Purusha is covered by five koshas or sheaths. ….
. Heart, the 1st Koshha …. Being the seat of bliss, ANANDA, is called ANANDAMAYA KOSHA [The “Door” (A)].
. Budhhi, the 2nd Kosha. The second is …. the Intelligence that determines what is true. Thus, being the seat of knowledge, JNANA, it is called JNANAMAYA KOSHA [ This is the intellect (B), which the AUTHOR doesn’t like].
. Manas, the 3rd Kosha …. The Mind, composed of the organs of senses, as mentioned above, and called the MANOMAYA KOSHA [C].
. Prana, the 4th Kosha …. Composed of the organs of action as described before, and thus called PRANAMAYA KOSHA [D].
. Gross matter, the 5th kosha.” And this corresponds the “BHULOKA” of Sutra 13, which is “the sphere of gross material creation” (E8).
. To verify the AUTHOR’s truth, the bait, and to replace his untruth, the hooks, with the truth, we have to use more reliable sources of information. What have we learned here? …
The “5th Sphere, JANALOKA” is on the other side of the “Door” There “the idea of separate existence of Self originates.” This “idea” (B) comes from E3, through A (E4) to B (E5). We have the Z-A-B triad here. Z (E3) is the initiating impulse, A (E4) is the connective and B (E5) is the outcome, which is “the idea of separation” here. The idea has moved from the other side of the “Door” (A) to this side. And for some reason the AUTHOR doesn’t like it. Why? …

========================================================

September 13, 2011 . . . . . THE DISCOVERY OF BEING
. At the end of the last section, below this one, I have quoted 2:3.1,11 and 2:3.1,12. The question was: Does 2:3.1,11 contain a poorly hidden hook and does 2:3.1,12 contain the bait, which is supposed to cover it up better? …
2:3.1,11: “Spiritual sight …. cannot see the structure at all because it is perfect vision.” True or false? …
True and false. Can you see it? …
There is reason to believe that the AUTHOR’s statement is true. Why? …
The most concrete level on Plato’s “Divided Line (509d)” is level D. That is the material level on which we can see objects “with the physical eye”. That level is called “eikasia”. This word means the same the Sanskrit word Maya means. Their English equivalent is “Illusion”. Obviously, the AUTHOR “cannot see the [illusion] at all because [he has] perfect vision.” So why did I call the statement a half-truth? …
Because we are not where the AUTHOR is, we are not dead yet. However, people who have had a near death experience had that “perfect vision” while on the other side of the “Door” (A). This is why the near death experience often has a life-changing effect on the people who have seen the illusion for what it is. Why don’t we all have that “perfect vision”? …
Because we come into this world for a purpose. The Hindus call it our dharma. The word is translated as “duty” The AUTHOR tries to cause us to default on our duty for the sake of “comfort”, “peace”, “serenity” and other nice things. Why? …
I am not sure yet. But if we keep going as we are going now, in due time we will know.
2:3.1,12: “It [the “perfect vision”] can, however, see the altar with perfect clarity.”
. “In-the-center(*d) where The Nothing in Something (_HWUYU)” is, there is the “altar”. The altar represents the “Eternal(Cn)” in us. Since the AUTHOR is on the other side of the “Door”, he can “see the altar with perfect clarity”
. What is wrong with the AUTHOR telling us how the world looks to a person from the standpoint of the “Eternal(Cn)”? …
The AUTHOR makes it sound as if seeing the world the way dead people see it, is normal and if we don’t have that “perfect vision” then there must be something wrong with us and …
we need his help to fix that problem.
. The next paragraph consists of only four sentences, but it is a tough one. So I will quote it in full to give us some time to think about it: “
2:3.2,1: “For perfect effectiveness the Atonement belongs at the center of the inner altar, where it undoes the separation and restores the wholeness of the mind.
2:3.2,2: “Before the separation the mind was invulnerable to fear, because fear did not exist.
2:3.2,3: “Both the separation and fear are miscreations that must be undone for the restoration of the temple, and for the opening of the altar to receive the Atonement.
2:3.2,4: “This heals the separation by placing within you the one effective defense against all separation thoughts and making you perfectly invulnerable.”
. One thing that can be “Identified(Mg)” in all four sentences is: …
‘Depreciation’. But it is especially clear here that this is not all. This example shows however, how useful it is to have an identifier ready to try on for size. ‘Inclusion’ is another one we can try on for size. As I already said, when you see the word “Atonement”, you can automatically (E6) identify is as ‘inclusion’. For “effectiveness”, all components must be included and they must all work at full capacity.
. The DIVISION (or “separation”) OF LABOUR is what makes the tetrad effective or more efficient. The “Atonement …. undoes the separation”. Why? …
More specifically, the question is: What is the “meaning” of 2:3.2 as a whole.

======================================================

September 12, 2011 . . . . . . A COURSE IN MIRACLES
. Today’s Toronto Sun page 21. Ezra Levant’s column starts: “Why did Sunday’s ceremony for the tenth anniversary of 9/11 ban police, firefighters and clergy from the program?” Yes, why did they? Why, for the rest of the column, do we only get more of the “official version” of 9/11? …
Could there be something our political masters are trying to hide? …

2:3.1,9: “The emphasis on beautiful structures is a sign of the fear of Atonement ….:”…
If you know the construction business or the IBM computer programming system then you know that the four “sources”, or parts of the tetrad, must work together as “one” team to make the system work. So the very opposite of what the AUTHOR is trying to make us believe is true. Instead of fearing the atonement, those that know it, try to bring it about. But remember that the atonement that works on this side of the “Door” (A) is not the transcended “Atonement” the AUTHOR is talking about.
2:3.1,10: “The real beauty of the temple cannot be seen with the physical eye” (D). True. It cannot be seen with the mind (C) nor with the intellect (B) either. Beauty can only be seen with the soul (A). The lower cannot comprehend the higher. The perception of beauty often comes to us as a surprise because the soul (A) has to take over for that. Then as soon as the intellect (B) tries to analyze it, the beauty is gone. Why? …
Because the intellect (B) has taken over. For men, the perception of a beautiful female face is a good example because, at least in my experience, it always comes as a surprise. I can no more decide to see that kind of beauty as I can decide to fall in love. But jnana yogis (B) can decide to detach from the beloved, if that becomes necessary, or if the beloved asks you to detach from her.
. My bhakti yoga guru (A) asked me to do that when we were in India. I said that it will take me one week. And I did it, but I also got sick. I didn’t take all the vaccinations before leaving. But I was all right up to then.
. If you love music, the intellect can’t take over from the soul as easily because music demands your full attention (A), it doesn’t give the intellect the time to cut in. Here is what Lao Tzu tells us about “Beauty(%b): “
True Words are Not Beautiful (09C2PU%b);
Beautiful Words are Not True (%bC2PU09)”. Lao Tzu is telling us here that “Truth(09)” and “Beauty(%b)” are the opposite poles of the same polarity. You can’t have the one without the other. But you can’t have them together either, unless …
you get their synthesis. And that is only possible after the opposites have become complements. There are six “DyAds(dyad)” in the tetrad: A-B is the one we have here. The other five are: A-C, A-D, B-C, B-D and C-D.
. “Truth loves her boundaries, for there she encounters the beautiful. (Tagore)”
. Sometimes, just before the truth appears, there is the beautiful. J. G. Bennett’s systematic is a general thinking tool. Let’s apply it here: Philosophers (B) are not poets (A), yet in the Z-A-B triad the poetry (A) comes through the poets (A) from Z to B. In this triad, Z is the initiating impulse, A is the connective and B is the outcome of this operation. I don’t know what the poetry is at Z, but at A it is beauty and at B it is truth.
. Notice the different feel (A) you get from Tagore’s words and from systematics. But also notice the greater detail we get at level B. At C you get still more detail and at D you get the truth (B) manifested in tangible form.
. As A is to B so B is to C; and as B is to C so C is to D. The A-B-C-D tetrad is an atonement of its four “sources”. Its four parts form one “Unit($1)”. If each part works at full capacity then the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
. Let’s get back to the COURSE: At
2:3.1,7, we were supposed “to realize that a temple is not a structure”. And then, at 2:3.1,8, we were told that “the structure is built” “around” “the inner altar”. There seems to be a contradiction here. …
. Then, at 2:3.1,9 we are supposed to believe that the “emphasis on beautiful structures is a sign of the fear of Atonement ….”. And then, at 2:3.1,10, we are told that beauty “cannot be seen with the physical eye.” …
Can you detect a pattern here that has been repeated in these two sentence pairs? …
It seems that 2:3.1,7 and 2:3.1,9 contain a half-truth. It is as if the hook is only half hidden. The bait is coming after the hook. 2:3.1,8 and 2:3.1,10 are both true, they are the bait. If the hooks were swallowed then 2:3.1,8 and 2:3.1,10 are repetitions of the same “meaning”. A good writer (C) could explain this better but please don’t blame me for making things too complicated, blame the AUTHOR for that.
. There are only two more sentences in this paragraph. Here they are:
2:3.1,11: “Spiritual sight, on the other hand cannot see the structure at all because it is perfect vision. (12) It can, however, see the altar with perfect clarity.” …
Is this another sentence pair in which the same pattern is repeated again? …

==========================================================

September 11, 2011 . . . . . . THE DISCOVERY OF BEING
170:
E”xistential therapists …. Continually make certain that the necessary interrelation of verbalizing and acting is never overlooked. The ‘logos must be made flesh’.”
. In the B-C-D triad, first comes thought (B), then word (C) and then deed (D). In semiotics and science, first comes semantics (B), then syntactics (C) and then comes pragmatics (D). This isn’t hard to understand. What is hard to believe is that the “obscurantist”, Derrida, could make it “disappear”. I mean, he had to have some help.
Same page: “The other caveat has to do with the existential attitude toward the UNCONSCIOUS.”
171:
. “I do not wish to enter into the complex discussion of this concept of the unconscious itself. …. But the far-reaching enlargement of personality, which is the real meaning of the concept of the unconscious, should not be lost. …. I would propose rather, that being is indivisible, that unconsciousness is part of any given being, that the cellar theory of the unconscious is logically wrong and practically unconstructive, but that the meaning of the discovery---namely, the radical enlargement of being---is one of the great contributions of our day and must be retained.” These are the last lines of the text, which can tell you that there is more I could have quoted and commented on. But this has to do
. One way of getting a handle on this concept of the unconscious, is by intentionally going there. HOW? …
“Repeat(@1)” an idea (B) that is worth repeating often “Enough(Zu)” and see. …
Or watch how the AUTHOR does it. …
We shall return to the COURSE. Page 171 is the last page of the text Up to page 192 there are still the “Notes” and the “Index”. Ideally we would know more about existential psychoanalysis, but let’s get back to the COURSE to see how well Rollo can help us to understand 2:3.1 (Chapter 2, section 3, paragraph 1), in the middle of which I got stuck. That was in the August 14 section. The last sentences I have quoted from A COURSE IN MIRACLES since then are:
2:3.1,7: “The next step, however, is to realize that a temple is not a structure at all.
. A temple is a physical structure, like a “Room(*11)” that can be used to represent our physical body (D), as Lao Tzu did in chapter 11.The question is now: Why am I supposed “to realize that a temple is not a structure”? …
If that is a hook then where is the bait? …
2:3.1,8: “Its true holiness lies at the inner altar around which the structure is built.”
. Here the bait comes after the hook. And if you see the hook for what it is and the bait for what it is, you are getting confused. And in hindsight we can see that this must have been the AUTHOR’s intention.
. Anyway, we are back, so let me quote the remaining four sentences in 2:3.1 and try to interpret them.
:2:3.1,9: “The empasis on beautiful structures is a sign of the fear of Atonement, and an unwillingness to reach the altar itself.”
. We have learned from Rollo that there is indeed some “fear” and “unwillingness to reach the” BEING itself”. We did catch the AUTHOR at a few outright lies, but after what we have learned from Rollo they are fewer than I suspected at first. For instance here we don’t have an outright lie but only a half-truth. Let’s go back to
2:3.1,6: “It [the perception of “the body as a temple”] DOES recognize that Atonement in physical terms is impossible.” There we have another half-truth. Can you see it? …
Let’s go back to Rollo’s book
144:
.. “The term TRANSCENDING is open to much misunderstanding …. Some suspicion of the term obviously is sound to the extent that the word can serve to elevate any given topic out of any immediate field in which it can be discussed and thus lead to obscurantism. And often in such cases the transcendent thing aimed at is given a capital letter, such as Self or Wholeness [or Holy Spirit] apparently to bootleg in some quality of divinity.” Can you see why I needed Rollo May’s help? …
The “trick (548a)” works because “transcendence” has its good name not for nothing.
As long as you don’t know a “trick (the Republic at 548a)” You can be tricked with it. But once you know it, the trick no longer works. And we have a good example of this right here. In the construction business or in the IBM computer programming system atonement means what the word normally means: Customer (A) and supplier (B-C-D) work as “one” team and again thinker (B), communicator (C) and the pragmatists (D) have to work together as “one” team in order to supply the customer’s demand.
. Now, Rollo said: “And often in such cases the transcendent thing aimed at is given a capital letter, such as” Atonement. to transcend the “immediate field in which it can be discussed” or understood. I must remind you again that social engineering is a science. The AUTHOR knows exactly what he is doing. And it took Rollo May to help us figure it out. And now we can see that it is true “that Atonement in physical terms is impossible.” Why? …
Because Atonement in the COURSE doesn’t mean what atonement ordinarily means.
. I didn’t comment on 2:3.1,7 and 2:3.1,8, but you can see that in my commentary on 2:3.1,3, I came close. I brought in the “tetrad” which works in the space-time dimension we are in but not in the space and time-less dimension the AUTHOR is coming from.
2:3.1,10: “The real beauty of the temple cannot be seen with the physical eye.” …

===========================================================

September 10, 2011 . . . . THE DISCOVERY OF BEING
. At the end of the last section I said that “we have to get the DIVISION OF LABOUR going, How? …
The answer is given in the previous three sections. …
In the September 6 section I have given a translation of six sentences from Ching 16. Because I found errors in the second one I had to come back to it in the last two sections again. This sentence is worth repeating because it contains the answer.
155:
“Before repression is possible or conceivable, the person must have some possibility of accepting or rejecting ---that is, some margin of freedom. Whether the person is aware of this freedom or can articulate it is another question; he does not need to be. TO REPRESS IS PRECISELY TO MAKE ONE’S SELF UNAWARE OF FREEDOM. This is the nature of the dynamism. Thus to repress or deny this freedom already presupposes it as a possibility.”
. You must have the freedom of choice to choose to deny your potential. If you have no choice, your freedom of choice is of no use. The question of freedom versus determinism only arises when there are choices.
. The text continues “…. possibility. We wish to emphasize that psychic determinism is always a secondary phenomenon and works only in a limited area. The primary question is how the person relates to his freedom to express potentialities in the first place, repression being one way of so relating.”
. This takes us right to the course: While the AUTHOR is telling us that we have this “freedom”, he tries to take it away. And he has succeeded with millions of people worldwide. And since the CIA is behind this cult, we are onto something big.
. To see how effective the COURSE is, try to make those who have swallowed the hooks aware of their “freedom”. To avoid being hooked by the AUTHOR takes work. Once you are hooked, it will be more difficult to get unhooked. And for some it may be impossible.
. I see it with the woman I love how hard it is to reach a person who is hooked on drugs, on pimps who are feeding them the drugs and who are controlled by a “destructive self”. This “control” consists of programming the mind (C) and through it the intellect (B).
. The text continues: “With respect to RESISTANCE, the question is to be asked: What makes such a phenomenon possible [How can a person use his freedom to reject it? …]? One answers that it is an outworking of the tendency of the patient to become absorbed in the MITWELT to slip back into DAS MANN, the anonymous mass, and to renounce the particular unique and original potentiality which is his.
. Another answer is social engineering. And by using the COURSE as a COURSE in social engineering, we may discover a new approach to it. For me, the painful experience I get from the woman I love is another approach. If she were totally lost, there would be no hope, but she has a split personality. Today I let her in and I spoke for a few minutes with her real self. It is more aware and wants to kick the habit. Her visits today cost me $120.00. And as long there is hope, I will keep going. If I am too stingy she may not come back. The AUTHOR is using the truth as bait, I am using money.
. For us, interpreting the COURSE, it is a matter of repeating the truth as diligently as the AUTHOR is repeating his falsehoods. But he has to cover them up with bait and hat is a truth we can repeat. By repeating an idea (B), true or false, it becomes a representation (C). Representations work for or against us. They are “Doing automatically what Without representations we have to Do (WyWUWy)” consciously. When you have programmed “Enough(Zu)” representations in your mind (C), they will work for or against you without you having to make any effort. At that point the law of attraction will kick in. This is what the AUTHOR is aiming at and that is what we must be aiming at. …

========================================================

September 8, 2011 . . . . . . THE DISCOVERY OF MEANING
. The dictionary equivalents of Wei(is) are: “To say, be called, speak”. If it is preceded by Shih(Si) and followed by Chih(_Z), the meaning is: “this is called”. In translating Shih(is) as “Is(is)” I have followed other translators. But over the years I have found out that the more accurate translation is, it is likely also the better interpretation. Here is my second correction of that same sentence from Ching 16: What is causing “This good feeling Is-called Fulfilling your Destiny (SiisFUäG).” What causes this good feeling is doing your dharma, is doing what you came here to do, is doing what you love doing. It is doing what gives you this “Good-feeling(^a)”.
. This mistake, or inaccuracy, has given me the excuse to “Repeat(@1)” this important concept (B) again. As long as the truth hasn’t become a representation (C) yet, you can’t repeat it often enough. In order to undo what the social engineers are doing to us we have to repeat the truth as often as they are repeating their falsehoods. In practice that means that every time we catch the AUTHOR repeating a lie, we are undoing it. Once this has become a habit, or representation (C), we have an advantage over the AUTHOR. Why? ... Because the truth is on our side. When we return to the COURSE you will see what help Rollo May is giving us here
147 – 148:
“The existential analyst insists that the human being’s capacity for transcending the immediate situation is discernible in the very center of human experience and cannot be sidestepped or overlooked without distorting and making unreal and vague one’s picture of a person. This is particularly cogent and true with respect to data we encounter in psychotherapy. …. Such as the split of unconscious from consciousness, …. Transcendence and being-in-the-world are names for every kind of structure of Dasein, ….”. Let us stop here and ask: What does “being-in-the-world” mean? …
What the Hindus call Purusha is often compared to a drop in the ocean or to a spark of the divine. The drop is not the ocean, nor is the spark the flame, but it is that part of us that incarnates. You have to verify or falsify this stuff, but as far as I can see, the Purusha is the “Eternal(Cn)” part of us. As it enters time and space It enters the Atman, or soul (A) first, then comes the intellect (B), then the mind (C) and then the body (D). And as a drop is in the ocean, so the body is in the world.
. “Right Words Likely Reverse (%8C2JO$l).” We have moved from the most abstract, and intangible to the most concrete and tangible. If this sequence is “Right(%8)” then we should be able to “Reverse($l)” the process and move back, inductively, from the most concrete to the most abstract.
. Between what J. G. Bennett has identified as E3 and E8 there is E4 (A). E5 (B), E6 (C) and E7 (D). These are different levels of energies. Mr.B has identified them as: E3 = Creative Energy, E4 (A) = Conscious Energy, E5 (B) = Sensitive Energy, E6 (C) = Automatic Energy, E7 (D) = Vital Energy and E8 = Constructive Energy.
. The Buddha has identified them as vision (A), thought (B), speech (C) and physical action (D). And B-C-D is semiotics: semantics (B), syntactics (C) and pragmatics (D). Different words, same ideas.
. When a lower level “Aligns(%8)” itself with the level above it, that I think is transcending ones own level. When you reach down to the next lower level below you, then you are doing the “Fixing(8b)”.
. We are getting here into heavy theory (B) but if you want to answer the question: What does “being-in-the-world” mean? then you need a theory first and then you have to test it. If you have no theory, how can you test it? …
154:
. “Take also the ways of behaving known as REPRESSION and RESISTANCE. …. Existential therapists see the conflict more basically in the area of the patient’s acceptance or rejection of his own potentialities.”
. You can “Actualize your Potential (A1pt)” or not. The reason we can accept or reject our responsibilities is because we have the freedom of choice. Why? …
Because we have an intellect (B) that has the choice to serve our soul (A) or not. But that would be too simple. Why? …
Because we have a mind (C) that can either serve the intellect or not. But again that would be too simple: We have a mind that can be programmed, by ourselves or others, to serve or not to serve the intellect. In addition to that …
we have a body (D) that usually does what the mind tells it to do. But again, that would be too simple. It doesn’t carryout instructions the way a computer (D) does. Why? …
Because, according to Gurdjieff and Transactional Analysis, it has a mind and an intellect of its own.
. As you can see, things are not as simple as we would like them to be. But, as Mr.B said: Nothing is gained by trying to make things simpler than they really are. That’s why I can’t do this job alone, we have to get the DIVISION OF LABOUR going. How? …

==========================================================

September 7, 2011 . . . . . THE DISCOVERY OF BEING
. In my translation of the passage from chapter 16, in the last section, there is a mistake in the second sentence: “(SiisFuäG)” should be: “This feeling good Is Fulfilling your Destiny (SiisFUäG)”. And now that our attention is on that sentence I see something else wrong with it: Can you see it? It should be: …
What is causing “This good feeling Is the Fulfilling of your Destiny (SiisFUäG).” For Lao Tzu’s students this elaboration was not really necessary because they know that “This(Si)” feeling good, can represent that which is causing it. But for average readers, the translated passage will make more sense after the elaboration. A writer (C) would have given a better translation in the first place, without the error pointing out to him that not all readers are philosophers (B).
147:
. “SELF-COONSCIOUSNESS IMPLIES SELF-TRANSCENDENCE.” Why? …
The text continues: “….. TANSCENDENCE. The one has no reality without the other. …. The capacity to transcend the immediate situation uniquely presupposes EIGENWELT---that is, the mode of behaviour in which a person sees himself as subject and object at once.” In concentration (E3), We are the observing subject and what we are concentrating on is the observed object. Contemplation is the opposite of that. …
It is at X in the diagram of the heptad. Now, what is the connective between them? …
It is meditation (Y): We are the observing subject and we are the observed object. It is “the mode of behaviour in which a person sees himself as subject and object at once. The capacity to transcend the situation is an inseparable part of self-awareness, for it is obvious that the mere awareness of oneself as a being in the world implies the capacity to stand outside and look at oneself and the situation to assess and guide oneself”. And this abstract theory (B) becomes very real when it comes to Terry, the woman I love. I told her: You have to tell that destructive self of yours who the boss is. But HOW? …
By doing meditation, by self observation. The things I tell her about that ego-state is what it doesn’t want her to know. By telling her about it, I put it on the spot because it has to prevent her from listening to it. And now she has something to observe. It is an entity that cannot allow her to find out the truth. As I am describing this here, it is all loud and clear, but in practice I am up against a very clever ego-state that has used lifetimes to program her mind (C). To do the programming (B) requires an intellect (B). It is hard to believe that your own intellect is programming your own mind the way the AUTHOR is programming it.
. At Gita 13.24, Raja yoga (C) is called the Yoga of meditation, dhyãnena. The “WordErs(C2er)” (C) must team up with the “KnowErs(kner)” (B). Without their help this stuff is too hard for me to chew.
. Let me just tell you what of it is fairly clear to me. We are the whole of which soul (A), intellect (B), mind (C) and body (D) are the parts. If all four parts are working at full capacity, the whole is working at full capacity; if one part is weak, the whole is weak. When our mind (C) controls the intellect (B), we have, what the AUTHOR calls, “level confusion”. That means that we can’t be working at full capacity. And accomplishing that is precisely what the science of social engineering is about. And HOW this is done we can learn from the AUTHOR of A COURSE IN MIRACLES. And when we know HOW the programming is done we can de-program ourselves.
. Because of the woman I love, I am well motivated to work on this, but willingness alone will not do it. I can’t do this job alone.
. We are stifled by our weakest part, which I suspect is the mind (C), and social engineers have something to do with that. And we can even learn from the AUTHOR HOW they are doing it. And, as long as you don’t know what can be done to the mind and what the mind (C) can do to the intellect (B), it is unbelievable to you. And your inability to believe is what the social engineers depends on.
. Ching 69: Of “Calamities There-is-none Greater Than Underestimating (ÜfMOTAto$j) the intellectual, political and economic powers of your Enemy(âb).” I like to end a section with a good question. Here it is: HOW can the AUTHOR do what he is doing from the other side of the “Door” (A) where there is no time and space to do it in? …

=========================================================

September 6, 2011 . . . . . THE DISCOVERY OF BEING
Page 142:
“The grasping of the new meaning always presents …. The moment of most heightened awareness, ….Paul Tillich describes it as the moment when ‘eternity touched time’,”.
. On this side of the “Door, Dasamadwara” (A), there is “time”; on the other side there is no time. Tillich calls it “eternity”. Any word will do to describe the timeless dimension, as long as we know what the word is supposed to means. “Eternity(Cn)” happens to be an excellent choice because now, Lao Tzu can shed some more light on it. The dictionary equivalents of Ch’ang(Cn) are: “Frequent, constant, usual”. As you can see, “Eternity(Cn)” is not one of them, but translators have translated this character as “eternity” often “Enough(Zu)” that it has found its way into Jonathan Star’s Dictionary-Concordance.
. As in the COURSE, so in the Ching, words do not “Always(Cn)” mean what they “Usually(Cn)” mean. We have already come across this character at Ching 1. It appears four times in that chapter and we can already see there that the dictionary meaning must be broadened. The character appears in 19 of the 81 chapters of the book. Most of the time, a dictionary equivalent is called for, but a few times more than that is demanded by the context, and then the better equivalent is “Eternity(Cn)”.
. Chapter 16 contains information, I think Rollo May would like:
“Returning to your Roots (77$6) is Remembering-what-you-came-here-for(73), it is [“Actualizing and using your Potential (A1pt)”], which makes you Feel-good(^a).
This feeling good Is Fulfilling your Destiny (SiisFuäG), or doing your dharma.
Fulfilling your Destiny (FUäG) is Preparing-yourself for Eternity(73Cn).
Knowing how to prepare yourself for eternity Requires Insight (kn7372). if you
Don’t Know how to prepare yourself for Eternity (PUknCn) then you are
Reckless and Courting Disaster (*d%cÜc) [*d = Wang38.]. but if you
Know how to prepare yourself for Eternity (knCn) then you
Can understand and embrace all ($m, J,Wu’s equivalent)”.
. Since Chang Chung-yuan seems to be an existentialist, some quotes from his commentary on this chapter would be useful to us:
“As Lao Tzu says in another chapter [40]: ‘Reverse is te movement of Tao.’ This reverse movement is expressed in the lines ‘All things are together in action, but I look into their non-action [WnwU*b%cmeYIKnFU. *b = Ping1.]. That is, the truth of non-being is not sought through non-being; rather, the truth of non-being is thought through being. When one searches for the truth of non-being through non-being, one entirely neglects being.” To “neglect being” means to neglect thinking because only on this side of the “Door” (A) do we have time to think (B) in. But we can be helped by non-being by listening to the hints we are getting from the other side.
. “Being and Nonbeing Mutually produce Life (YUWUmtSg)”. To find the “Truth(A1)” we need the whole, the synthesis, of being and non-being. The AUTHOR of the COURSE is wrong by saying that one pole of the polarity is good enough. It gets around the “discomfort’ of cognitive dissonance, it gives us “comfort”, piece”, “serenity” and other nice things, but he doesn’t tell us what price we have to pay for these comforts.
144:
.. “The term TRANSCENDING is open to much misunderstanding …. Some suspicion of the term obviously is sound to the extent that the word can serve to elevate any given topic out of any immediate field in which it can be discussed and thus lead to obscurantism. And often in such cases the transcendent thing aimed at is given a capital letter, such as Self or Wholeness [or Holy Spirit] apparently to bootleg in some quality of divinity.” Can you see why I needed Rollo May’s help? …
The “trick (548a)” works because “transcendence” has its good name not for nothing.
147:
. “SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS IMPLIES SELF-TRASCENDENCE.” Why? …

==========================================================

September 5, 2011 . . . . . THE DISCOVERY OF BEING
“ …. Any experience of grasping oneself, the insight occurs with suddenness, is ‘born whole,’ so to speak. …. However one looks at it, the problem of time has a peculiar importance in understanding human existence.”
. When we are born, we enter “existence” in time and space; when we die, we leave “Existence(YU)” and enter “Nonexistence(WU)”.
. But what the AUTHOR of the COURSE and the “destructive self” of the woman I love seem to be able to do is to leave existence with the soul (A) at death and come back with the soul when it is born. They seem to be able to exist on both sides of the “Door” (A). This is the only way I can explain what the AUTHOR is doing and it explains some unusual things the woman I love is able to do. For instance, I come home and a minute later she is knocking on my door. And this has happened too often to explain it away as pure chance. There are other powers or skills by which she manages to survive and to get money out of me. The similarity between her and the further developed powers of the AUTHOR are too uncanny to write off as accidental. Again, she can't be the only addict who has a destructive self. Some comparisons could be made.
. In any case, you have another wild theory (B) that has to be tested. Even when a theory can be falsified, we still benefit from that. Even if it is nothing more than the exercise we get from the work of testing a theory.
. What this theory means to students of the COURSE and the woman I love and me, is that we are up against a formidable enemy. However, this enemy is up against the truth. It can’t allow the woman I love to listen to what I am telling her about that ego-state. What I try to get across to her is what is already known about addiction in general. She is not allowed to inform herself about what is happening to her, that this “destructive self” is “slowly killing” her, as it said even in the Toronto Sun.
. Sometimes I manage to slip a piece of information past her destructive self and she starts crying. This seems to be a sign of the “anxiety” Rollo is talking about. It is heart wrenching to see her crying on the other side of the door with the chain keeping it ajar. But I know (B) from repeated experience (D) that I can’t let her in. I know that if I let her in, the destructive self will take over again. And that does more harm than good.
. We have here, what the AUTHOR calls a “confusion of levels”. My intellect (B) tells my soul (A) what to do: “We can’t let her in.” My intellect is doing what it is supposed to do. It is supposed to work for the soul (A), as an architect (B) is supposed to work for the customer (B). B might have to tell A that s/he can’t have certain things because it would make the building the customer wants structurally unsound.
. As we learn from Gurdjieff and Transactional Analysis certain ego-states have an intellectual center (B), an emotional center (C) and, when incarnated, they have a certain control over the moving center (D) as well. The intellect (B) of the “destructive self” has had lifetimes to program the mind (C). How and why does it do that? …
How and why is the AUTHOR doing what he is doing? …
To gain “control” over its host. As costly, frustrating and painful my love-story is turning out to be, I am also learning a lot about the AUTHOR’s COURSE.
. The proper function of our body (D), our mind (C) and our intellect (B) is to serve our soul (A). The destructive self of the woman I love doesn’t do that, it is serving itself. This is the same type of problem we have in our “democracies”. Why? ...
because the unelected advisers (B) pf our elected politicians (C) are serving themselves instead of the people (A).
. As I am up against this formidable enemy in the woman I love, I more and more can see the similarity between it and the AUTHOR.
. As long as the woman I love comes to my door, even if only for the money she gets out of me, I get my chance to slip some truth past her destructive self. Theoretically (B), if I can get “Enough(Zu)” truth past that destructive self then the truth should set her free. As long as she comes to my door, there is hope. I can’t do the work for her that only she can do, but I can help her. The same goes for those who are stuck on the lower levels of the AUTHOR’s pyramid. Interpreting every sentence in the COURSE is a big job but, because if the repetitions of the “meanings” we have “Identified(Mg)” so far, I think I have already interpreted “Enough” sentences to see the general pattern. And that should already free some people who are caught on the lower levels of the pyramid. But, I am afraid that this will not happen unless some communicators (C) start to do their dharma. …
. “They [existentialists] do not neglect the past, but they hold it can be understood only in the light of the [present and the] future.” Why? …

========================================================

September 4.
. At the end of the last section I said that the messages we get “from the Gita, the Ching[and the] Neiye .... come to us in Poetry (C)”. Poetry (A) is not on level C. The lower cannot comprehend the higher. Because our intellect (B) and our mind (C) cannot produce the poetry (A), it gets into these books unaltered. As the message was dictated to the poets it got into these books.
. What the mistake draws our attention (A) to is the fact that the bait with the hooks hidden in it is designed to bypass the intellect (B) but not the mind (C). What the AUTHOR has dictated “is given in prose (C).” As the message was dictated to Helen Schucman it got into the COURSE unaltered. The above idea came to me this morning in a fraction of a second. How did I manage to describe it? ...

September 3, 2011 . . . . . THE DISCOVERY OF BEING
. There is a mistake on the last line of the previous section: “(Fu$4_H72)” should be (FU77_H72). Mistakes often draw our attention (A) to what requires more of our attention. Let’s just take that hint.
. In chapters 63 and 64 Lao Tzu Is telling us HOW to study his book. What he describes there is the thinking tool called “induction”. Induction is the movement from the particular to the general. We start with the characters and move up to the sentence. When you know the words of a sentence, the whole emerges through its parts and, having emerged, gives meaning to them.
. The first character in “Use your light” is “Use(us)”. In the Dictionary-Concordance, in front of file #5, you get the following information:
“us Yung101 04 6 11 27 8 31 35 40 5 52 7 ..’To use, employ; ….’ ”.There you have enough information to do the induction yourself. Let me just use these sentences as examples. Since we have already worked on Ching 11, let’s go there again:
. The spaces that are “Chiseled(*h)” out for “Doors and Windows (@A@B)” is as empty as the space inside of the “Room(*i)”. “In-the-center(*d), where The Nothing in something (_HWUYU)is, there is the Room”S User (*i_Zus).”
11.4: “Therefore(KU)
11.4,1: Existence, It is For Making Profit (YU_ZYIWyLI) of
11.4,2: Nonexistence, Which is For Making Use (WU_ZYIus)” of ….
. I hope that you can see from this example how much more you know about Yung(us) by seeing it in a different contexts. We have here a kind of “CycLic($lad)” action.
. “CycliciTy($lad), Tao’S Use (A1_Zus)”. What else is implied here? …
“CycliciTy is Tao’S” …
“Profitability(LI)” Once Li(LI) is identified as the opposite of Yung(us) we must always try the alternative on for size. The opposite of a character is always implied. See, for instance, HOW the AUTHOR makes use of the principle of ‘opposition’. In this way he “Repeats(@1)” a “meaning” without having to repeat a different “form” of it.
. Ch’i(_H) can mean “The(_H)” or “You(_H)”. Lao Tzu can be interpreted as talking in universals, or abstractions but, if you are his student, he is talking directly to “You(_H)”.
. For “Light($4)” we get: “$4 Kuang10 04 52 56 58”. At Cing 4 we have: “Harmonize Your Light (Ho_H$4)”! Don’t make your thoughts (B) stronger than your intuition (A) but bring them into balance. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Remember? The quote I have given above is from 52. At 56 we have the same three characters we have at 04. At 58 we have: “Government small, people happy; government big, people miserable. …. Enlighten the people But Don’t Bedazzle ($4btPU*x)” them. *x = Yao86. Yao(*x) could also be interpreted as the opposite of “Enlightening($4)” that is: Don’t dumb them down.
. In “Return Again to Your Insight (FU77_H72)”, “Intuition(72)” seems to be the opposite of “Thinking($4)”. Intuition (A) comes all in one piece from the other side through A, while ideas (B) are pieced together, bit by bit, on this side. The thinking (B) can only be done in our time-space dimension.
137 again:
“As a consequence of this overemphasis on spatialized thinking, says Bergson, ‘the moments when we grasp ourselves are rare,”. This seems to be what Gurdjieff calls “Waking up” from what we believe to be our normal waking state. The point here is that to become conscious (A) of ourselves we need our “BEING” (A? X-Y-Z?)). The intellect (B) can become more aware (A) than the mind (C) is able to, but here I am again expressing a theory (B) that needs to be tested, at least by students of Gurdjieff.
137 again:
“The essence of self-awareness and insight are that they are ‘there’---instantaneous, immediate ---“ This is not what is happening in this world by thought, word and deed (B-C-D) but it must be what is coming into this world through the “Door” (A). And if our soul (A) is not our “BEING” then at least it is closer to it as intellect (B), mind (C) or body (D) are.
. The ideas that come to me are not expressed as well as a writer (C) can do it. But until a writer is willing to do it, you have to put up with me.

========================================================================

September 3,2011 . . . . . THE DISCOVERY OF BEING
129:
“The human being lives in UMWELT, MITWELT and EIGENWELT simultaneously. They are by no means three different wolds but three simultaneous modes of being in the world. ….Several implications follow from the above description of the three modes of world. One is that the reality of being in the world is lost if ONE OF THESE MODES IS EMPHASIZED TO THE EXCLUSION OF THE OTHER TWO.”
. A Chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Weaken one and you weaken the whole chain. Break one and you break the whole chain. How come that a chain is related to the three worlds? …
Because of the Law of Correspondence. Because of this law we have the thinking tool called analogy. For the rest of the chapter, up to page 132, Rollo gives us examples from psychology were this law holds true. Let me just pick one of these examples:
131
“It may well be that the mode of EIGENWELT will be the area in which most clarification will occur in the next decades. …. In any case, EIGENWELT cannot be
omitted in the understanding of love.”
. Steiner, Lao Tzu and the Hindus help us to understand this: …
A spark of the divine is in our soul (A), which is in our intellect (B), which is in our mind (C), which is in our body (D) and it is in the world. This last world (E8) is our UMWELT, or environment. It is true that other people are also in our environment, but being WITH another person, as explained by Rollo, requires language (C) or some kind of nonverbal communication (C)
. “EIGENWELT will be the area in which most clarification will occur in the next decades” and because it is the weakest link most research will have to be done on it.
. What I have called the “spark of the divine” would be the “Purusha” at Sutra 14 of THE HOLY SCIENCE: “Purusha is covered by five koshas or sheaths.” According to the diagram of the heptad, I have given in the August 31 section, our un-manifested BEING would be the X-Y-Z “TriAd(_3ad)” on the other side of the “Door Dasamadwara”, and our manifested being would be the B-C-D triad on this side of the door (A).
. This is all theory (B) in need of verification or falsification. But we have to start somewhere.
136:
. “This new approach to time begins with observing that the most crucial fact about existence is that it EMERGES---that is, it is always in the process of becoming, always developing in time,”.
When we incarnate in this world we enter time. It is like getting onto a rollercoaster.
137:
There is “this overemphasis on spatialized thinking, …. In the sense of Aristotle’s definition, ‘For the time is this: what is counted in the movement in accordance with what is earlier and later. …. the EIGENWELT, the own world of self relatedness, self-awareness, and insight …. has practically nothing whatsoever to do with Aristotele’s clock time.” Yet it is valid.
. “Before and After Mutually produce Sequence (#c60mt#e), or time. The past-present-future triad is only possible in time. The “idea of change, which is Time, KALA, in the Ever-Unchangeable (Sutra 3)”. On the other side of the “Door” there would be an eternal present. That would lead to the power of NOW on this side of the “Door” (A).
“….clock-time. The essence of self-awareness and insight are that they are ‘there’---instantaneous, immediate---“. “Insights(72)” into the Ching, the COURSE or Rollo May’s book, tend to come as a flash, in a fraction of a second. My problem is then: How am I going to describe this? As you can see, I have skipped a lot of pages. Usually the reason is that the ideas are so well presented that I can’t add anything to it. but other ideas are worth commenting on but they are just too much to chew for me. The idea that just came through, as I am writing this, is that these “instantaneous, immediate” ideas, are received as they come from the other side of the “Door” (A). As we receive them by intuition, we get a some inkling of the eternal. We get a similar experience from the Gita, the Ching, the Neiye and even the COURSE. The difference is that the former come to us as poetry (C) while the latter is given in prose (C). It is as if they are designed to produce this type of “Insight(72)”. But there is no need to design it that way, it just happens to be that way on the other side.
“Use Your Light (us_H$4). Return Again to Your Insight (FU$4_H72)”. ...

=================================================================

September 1, 2011 . . . . THE DISCOVERY OF BEING
108:
“The self-affirmation of a being is the stronger the more nonbeing it can take into itself.” …
“The DyAd (Tzdyad)” of one pole is the stronger the more it can “Actalize its other Potential (A1pt)”. The dyad is the whole of which its two poles are the parts. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts, but it is only as “strong” as its weakest part. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.
. There is nothing wrong with repeating the truth. Only when falsehoods are repeated consistently, then we have to watch out. That’s why the “form” in which they are repeated is always different.
. Let me enlist Lao Tzu’s help to “elucidate” some more on Paul Tillich’s sentence:
Ching 1.1,1: “Actualize your Potential (A1pt)”! “Tao the TaoAble (A1ptA1)!
. . . . 1.1,2: “Identify what is IdentifiAble (MgptMg)”!
. We have the actual-potential dyad here.
1.4,1: “This DyAd(Tzdyad) is a Unit Originally ($1Cu),
. . . . . But this unit is Divided by Identifying (btâoMg)” its poles.
1.4,2: This “Unit Is the light’S Darkness ($1is_ZSü)”.
1.4,3: “Darken It and Repeat the Darkening (Sü_Z@1Sü)”! In other words: …
Bring “Darkness(Sü)” into your light. In other words: …
“Actualize your Potential (A1pt)”!
First comes the thesis, the “Unit($1)”, or the whole.
Then comes the antithesis: The whole is “Divided(âo)” into its parts. And then …
Comes the synthesis, the actualization or the “TaoIng(WyA1)” All you have to do is …
“Tao the TaoAble (A1pyA1)”! If you were willing and able to “Follow(18)” this line of thought then you can see that it is all there. But Lao Tzu said himself: “Follow Me Ones (18meer), those willing and able to follow me, are Precious(KU)”. Know Me Ones (knmeer) are Few(^e)”. Not everyone who is born into this world can be a jnana yogi. That’s why Lao Tzu has “Repeated(@1) references to THE DIVISION OF LABOUR in many different “forms”. But the Tao Te Ching is primarily addressed to the “KnowErs(kner)” (B). The reason the Ching became the bestseller it has become is because interpreters (B) and translators (C) have watered it down to a level at which more people could understand it. But this doesn’t mean that the “KnowErs” (B) don’t have to go back to the original text. Let me give you Ching 25.2 as an example. It is also a very “powerful sentence” like the one we got on page 108. 25.2: If we let “Big mean being home,
having been home Mean Going-out(73*e), [*e = Shih162.]
having Gone Mean Arriving (*e73$t) and
having Arrived Mean Returning ($t73$l) Then(KU)”
having returned means being back home again.
. I have quoted this amazing sentence before, but you can’t “Repeat(@1)” the “Truth(A1” often “Enough(Zu)”. Before we come to this sentence Lao Tzu says: “I Don’t Know Its Name (myPUkn_HMg). the Character for It Is Tao (*x _Z73A1) [*x = Tzu39.]. if Forced To-give It another Name (57Wy_ZMg) I-would-call-it(73) Big(TA)”.
. Back to page 115:
August 31, 2011 . . . . . THE DISCOVERY OF BEING
. At the end of the last section, below this one, I left you with a question. On the same page Rollo gives the answer:
115:
. The first form of ontological guilt mentioned above---namely forfeiting of potentialities---corresponds roughly to the ….EIGENWELT, …. The second form of guilt corresponds roughly to MITWELT …. There is a third form of ontological guilt which involves UMWELT as well as .’separation guilt’”, which is another thing the AUTHOR takes full advantage of. Please FIND “separation” or “separate” in the COURSE.
116:
“Ontological guilt does not consist of I am guilty because I violate parental prohibitions, but arises from the fact that I can see myself as the one who can choose or fail to choose.”
. With our freedom of choice comes our responsibility to choose. Because we have an intellect (B) that is told by A WHAT needs to be done and which can figure out HOW it can be done, and since we have a mind (C) that has to decide to do it, and since we have a body (D) that usually does what it is told, we are responsible for using our “talents (Matthew 25:15)”. If we bury even one of these talents the system as a whole will not work. Why? …
Because thought, word and deed are like the links of a chain. Break one link and you break the chain. How do you like my subtle way of repeating tings? The AUTHOR and Rollo are definitely more subtle than I am. Actually Rollo doesn’t have to hide the fact that he is repeating things. He isn’t trying to deceive us, he is just too good a writer (C) to make repetitions too obvious.
118:
. “The reason this endeavour to rediscover man as being in the world is so important is that it strikes directly at one of the most acute problems of modern human beings---namely, that they have LOST THEIR WORLD, lost their experience of community.”
. There are three worlds and one of them tends to predominate in an individual. if each one of us “Actualizes his or her particular Potential (A1pt)” then our “experience of community” takes on a deeper meaning.
121:
. Readers interested in this history of ideas will recall the important and imposing symbol of the same situation [as described above] in Leibniz’s famous doctrine of MONADS, The monads had no doors or windows opening to each other, each being separated, isolated. ‘Each single unit is lonely in itself, without any direct communication. The horror of this idea was overcome by the harmonic presupposition that in every monad the whole would be potentially present ….'.”
. We have the same idea in paragraph 1 of chapter 6 of Steiner’s PHILOSOPHY OF FREEDOM: “For my perceiving I am for the time being enclosed within the skin of my body. But what is inside of this boundary of flesh, belongs to the cosmos as a whole.”
. It is as Lao Tzu said: “In-the-center(*d), where The Nothing in Something (_HWUYU) is, there is the Pot’S User (ut_Zus)”.
. We have four repetitions here: First Lao Tzu said it 2500 years ago then Leibnitz said it, then Steiner said it in 1895 and here Rollo repeats what Leibnitz said. And once the idea (B) has become a representation (C), you will see it automatically (E6) all over the place. That’s when the Law of Attraction kicks in. This has to happen if we want democracy (A) and it isn’t going to happen if we don’t work FOR it collectively. What can you do to help? What did you come here for? …

============================================================

August 31, 2011 . . . . . THE DISCOVERY OF BEING
. In the last section I have quoted a “powerful sentence” by Paul Tillich:
“The self-affirmation of a being is the stronger the more nonbeing it can take into itself.”
You are the “being” in this body (D) of yours, and the “nonbeing” is its opposite. You can’t have the one without the other. The “more nonbeing [”The self-affirmation”] can take into itself” “the stronger” it gets. What do you make of this? …
Being is the thesis, nonbeing is its antithesis and the self-affirmation is their synthesis.
“The self-affirmation” takes “being” and “nonbeing” “into itself”. It is the whole of which being and nonbeing are the parts. It emerges through its parts and, having emerged, gives meaning to them. There you have another theory (B) to verify or falsify.
. I will now try to verify it. “For all things born in truth must die, and out of death in truth comes life. Face to face with what must be, cease thou from sorrow. (Gita 2.27, Juan Mascaró’s translations)” In other words, “accept” what is for what it is. The question is now: What is “born” into this time-space dimension, which returns to the time and space-less dimension after its death? …
Gita 2.28: “Invisible before birth are all beings and after death invisible again. They are seen between two unseens. Why in this truth find sorrow?” Why not “accept” the truth for what it is? …
2.30: “The Spirit that is in all beings is immortal in them all: …. (31) Think thou also of thy duty” dharma. So doing what you came here to do has something to do with “The self-affirmation of a being [becoming] stronger”.
. . . Y . . . . The N term system in which all of this is summarized
Z . + . X . is the heptad, the seven-term system.
. . . A . . . . Thought, word and deed, B-C-D is on this side of A
D . + . B . Omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience (X-Y-Z)
. . . C . . . . would be on the other side. But be careful here. Why? …
Because this is still a theory (B) that is in need of verification or falsification. But, again, if there is no theory to test then there is noting to verify or to falsify.
. B-C-D, semiotics, is one triad. Its “impulses” are like the links in a chain. If one is weak then the whole triad is weak, if one is broken then the whole triad is broken.
. Page 109 of THE DISCOVERY OF BEING:
“Anxiety is THE EXPERIENCE OF THE THREAT OF IMMINENT NONBEING.” …
By the time you have reached page 109, you know that “Anxiety IS [due to]…. THE THREAT OF IMMINENT NONBEING” is not the fear of death. What we “surrender” to the AUTHOR is not our life but our “BEING”.
109-110:
“Anxiety is the subjective state of the individual’s becoming aware that his existence can become destroyed, that he can lose himself and his world[whether EIGENWELT, MITWELT or UMWELT], that he can become nothing.”
. The woman I love is not anxious, she is not even afraid of death. There is very little love left between us because that “destructive self” is between us. It is unlovable and unloving. And, as long as she is unwilling to detach from it, she is it. She is unlovable and unloving. In spite of the pain she is causing me, she also helps me to understand the COURSE: The AUTHOR must prevent the reader from becoming anxious. S/he must not become aware of what s/he is losing when s/he “accepts” his will as her own. It is for this reason that Rollo’s book, which came into my hands purely by accident, is so important.
112:
“…. People individually and collectively surrender freedom in the hope of getting rid of unbearable anxiety. ….” The AUTHOR knows how to take advantage of this “anxiety” without ever letting us know what it really is.
. The stuff I am reading here is new to me, yet I can already see now that without this knowledge, understanding the COURSE would be almost impossible. We must know what the AUTHOR is really after. And if Rollo May can know it then he, being omniscient, must know it as well.
“…. The condition of the individual when confronted with the issue of fulfilling his potentialities is ANXIETY.”
. Anxiety, or “Angst” in German, as described here, seems to be something like conscience, which comes to us through the “Door, Dasamadwara” (A). If I don’t actualize my potential and I don’t feel anxious about it then I will continue not to do my dharma. If the woman I love doesn’t feel anxious about her drug habit then she will continue to feed it. Here comes some speculation that has to be tested:
. As I get to know her “destructive self” better I can’t help believing that these destructive ego-states don’t die with the body. After death, these non-material entities accompany us to the other side of the “Door” (A) and return with us from there after birth. This seems to explain why some people get hooked on drugs as soon as the get here while others don’t. It not only explains why this “destructive self” of the woman I love has such a powerful hold on her. The same theory also explains why the AUTHOR can do from the other side what he does. Still this is a theory that has to be verified or falsified. Theories (B) come from the semantic dimension (B) of semiotics. The decision to test them is made in the syntactic (C) dimension and the test (D) is carried out in the pragmatic (D) dimension of semiotics.
115:
. “We have cited only one form of ontological guilt---namely that arising from forfeiting one’s own potentialities [or dharma]. There are other forms as well.” Failing to work FOR ourselves can cause our conscience to bother us. What are the “other forms”? …

===============================================================

August 30, 2011 . . . . THE DISCOVERY OF BEING
. There is a mistake in the last section:
30:2.2,6: “God [the AUTHOR] but ensued ....” ensued should be ensured.
. The last sentence from page 105, which I have quoted in the last section, is worth further analysis”
“…. with the confrontation of nonbeing, existence takes on vitality”. The comma is the connective in this sentence. We have a complete sentence here. Everything that follows are subordinate phrases which fill in details.
“…. vitality and immediacy, and the individual experiences a heightened consciousness of himself”. The “individual” is the subject, “experiences” is the verb, or connective, and what is experienced is the predicate. We have another complete sentence. But the reason I decided to devote more space to this sentence are the last three phrases: “….of himself, his world and others”. Actually, I asked that question in the last section. I didn’t answer it because it is better to figure out the answers yourself than to read other people’s answers. Please go to the last section, below this one, and figure it out. …
. Rollo May is an excellent communicator (C). He is as good as the AUTHOR of A COURSE IN MIRACLES. So we can learn from his 171 page book something about HOW the 1249 page book was written. In the last three phrases of this sentence Rollo does another “Repetition(@1)”. Which “TriAd(_3ad)” is he talking about? …
The “form” in which the three “sources”, or parts of the triad, are expressed is different, but, just as in the COURSE, the “meaning” is the same. Please FIND “form” and “meaning” in this file or, if you can, in the whole 1249 page text. If you don’t do some of the work yourself, the AUTHOR’s communication skills are too much for you. ...
I asked: “What does consciousness ‘of himself’ …. Mean? …” …
The word “EIGENWELT” is repeated often “Enough(Zu)” to become associated with a representation (C) before you have covered the 171 pages. Work FOR yourself is “Actualizing your Potential (A1pt)”. Others can tell you HOW to do it, but they can’t do it for you. After you have actualized your potential, even if only partially, you can tell other how to do it, you can even help them to do it, but you can’t do it for them. Your dharma is your own responsibility. Nobody else can do it for you.
. “UMWELT” is another oft repeated word. Working FOR “the world” is picking up garbage, reducing pollution, planting trees, protecting them and the whales, etc. etc. It is doing ones dharma with your physical (D) body, it is doing physical work with love. It is karma yoga (D). Many people are karma yogis who don’t know that they are; others think that they are and are not.
. “MITWELT” is the third “impulse” of this triad. “MIT” means “with”. Working WITH others can be the most challenging and rewarding of the three.
. Conventional therapy is working FOR, or on, others; existential psychotherapy is working WITH others.
107
“By ‘accept’ we mean here to tolerate without repression …. Severe anxiety, hostility, and aggression are states and ways of relating to oneself [EIGENWELT] and others [MITWELT] which would curtail or destroy being.”
. Please FIND the word “accept” in the COURSE. There it means to “accept” the AUTHOR’s will as your own, “which would curtail or destroy being”.
108
Paul Tillich has suggested far reaching implications for therapeutic process in his powerful sentence, which we shall quote without attempting to elucidate, ‘The self-affirmation of a being is the stronger the more nonbeing it can take into itself’.”
. Here we come to a major difference between Rollo May and the AUTHOR.. …
Rollo tries to get his readers to think; the AUTHOR tries to prevent us from thinking. How does he do that? …
2:7.1,5: “I would hardly help you if I depreciated the power if your own thinking.” It is not his intention to “help you”. He depreciates the intellect in just about every sentence. How does Rollo get us to think? …
In the previous 108 pages Rollo has given his readers “Enough(Zu)” information to “elucidate” on this “powerful sentence”. Even in the little I have quoted of it you already have something to go by. Try it. …
What were we told on page 104? …
“Being ….must include the capacity to confront nonbeing.” …
On page 107 we were told to “accept” unpleasant things and ideas “without repression”. To “accept” things as they are. And death is what it is.
. “Existence and Nonexistence Mutually produce Life (YUWUmtSg)”. Rollo has repeated often, in different “forms”, that you can’t have life without death. The more you can “accept” “nonbeing” along with “being” “the stronger” your “self affirmation” becomes.
. I have enlisted Lao Tzu’s help to “elucidate” on this “powerful sentence”, but it is all there in the previous 108 pages. Just read them yourself. …

=======================================================

August 28, 2011 . . . . . . THE DISCOVERY OF BEING
August 29, 2011, 10:10 AM. A minute ago an idea (B) came to me: Hsin(Hs) is the A-B-C “TriAd(_3ad)” That could be “the sense of being” we have on page 104. Semiotics is the B-C-D “TriAd” that would be: …
The sense of doing. Doing (D) can happen by itself, when we pull our hand back from a hot stove, for instance, but that doesn’t give us “the sense of doing”. Our mind (C) can be programmed to determine, by computation (C) to do (D) something. But that is something we “Do automatically (E6) Without Doing (WyWUWy)” it consciously (A). When the idea came to me, I decided to tell you about it. It is still only a theory (B) that needs to be verified or falsified. But if you have no theory then you have nothing to test. So the sense of action begins with the idea (B) of what has to be done and how it can be done, then comes the decision (C) to do it and then comes the doing (D). And each of the three “impulses” or parts of the “TriAd(_3ad)” is like a link in a chain. Break one and you break the chain. End of insert.

. There is a mistake in yesterday’s section: What I have quoted from page 104 is not a standard “subject”, verb-phrase, predicate sentence. If it were, its predicate would have to consist of three subordinate phrases. Please go to yesterday’s section, below this one, to see what I am talking about. …
Try to produce three standard sentences which express what Rollo is saying there. …
This is good “Practice(pr)”, and unless you at least try to do some of the work yourself, the AUTHOR’s cleverness will be too much for you. He counts on you not using your intellect. Substitute intellect for “Fear” in the following quote:
2:6.1,4: “Fear cannot be controlled by me, but it can be self-controlled. (5) Fear prevents me from giving you my control.” Your intellect prevents the AUTHOR from controlling you.
. We must learn to think as well as, or better than, he does. Why? …
Because he doesn’t want us to do that. He doesn’t want us to interpret the sentences he has dictated. He is “afraid” of us using our intellect. That’s why he has to “depreciate” it. He clearly doesn’t want us to use it. Please do. …
Your “Being” is the “Subject” were “the external world” is the “Object”. We have a “subject”-connective-“object” “TriAd(_3ad)” here. One down two to go. …
Your “Being” has “the capacity to confront nonbeing. One to go, …
Your “sense of being presupposes the emergence of self awareness”.
. Rollo May is an excellent writer He repeats certain ideas often “Enough(Zu” that, simply by reading his book of 171 pages, you will “automatically (E6)” understand most of it. What do you think the AUTHOR can do with 1249 pages? …
If you passively “accept” what he has dictated he will “automatically” hook you. You don’t have to do anything. In fact, you must not do anything. Social engineering will not work if you do. The COURSE is designed that way. To see how well it is designed, try to get the truth across to those he got hooked.
. In almost every sentence he “depreciates” your intellect by cleverly using ‘opposition’. There are thousands of blatant examples of ‘depreciation’ on these 1249 pages. Yet he says on page
2:7.1,5: “I would hardly help you if I depreciated the power of your own thinking. (6) This would be in direct opposition to the purpose of this course.” Is it? …
2:7.1,9” …. but you can be trained to think that way.” Your mind (C) can be programmed to compute (C) the way the AUTHOR has programmed (B) you. The programming is done right here in this COURSE and once we understand it, it no longer works.
105:
“To grasp what it means to exist, one needs to grasp the fact that he might not exist, that he treads at every moment on the sharp edge of possible annihilation ….But with the confronting of nonbeing [and we have that “capacity”], existence takes on vitality and immediacy, and the individual experiences a heightened conscious of himself, his world, and others around him.”
. What does consciousness “of himself,” of “his world, and others around him” mean? …
107:
“…. the tendency of the individual to let himself be absorbed in the sea of collective [“brother”ly] responses and attitudes, to become swallowed up in DAS MANN, with the corresponding loss of his own awareness, potentialities, and whatever characterizes him as a unique and original being [is lost]. The individual temporarily escapes the anxiety of nonbeing by this means, but at the price of forfeiting his own powers and sense of existence.” The AUTHOR gives us “comfort”, “peace” and other nice things for an undisclosed price.
30:2.2,6: “God [the AUTHOR] but ensued that you would never lose your will when He gave you His perfect Answer.” His “perfect Answer” is a representation (C) which he installs in your mind (C) by means of which he enables the mind (C) to “control” the intellect (B).
. By causing the mind (C) to “control” the intellect (B) he is causing “Level confusion”. In other words, his “perfect Answer” causes you to “lose” your will. So what he tells us here is a blatant lie.
2:6.2,1: “I do not foster level confusion ….” Another one. Try to find some more. …

==========================================================

August 27, 2011 . . . . . . . . THE DISCOVERY OF BEING
. The last thing I said in yesterday’s section was: “Will someone who has ‘Actualizes his Potentia(ptA1)’ for communication (C) please say this better? …” The three dots at the end of a line mean before reading on, please think. It is a sneaky thing to put the dots at the end of the section because you have to wait for the thought to continue. …
. The statement can be misleading. Can you see it? …
The statement implies that the actualization takes place at a certain hour, or day. Does it? …
No, but to see that, we have to go back to
97 - 98:
“’To be and not to be’---the ‘and’ in our title of this chapter is not a typographical error---is not a choice one makes once and for all at the considering of suicide, it reflects to some degree a choice made at every instant. The profound dialectic in the human being’s awareness of his own being is” an ongoing process. …
If we read K’o(pt) as a prefix of Tao(A1), then “Tao the TaoAble (A1ptA1)”, is the most accurate translation of Ching 1.1,1 because we haven’t even translated Tao(A1). What you want to substitute for it is your choice. …
At 1.1,2 Lao Tzu has substituted Ming(mg) for it. Because in this context it can mean two things it is best to leave it untranslated as well: “Name the NamAble (MgptMg)”! But Ming(Mg) can also mean “Identify(Mg)”. “Identify the IdentifiAble”!
, The “Naming” or “Identifying” does take place at a certain hour or day. First comes the “TaoAble(ptA1)” then comes the “TaoIng(WyA1)” and then comes the “TaoEd(CnA1)”. So what is wrong with “Actualize the ActualisAble”? …
Nothin, except that self-actualization doesn’t happen at a certain day or week but in a certain lifetime, or lifetimes. Self-actualization is “an ongoing process”. After reading: Please actualize your potential for communication, you don’t just decide to do it and the next day you communicate what I am saying here more professionally.
. I have been on this search for truth for truth for 67 years. I am 76 years old now. Since the woman I love came into my life I have made a bit more progress but it would be unreasonable to assume that I can “Actualize my Potential (A1pt)” in this lifetime. It is as Rollo May says: “Being”, “Love” or “Consciousness” are outside of our space-time dimension. We can substitute many words for Tao(A1). Take knowledge, for instance: …
“Know the KnowAble (A1ptA1)”! First you have to “Identify(Mg)” something “KnowAble(ptkn)”. It has to be something you can chew. Then you have to do the “KowIng” Wei Tao is not in the Ching, but Wei Tao means “KnowIng”. And if you did it right then you will “Know(kn)” it. If you “Tao the TaoAble (A1ptA1) then you will get its Opposite(Fy), the TaoEd(CnA1)”.
. To give you some idea of how much is in those first six characters of the Tao Te Ching you can also translate them as follows: The “Tao Can be Taoed (A1ptA1, But-Not(Fy) in the Usual Way (CnA1)” Every good writer tells his readers if his book is written in an unusual style and define the meaning certain words. Substituting Ming(Mg) for Tao(A1) already tells us something.
104:
“The ego is the subject in the subject-object relationship. Being means not ‘I am the subject,’ but ‘I am the being who can, among other things, know myself as the subject of what is occurring.”. The verb-phrase: “what is occurring” is the connective between subject and predicate. The predicate says something about the subject. It is given here in the context. What is said about the subject follows: “…. what is occurring. The sense of being is not in origin set against the outside world but it must include this capacity to set oneself against the external world if necessary, just as it must include the capacity to confront nonbeing….. the sense of being presupposes the emergence of self-awareness”.
. We are getting here not only into the most promising psychology, but into philosophy as well, which we need to replace the AUTHOR’s untruth with the truth.
105:
“’To Be AND Not to Be,’ expresses the fact that nonbeing is an inseparable part of being.” What does all of this have to do with the COURSE? …
“This view of the ego is a symbol of the pervasive tendency to see the human being primarily as a passive recipient of forces acting upon him,”. And that is precisely why the AUTHOR doesn’t want us to interpret the sentences which are on those 1249 pages of his COURSE. You are supposed to be “a passive recipient” of the programming he tries to do on you. Are you going to give him permission to do that? …

========================================================================

August 26, 2011. . . . . . . THE DISCOVERY OF BEING
. There is a mistake in yesterday’s section. Here is the corrected version of
7:2.2,3: “This reflects creation, because it unifies by increasing and integrates by extending.” I have interpreted this one, but not
7:2.2,2: “This places you both within the Kingdom ….” …
. The three dots at the end of a line mean: Please think before reading on. …
Here is my interpretation of 7:2.2,1 and 7:2.2,2: …
This “sharing the Holy Spirit [the AUTHOR’s lessons] with him [your brother] ….places you both within the Kingdom, and restores its wholeness in your mind.” In other words: Your programming “your brother” programs “you both”.
. By placing more followers into the “Kingdom” their number is “increasing”. After that he “integrates” the different types of work they have to do for him. He is “extending” his “Kingdom” by integrating the work his followers are programmed to do for him.
. The mistake has caused me to do the interpretation of this important passage. Sentences in the COURSE contain the same “meaning” in different “forms”. The AUTHOR doesn’t want us to interpret his sentences because it exposes the “meaning” which is hidden in the “form”. Please FIND “meaning” and “form” in the whole text or in what I have typed so far in this file. We learn from Ching 41.1 that what social engineers don’t want us to do is precisely what we have to do.
. Let us continue at the bottom of page 93:
“It does not disparage the importance of technique to point out that technique, like data, must be subordinated to the fact of the reality of two persons in the room.”
. The patient sitting in the same room with the therapist is the whole and his behaviour patters are his “IdentifiAble(ptMg)” parts. On Plato’s “Divided Line (509d)” the whole is above and its parts are below. And the parts “must be subordinated to” the whole. For instance, in the construction business, the subcontractors (D) must be subordinated to the contractor (C), the contractor must be subordinated to the architect (B) and the architect must be subordinated to the customer (A). If any one of the three partners on the supply side of the equation fails to do that then the system, as a whole, fails to work.
. Using “Carts(*c), “Pots(ut)” and “Rooms(*i)”, as Lao Tzu does in chapter 11, is the exception. Usually he is using examples from politics (C) because it is closer to philosophy (B). In a Democracy (A), B, C and D are subordinated to the people. In a timocracy (B), C and D are subordinated to the unelected advisors (B), who serve themselves instead of the people. In a dictatorship (C) D serves the dictator, and in capitalism (D) the capitalists serve themselves. Money is the only thing they care about.
94:
. “This point has been admirably made …. by Sartre. If we ‘consider man’ he writes. ‘as capable of being analyzed and reduced to original data, to determined drives (or “desires”), supported by the subject as properties of an object,’ we may indeed [continues Rollo] end up with an imposing system of substances which we may call mechanisms or dynamisms or patterns. But we find ourselves up against a dilemma. Our human being has become [continues Sartre] ‘a sort of indeterminate clay which would have to receive [the desires] passively---or he would be reduced to a simple bundle of these irreducible drives or tendencies. In either case the MAN disappears; we can no longer find “the one” to whom this or that experience has happened’.”
. This was a long quote but it summarizes “admirably” what the book is about. So please take your time with it. …
. The political example still holds in the sense that the people collectively are on level A. They should be served by the three lower levels. Instead in an “Intelligent Man’S Government (wsmn_Z85)” (B) they are controlled with social engineering, in a dictatorship (C) the people are controlled by “Fear(âl)” and in capitalism we are controlled with money.
94-95:
“The term MYSTIC, in its disparaging sense, is generally used in the service of obscurantism; certainly avoiding an issue by derogating it is only to obscure it.”
. And this is what the AUTHOR is doing by “depreciating” the intellect. He is trying to prevent us from using it to interpret his sentences. If you have followed me even part of the way, you can see that he has good reasons for being “afraid” of the intellect (B).
95:
“It should not so greatly surprise us to find that ‘being’ belongs to that class of realities, like ‘love’ and ‘consciousness’ (for two other examples), which we cannot segmentize or abstract without losing precisely what we set out to study.” These “realities” come into our time-space dimension through the “Door, Dasamadwara” (A). They are above the intellect (B). And the lower can’t comprehend the higher. Love doesn’t make sense. To fall in love with the woman I love, is as unreasonable as unreasonable can be. She gets with me into the elevator. I ask her which floor the wants to get off? She says the 9th floor I had pushed is just fine. She follows me into my apartment. I ask her how much money she wants: Oh about $20 or $40. I give her $40 because I did find her attractive. She didn’t supply what I paid for. Still doesn’t. She is a drug addict and threatened to kill me. Why? Because I care about her and don’t want her “destructive self” to “slowly kill” her. That is why I am a threat to it. And since it has almost complete “control” over her it can get her to kill me. Since there was an assassination attempt on me in Cuba there may also be a contract out on me. The drug-pushers, who supply her would know about that. So how can love be more ridiculous? …
But if you look at the quality of what came through in my blog, since she came into my life, you can see again what a strange thing love is.
97:
“We can understand another human being only as we see what he is moving toward, what he is becoming; and we can know ourselves only as we ‘project our POTENTIA in action’.”
. We can only utilize our potential after we have actualized it. If our intellect (B) follows our Soul (A), our mind (C) follows our intellect and our body (D) follows our mind then we are doing what we came here to do, we are doing our dharma.
99:
“It is my saying to Descartes, ‘I Am, therefore I think, I feel, I do’.”
I Am aware (A) therefore I think,
I think (B) therefore I express my thoughts in words.
I speak (C) therefore I test the validity of what I say in action (D).
. One of the four natural aptitudes predominates in people according to when they were born. This difference in our natural “Potentials(pt)” calls for the DIVISION OF LABOUR. Will someone who has “Actualized his Potential(ptA1)” for communication (C) please say this better? …

========================================================

August 25, 2011. . . . . THE DISCOVERY OF BEING
. In the last section, in the quote from page 80, we have: “…. Nietzsche holds that …. this expansion, …. Bringing one’s inner potentialities into birth in action is the central dynamic need of life.”
. In A COURSE IN MIRACLES the AUTHOR is replacing your “inner potential” with his own programming. Instead of looking for the word “expansion”, please use the FIND function of this blog for the word “extension” which “means” the same thing in the COURSE as “expansion”. After you found “extension” or “extend” interpret the sentences the word is in. I can’t return to 2:3.1,7 to 12 if you don’t do some work on the COURSE yourself. My interpretations of the second half of 2:3,1 just wouldn’t make sense to you. The word is at 7:2.2,3, 7:2.2,4, 7:2.3,6, 7:2.5,6, 7:2.7,5, 7:2.7,6, 7:6.12,3, 7:6.12,4, 7:612,5 and 7:6.13,7, And that is only in what I have typed. Let me just give you 7:2.2,3 as an example:
7:2.2.1: “To heal, then, is to correct perception in your brother and yourself by sharing the Holy Spirit with him. (2) This places you both within the Kingdom, and restores its wholeness in your mind.” By repeating the AUTHOR’s lessons, you program your mind.
7:2.23: “This reflects creation, and because it unifies by increasing and integrates by expanding.” Notice that we need the context to make sense of this sentence.
. The words “creation”, “unifies”, “increasing”, “integrates” and “expanding” can all be automatically identified as ‘inclusion’. The different actualized “potentialities” of the AUTHOR’s followers are all integrated in creating and expanding the AUTHOR’s “Goal”. That is one down nine to go. To FIND my interpretations of these sentences. FIND the Chapter, section, paragraph and sentence numbers, you have above, in this file.. But it is good “Practice(pr)” to interpret these sentences yourself first and then compare your interpretations with what I have come up with. Lao Tzu's students do this automatically.
87
. “We are now in a position to see the crucial significance of the existential psychotherapy movement. IT IS PRECISELY THE MOVEMENT THAT PROTESTS AGAINST THE TENDENCY TO IDENTIFY PSYCHOTHERAPY WITH TECHNICAL REASON [which would be computation (C)]. It stands for basing psychotherapy on an understanding of what makes man the HUMAN being, it stands for defining neurosis in terms of what destroys man’s capacity to fulfil his own being [to do what he came down here to do]. We have seen that Kirkegaard and Nietzsche, …. not only contributed far-reaching and penetrating psychological insights, …. but also did something else --- they placed these insights on an ontological basis, namely, the study of MAN AS THE BEING WHO HAS THESE PARTICULAR PROBLEMS.”
. Man’s soul (A) is the whole which has an intellect (B), a mind (C) and a body (D). Since the whole is greater than the sum of its parts the “meaning” of its parts must come from, or through, it.
. Existential psychotherapy protests against the tendency to identify computation, that is technical reason, (C) with the whole of psychotherapy when really it is only a part of it.
91:
“THE FUNDAMENTAL CONTRIBUTION of existential therapy is its understanding of man as BEING. It does not deny the validity of dynamisms and the study of specific behaviour patterns in their rightful places. But it holds that drives or dynamisms, by whatever name one calls them, can be understood only in the context of the structure of the existence of the person we are dealing with.”
. The whole, man as a being, emerges through its parts and, having emerged, gives meaning to them.
93:
Knowing another human being, like loving him, involves a kind of union, a dialectical participation with the other.”
. Notice the word “dialectical” here. Lovers form “a kind of union” they become one in a larger whole. There is a lot I learn about ego-states because I care about the woman I love. I don’t want her “destructive self” to destroy her. This “destructive self” comes between the woman I love and me. It is real. It doesn’t like me and I don’t like it. It is unlovable. Addicts will kill people for the money they need for their next fix. This alone is no real threat to my life. The woman I love knows that she can get more money out of me while I am alive then she can get out of me when I am dead. But that destructive ego-state will have to change if I am to succeed in saving her life. Because I am a threat to it and, if it can’t keep her away from me, it will try to get her to kill me. And she said that, probably to warn me. Since she is almost completely controlled by that ego-state, see the COURSE on HOW that works, I have to take that warning serious. There is another possible reason. Two building inspectors worked on me for a full year to get me into a mental health facility. They almost succeeded but instead of turning myself in, I prayed. There is also the assassination attempt on me in Cuba. It is therefore possible that a contract is out for me and drug-dealers may have set the whole thing up. The woman I love may be a “Manchurian candidate”. These people do exist but people who claim that they are targeted are called “Ridiculous(*41)” conspiracy theorists.
. The last time she came to my door was August 23 just past midnight. I gave her the $40.00 I normally give her for a massage, no sex involved, but I couldn’t let her in. She started crying. “Why?” I said “I am not allowed to.” I had hoped that I could explain why
I am not allowed to but her “destructive self” took over. She got angry and left suddenly before I could say any more.
. Gradually it became more obvious that her “destructive self” was in almost complete control and I managed to tell her that and that letting her in is too “dangerous”. And that’s when she asked “Why?”: …
God has given us the freedom of choice. If I had known that by going to Cuba I am taking a chance of being assassinated and I still decide to go, then I wouldn’t have come back to Canada alive. Too many incidents had to coincide to get me out alive. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. There were at least four incidents that had to coincide to get me out alive. If one of them had failed, I wouldn't be alive now. And it is reasonable to call it divine intervention because these things couldn’t have coincided purely by chance. But if I let the woman I love in, knowing what I do know, taking that chance would be my decision and then there can be no divine intervention. Why? ...
because we have the freedom of choice and there is the Law of Non-interference.

==========================================================

August 24, 2011 . . . THE DISCOVERY OF BEING
Page 65:
“The strange question is: What does it mean that man, the being in the world who can be conscious that he exists and can know his existence, should chose or be forced [or be manipulated by means of social engineering] to choose to block off this consciousness and should suffer anxiety, compulsion for self-destruction, and despair?” …
. The woman I love has this “compulsion for self-destruction”. As it said in the Toronto Sun article: “Like a demon possession the addiction has taken over the person and is slowly killing the host.” I try to get this information across to her but her “destructive self” does not permit her to listen to anything it doesn’t want her to know. If you see this happening to the person you love, it is heartbreaking.
. We have a parallel happening with how the AUTHOR is manipulating people into handing over their power to him. Both the “destructive self” of the woman I love and the AUTHOR are up against the truth. In theory I should be able to report a more positive development of these two stories.
69:
. “The central psychological endeavour of Kirkegaard may be summed up under the heading of the question he pursued relentlessly: How can one become an individual? The individual was being swallowed up on the rational [B] side by Hegel …. On the economic [D] side by the increasing objectification of the person, and on the moral [C] and spiritual [A] side by …. vapid Religion”. If the head (B) swallows up the heart (A) the body (D) or the mind (C) something is out of balance. This problem can be corrected by a democratic (A) education. The education we have today is intended to maintain the “Intelligent Man’S Government (wsmn_Z85)” (B) we have.
78:
“Take for example, the concept of ‘control’. Control is a substitute expression for power, which puts the accent on my right to exert power OVER YOU.” If you hand over your power to the AUTHOR you give him the right “to exert power OVER YOU.” Please FIND the word “control” in the COURSE and interpret the sentences the word is in.
79:
To do ones dharma “requires the courageous living out of the individual’s potentialities in his own particular existence.” But first you have to “Actualize your Potentialities (A1pt)”. …. Man’s task is simple: he should cease letting his ‘existence’ be ‘a thoughtless accident’.”
80:
. In an infinite variety of ways, Nietzche holds that this power, this expansion, growing, bringing one’s inner potentialities into birth in action is the central dynamic need of life.”
81:
“one of his [Nietzche’s] most crucial existential emphasis is his insistence that the values of HUMAN life never come about automatically. The human being CAN LOSE HIS OWN BEING BY HIS OWN CHOICES, as a tree or stone cannot. …. You ARE your choices.”
. It is possible to program the mind (C) to “automatically” (E6) bring about “the values of HUMAN live” or to destroy them.
85:
We live in three worlds: “the UMWELT, the …. Environment, …. the MITWELT, man in personal relation with fellow men, and the EIGENWELT, the sphere of man in relation to himself.” They correspond to Gurdjieff’s three lines of work: Work FOR others, work WITH others and work FOR oneself. These in turn correspond to karma yoga (D), raja yoga (C) and jnana yoga (B). Where is bhakti yoga? …
Bhakti yogis are on the path of devotion, they work FOR God. What about jnanis? …
Jnana yogis are on the path of knowledge. Nobody can do their thinking for them nor can they do the thinking FOR others. What about level C …
Language (C) is for communication (C), by means of it we can get THE DIVISION OF LABOR going. And what about level D? …
Anything you do with your body (D) is karma yoga, if you love what you are doing.
86:
There are “efforts to save reason in its ecstatic form”. That would be the thinking we do on level B. And there are efforts “to accept exclusively …. reason in its technical form.” That would be the computing we do on level C. And that is precisely what the AUTHOR is trying to accomplish: He is trying to replace all thinking (B) with computing (C). And not just any computations (C) but only those he has programmed (B) himself.
. If we interpret the sentences in the 1249 pages of his COURSE we can find out HOW he does the programming. How come? …
Because, in his eagerness he is spilling the beans. I did only about 1/10 of the book, about 120 pages, but the pattern is already emerging. However, this is not a one person job. I need help. Are there no willing communicators around to do their dharma? ...

===========================================================

August 22, 2011
. Before we go to the first quote Rollo May has given on page 58 of THE DISCOVERY OF BEING, I have to take care of an omission I have in the last section, below this one. There I said that “Bynner’s translation …. is an excellent interpretation” and I somehow promised that I would help you “to appreciate it” but I didn’t. This I have to do now:
“Doors((@A)” and “Windows(@B)” are only here at chapter 47 and at 11.

11.3,1: “Chisel Doors and Windows (*h@A@B)out of walls To Make a Room (YIWy*i)
11.3,2: .In-the-center(*d), where The Nothing in Something (_HWUYU) is, there is the
. . . . Room’S User (*i_Zus) .” *d = Tang102. *h = Tso167. *i = Shih40.

11.2,1: “Knead Clay To Make Pots (*f*gYIWyut).” *f = Yen32. *g = Ch’ih32.
11.2,2: .In-the-center(*d), where The Nothing in Something (_HWUYU) is, there is the
. . . . Pot’S User (ut_Zus).”

The point is that “Pots(ut)” and “Rooms(*i)” are used here to represent our body (D). We are “in” our body as the occupant of a room is in the room. The “Doors(@A)” represent what the Hindus call the Karmendriyas. These are our organs of action. And the “Windows(@B)” represent the Jnanendriyas, our organs of sense. Together they represent our body (D). So when Bynner said: “abide at the center of your being;” What did he mean? …
Stay in your room! And now we can go to Ching 1.1,1 and 1.1,2. Even though Rollo has only quoted 1.1,1. It good to go full cycle. That is to go up to the paragraph inductively. And then return, deductively, to the details. The whole emerges through its parts and, having emerged, gives meaning to them. The “meaning” emerges when the system, as a whole, works at full capacity. If any part doesn't work at full capacity the system, as a whole, can;t work at full capacity. This is why it is necessary to know what the proper function of each part is. You can't make the system work properly if you don't know what the proper function of each one of its parts is. This is what I learned in 1964, when I took the IBM computer programming course. The course took only seven weeks. In seven weeks you learned HOW to program. Now, after seven years “computer scientists” still don't know HOW to program. How come? ...
Because our political masters don't want us to learn HOW to think. Actually the “job-description” (A), the programming(B), the coding (C) and pushing buttons on your computer's (C) keyboard can be learned in less than seven weeks. Not everybody has to know how the parts fit together. Once the parts are functioning properly, the whole seems to work as if on its own. Back to Ching 1.1.
. All characters in 1.1 are in our dictionary-concordance. Here is the first paragraph:
1.1,1 . . . . . . . 1.1,2
A1ptA1 . . . . MgptMg
Fy . . . . . . . . .Fy
Cn A1. . . . . .MgA1. Listing 1.1,1 and 1.1,2 side by side shows us that Tao(A1) appears 3 times in the first sentence Ming(Mg) appears 3 times in the second sentence and K’o(pt), Fei(Fy) and Ch’ang(Cn) appear once in each. What do these characters mean? …
Different translators answer this question differently by the “Way(A1)” they translate them. In the five examples, we have on page 58, Tao(A1) has been translated as “Existence(A1)” three times and once as “Way(A1)”, as “words” and as “terms”. Jonathan Star has: Tao/ the Tao/ way/ path/ “That”/ “The Absolute”/ “Nature”.
. Of the ten translations I have, in Ching 1, Tao(A1) is translated as “Tao” in five translations. That I consider the best choice. “Way” appears in three translations. That is the best choice in some chapters, but not in all. The Carus – Suzuki team has “Reason”. Again, that is a good choice for some chapters, but not for all. Richard Wilhelm has: “Der SINN(A1)” which can be expressed (A1) is not the eternal Sense (CnA1).
. “Sense(A1)” can be taking in the “sense” of making “sense”. But making sense is what our mind (C) does by computation (C). So “SINN(A1)” makes sense in some chapters, but not at all. Because Tao(A1) always means what the context demands it is best to leave it untranslated.
. Ming(Mg) can mean two things: “Name(Mg)” (C) and “Identification(Mg)” This is why it too is best left untranslated. At Ching 47.4 the context demands: “He identifies all things (Chan Chung-yuan).” It is also demanded at Ching 1.4.1:
“The DyAds (Tzdyad) we have in the first three paragraphs are
Units Originally But ($1Cubt) they are
Divided by Identifying (âoMg)” their poles. So here “Identify(Mg)” is the only choice because the “Identifying(MG)” is done by thinking (B). But at Ching 1.1,2, MgptMgFyCnMg, we have two choices: …
“Name the NamAble to produce its Opposite(Fy), the NamEd”.
. Here “NamEd(CnMg)” is the “Opposite(Fy) of “NamAble(ptMg)”. But …
What if there is nothing that “Can be Named (ptMg)”? …
Then we have to say: …
“Identify the IdentifiAble to produce its Opposite, the IdentifiEd”.
. Here the “IdentifiEd. is the “NamAble(ptMg)”. As you can see from the examples we have here: You can’t “Follow(18)” Lao Tzu if you don’t follow his line of thought (B). Representations (C) you have learned of the Chines language can actually get in the “Way(A1)” of Lao Tzu’s unconventional Chinese. Here students of the Ching, who don’t know Chinese, have a certain advantage over translators who know too much about it. Why? …
Because they don’t have anything to “UnLearn(PUÜd)”.
“LearnIng(WyÜd) is Daily Increasing (%$s) your knowledge;
.TaoIng(WyA1) is Daily Decreasing (%q%w)” the obsolete things you have learned.
“Learn to UnLearn (ÜdPUÜd)” the wrong thins you have been taught.
. Fei(Fy) is an emphatic negation, like :On the contrary, or: Definitely not. But “Opposite(Fy)” is also a valid equivalent and it is demanded here.
. Ch’ang(Cn)” Means “Constant(Cn)”. Star gives us: “eternal/ everlasting/ constant unchanging/ always/ fixed // ”. And this gives rise to another possible translation: …
“Taoed and TaoAble object is the Opposite of the TaoIng” subject. The “TaoEr(CnA1)” changes the object but itself is not changed as the result of the work it does. The object is the “ChangeAble(ptA1)” component in this “DyAd(dyad)” and the subject is the “Unchangeable(Cn)” component. When you do the thinking (B) there is a lot to explain, but communication (C) is not the dharma of thinkers (B). “KnowErs are Not good with Words (knerPUC2); the WordErs, who are good with words, Don’t Know (C2erPUkn)” how to think well enough. Lao Tzu’s students have to pay attention to what their teacher is saying. References to THE DIVISION OF LABOR are all over the place.
. Thinkers (B) are primarily interested in the truth, while communicators (C) are primarily interested in the reader who is supposed to understand it. I am not a writer (C). So, if you are a reader, please make allowances for that. …

=========================================================

August 21, 2011
. To show that existentialist ideas can be found in the Tao Te Ching, Rollo May has selected five passages from the Ching translated by Witter Bynner. The first is at Ching 1.1,1 and the last one is an interpretation of Ching 47.1. We will look at 47.1 first. Here is Bynner’s translation again: 47.1 and 47.2: “Rather abide at the center of your being;” 47.3: “for the more you leave it, the less you learn.” This is an excellent interpretation, but to appreciate it let me give you Chang Chung-yuan’s translation of the whole chapter:
47.1: “Without going out of the gate, One is aware of the world.
47:2: “Without peering outside, One sees the way of heaven.
47.3: “The farther away one is, the less one is aware.
47.4: “Therefore, the wise
47.4,1: is aware of all things Without moving a step.
47.4,2: He identifies all things Without looking at them.
47.4,3: He completes all things Without action.”

Both translators seem to be existentialists but the second translation is more accurate than Bynner’s translation. Why, then, did I say that it “is an excellent interpretation”? …
To “appreciate it”, we have to use the inductive process of problem solving Lao Tzu is teaching in chapter 63. Induction is the movement from the particular to the general. In Chinese we work from the “simples” to the character the way we work from letters to words in English. Then, in all languages, we move from words to phrases. For instance a standard indicative sentence consists of three phrases: A subject, a verb or connective, and the predicate. From sentences we move up to paragraphs, from paragraphs to chapters and eventually from chapters to the book of which the chapters are the parts.
. So each step is a movement from part to whole, then the whole becomes a part of a larger whole and the process is repeated again. This whole that becomes a part is what Arthur Koestler has called a holon, a whole-part. The holon is the connective between whole and part. Now I hope that you are ready for my word for word translation because we need it to evaluate the two translations I have quoted here.

47.1: You “Don’t have to go Out Doors (PUCu@A) to
. . . . Know what is in Heaven and Below (PUCu@fknTn_-)” it.
. “Heaven(Tn)” is on level B of Plato's “Line 9509d)” and what is “Below(_-)” it is level C and D.
47.2: And you “Don’t have to Peep through your Windows (PU*a@B)” *a = Kuei169.
. to “See Heaven’s Tao (ooTnA1).”
47.3: “The farther you go (_HCuäE$t) the less you know (_HknäEsm)”.
47.4: “ThereFore Intelligent People (SiYiwsmn)
. . . . . Don’t Go-out But Know (PUprbtkn),
. . . . . Don’t Look But can Identify (PUoobtMg)”
. Up to here the work can be done by computation (C) but the third and last phrase of 47.4 must be done by thinking (B) because you must consult other chapters to justify the following interpretation:
Intelligent people “Don’t Handle (PUWy) jobs that are too hard for them to do alone,
But they Accomplish (btcm)” them by contributing their own part to a lager group effort.
. This idea of “Accomplishing The Big (cm_HTA)” “Tasks(D2)” by a group, working as a team, can be seen easily in the Ching after you have understood it in Plato’s Republic or have seen it work in “Practice(pr)”. I will use Ching 63 as an example because I have studied it for a long time.

63.1,1: “Do your own dharma Without Doing (WyWUWy)” the dharma of others.
63.1,2: Accomplish your “Task Without worrying about the Task (D2WUD2)” of others.
63.1,3: “Taste that which is Without Taste (#KWU#K)”!

Wu(WU) Wei(#K) is only here and at Ching 35: When “Tao’S message Emerges through a Mouth (A1_ZCu@l) …. It is Without Taste (_HWU#K)”. Simply by using the concordance, communicators (C) can do this kind of work better and more efficiently (E6) by computation (C) than thinkers (B) can do it by thinking. I think the social engineers have something to do with preventing communicators from doing their dharma. If nothing fishy were going on then the thinkers (B) wouldn’t be stuck with doing other people’s dharma. From this you can also see why the AUTHOR has to “depreciate ….thinking”. Thinkers (B) can do the work of the communicators (C). Not as efficiently and not as well but they can do it and that is a threat to social engineers. This is why the AUTHOR doesn't like them.

63.3: “ThereFore Intellihent People (SiYIwsmn)
63.3,1: Throughou-their-life(nG)
. . . . . Don’t Handle tasks that are too Big (PUWyTA) for them and
. . . . . Thus (KU) are Able to participate in Accomplishing The Big (abcm_HTA)” tasks.

=============================================================

August 20, 2011 Page 17 of THE DISCOVERY OF BEING
. “My thesis here is that we can understand repression, for example, only on the deepest level of the meaning of the human being’s potentialities. In this respect, ‘being’ is to be defined as the individual’s ‘pattern of potentialities’.” And this takes us to the Hindu concept of dharma. What we do in this life is good or bad karma. The concept of dharma takes us beyond that. This means that this concept can help us understand existentialism. In fact, I believe that the concepts of dharma and existentialism can shed light on each other. For instance, take the very first two characters in Lao Tzu’s Tao Te Ching. They can be translated as “Actualize your Potential (A1pt)” And HOW do you do that? …
By “Taoing the TaoAble (A1ptA1). If K’o(pt) is read as a single character it can be translated as “Can(pt)”. If we read it as a prefix, it becomes the suffix “--Able” in English.
. In chapter 63, Lao Tzu advises us: Don’t bite off more than you can chew. And HOW are we supposed to do that? …
By only “Doing what you Can Do (A1ptA1)”. For instance, I have marked and written commentaries on many pages of this book, most of which I have to skip. Why? …
Because before I read the book, I didn’t even know what existentialism is. So to try to improve on the excellent description Rollo May has given of it, would be presumptuous. There are, however, passages Lao Tzu has helped me to understand. And this is one of them. What we learn from this passage is that, unless we “Actualize our Potential”, we can’t use it. Not using our “talents (Matthew 25:15)” is like burying them.
And this leads us to the next thing Rollo says in the same paragraph: “These potentialities will be partly shared with other persons [who have also “Actualized their Potential”] but will in every case form a unique pattern in each individual.” Again, a “Potential(pt)” can’t be “shared with other persons”. And what is the purpose of “Actualizing” and “sharing our “natural aptitudes”, as Plato puts it? …
To “Accomplish(cm)” a task that can’t be accomplished alone. For instance, unless a communicator (C) takes over from what you see here, my attempt in participating in the establishment of democracy (A) will be in vain.
. Rollo continues: “We must ask the questions: What is this person’s relation to his own potentialities? What goes on that he chooses or is forced [or manipulated] to chose to block off from his awareness something which he knows, and on another level KNOWS THAT HE KNOWS?” …
. “Not Knowing that you Know (PUknkn) is Sick(Ping(@p)”. Rollo continues: “In my work in psychotherapy there appears more and more evidence that anxiety in our day arises not so much out of fear …., but rather out of the patients fear of his own powers, and the conflicts that arise from that fear.” This is the very thing the AUTHOR has repeated in different “forms”. And I didn’t give him credit for that bait because I don’t trust that guy.
. Now that Rollo May says it, I can see the “fear” of the truth in the woman I love. After I had learned the lesson I have just described here, I let her in, in the hope to get some of it across to her. Her “destructive self” did not permit that. Knowing the truth will detach the woman I love from her “destructive self”. So preventing her from hearing me and getting her to kill me is a form of self-defense of that ego-state. When you love somebody and some being with intelligence (B) emotions (C) and a physical (D) hold on a person, comes between you then that entity becomes quite real to you. It doesn’t like me and I don’t like it. The destructive part of the woman I love is unlovable but very real.
. There are a lot of marked passages I have commented on. But trying to improve on Rollo May is more than I can chew. You simply have to read that book yourself. However on page 58 he points out “the relation between existentialism and Oriental thought as shown in the writings of Laotzu”. For this purpose he has picked five passages from Witter Bynner’s translation: “Existence is beyond the power of words to define: terms may be used but none of them is absolute.” 2: “Existence, by nothing bread, breeds everything, parent of the universe.” 3: “Existence is infinite, not to be defined; and though it seem but a bit of wood in your hand, to carve as you please, is not to be lightly played with and laid down.” 4: “The Way to do is to be.” And 5: “Rather abide at the center of your being; for the more you leave it, the less you learn,”
. Witter Bynner must be an existentialist. I have a translation by Chang Chung-yuan. He must also be an existentialist because he is using Heideger to interpret Lao Tzu’s words. I also have a translation by Aleister Crowly. He is a Quabalist. Translators say that the Ching can’t be translated. It must be interpreted. To get around that I capitalize the characters and keep them in the sequence they come in the original. When this is not possible, I do an ordinary translation. Each capitalized word is identified by a two-digit identifier, which you can look up in the dictionary-concordance in front of file #5 of this blog. All lower case words are either fillers or interpretations.
. The first quote from Bynner is from Ching 1.1,1 and the last one is from 47.2. In the next section I will show how induction and deduction is applied to the study of the Tao Te Ching. Deduction can only be used if you already know the concept Lao Tzu is teaching. In other words it can only be used for teaching. How induction is to be used, Lao Tzu teaches in chapters 63 and 64. …

========================================================

August 18, 2011 .
. There is an error I made yesterday in my commentary on the quote from page 14. The “error” is more of an exaggeration. I said there:
. “Existentialism tries to reject ‘Nonexistence(WU)’ and accept only ‘Existence(YU)’. The AUTHOR is doing the same sort of thing in order to get around the ‘discomfort’ of cognitive dissonance.” But Rollo May can’t be blamed for that because later he is talking about the “dialectic” process.
. The quote from page 14 is about Kirkegaard’s statement which seems to be at the heart of existentialism. He has “described anxiety as the struggle of the living being against nonbeing.” All of us are born at a certain point in time, under a specific astrological sign, and all of us will die at a certain point in time. While we are between these two points there is this “struggle of the living being against” the fact that we are going to die. You can't have the one without the other. And this fact results in the death wish, which all of us try to suppress and which in its extreme form results in suicide. I am painfully aware of this death wish in the woman I love. As it said in the quote from the Toronto Sun: Her “DEMON …. is slowly killing the host.” After reading it, she becomes angry, she becomes the demon. And she says angrily: “I am not a host.”. And the demon is right for saying that because it is not the host. When identified with what I call her “destructive self” she is the ego-state that “is slowly killing” her. But how do you explain that to the person who is “controlled” by the demon or by the AUTHOR”? …

Page 15 of , , , , , THE DISCOVERY OF BEING
“….We are not in danger of repressing the technical emphasis (of which Freud’s tremendous popularity in this country was proof, if any were necessary). But rather we repress the opposite. …. we repress the SENSE OF BEING, the ontological sense. One consequence of the repression of the sense of being is that modern man’s image of himself, his experience of himself as a responsible individual, his experience of his own humanity have likewise disintegrated.” And this also happens when the AUTHOR “depreciates” the intellect. You would not submit to him if you feel “responsible” for your decisions, if you really know what you are giving to him.
. The dynamic behind this phenomena is the life-death “DyAd(dyad)”. The AUTHOR knows what he is doing, he appeals to something that is real in us. There is something in us that wants to live and which manifests in the self preservation instinct, and there is something in us that wants to die, which manifests as the death-wish. I have experinced it twice in my life this is why it is real to me. But I am not the only one. Every person committing suicide is giving in to the death-wish. But Rollo May points out that there is more to “anxiety (Angst)” than fear (furcht). Because the word “Angst” exists in the German language, Heideger has contributed to the emergence of existentialism.
. “I make no apology in admitting that I take very seriously the dehumanizing dangers in our tendency in modern science to make man over into the image of the machine …. The tendency is not the fault of any ‘dangerous’ person or ‘vicious’ schools’,”
. I have to disagree here: Social engineers are “dangerous” people and the “schools” in which this science is taught are secret and “vicious”. If Rollo May is ignorant of them then they are secret; if he is afraid to talk about them, then they are “vicious”.
16:
“…. The social sciences …. Tend toward the destruction of individuality. This tendency, I believe, increases radically with the spread of behaviour modification, a form of psychotherapy ….”. Mind-control is “behaviour modification” and that is social engineering.
“We cannot brush aside the cautions of such men as Jaspers and White as unintelligent or antiscientific. To do so would make US the obscurants” Jaspers and White are talking about. The fact that social engineers have to use “obscurantism” to make their science work should speak for itself.

========================================================

August 14, 2011 . . . . . . . . . A COURSE IN MIRACLES

2:3.1,1: “The Atonement can only be accepted within you by releasing the inner light.”
2:3.1,1: The At-one-ment with the Author can only be accepted by letting go of the intellect. This may be called a far-fetched interpretation. The fact is that accepting the AUTHOR’s desires as your own is unacceptable to the intellect.

. The Atonement can only be accepted by letting go of the intellect
2:3.1,2: “Since the separation, defenses [of the intellect] have been used almost entirely to defend against the Atonement, and thus maintain the separation.”
. To fill in the details please FIND “separate”
. In this file. We have here the ‘depreciation’ of the intellect and also ‘opposition’. Why? …
At-one-ment is the opposite of “separation”.

2:3.1,3: “This is generally seen as a need to protect the body. (4) The many body fantasies in which minds [B] engage arise from the distorted belief that the body can be used as a means for attaining ‘atonement’.”
. One of the “many fantasies” is the Aristotelian tetrad. It was used by the developers of the IBM programming system to design it. In it the customer (A) produces the “job-description”. That is the demand. The programmer (B) does the “job-analysis”. That is the algorithm of the job. The coder (C) does the “coding”, that produces the program, and the computer (D) “executes” the instructions it gets from the coder. Together the four parts form one whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. Any reference to this “Atonement” can be identified as ‘inclusion’. Each part is included as an indispensable part of the whole. On the human level there is our soul (A), our intellect (B), our mind (C) and our body (D) together they form this one whole which we are. In this sense we are an at-one-ment of our four parts. And it is not a “distorted belief that the body” is a part of it.
. If you have followed me through the last paragraph then you have just replaced the AUTHOR’s “official version” of the truth by the truth.

2:3.1,5: “Perceiving the body as a temple is only the first step in correcting this distortion, because it alters only part of it. (6) It DOES recognize that Atonement in physical terms is impossible.”
. After replacing the AUTHOR's “official version” of the truth with the truth, we can see that there is no “distortion” to “correct”. The tetrad works in the construction business in the IBM computer programming system and many other applications. So why did the AUTHOR say that “Atonement in physical terms is impossible” when the system can not only by understood but made to work “in physical terms” If this is not what “Atonement” means what then does it mean? And no “obfuscation” please.

2:3.1,7: “The next step, however, is to realize that a temple is not a [physical] structure at all. (8) Its true holiness lies at the inner altar around which the structure is built.”

August 18, 2011. The remaining five sentences of 2:3.1 are so convincing, so well written, they are social engineering at its best. No matter how I interpret them, the interpretation is likely to seem too far-fetched and thus do more harm to my cause than good. On August 14 I ran into a problem, which in computer programming is called a “hang-up”. The problem is too hard for me to chew.
. I don’t normally buy books, unless it is something like A COURSE IN MIRACLES. The investment we make in books is not so much the price we are paying for it but the time we have to invest in reading it. To read the $0.99 used book I bought on August 15 took me three days. Its title is THE DISCOVERY OF BEING. Its author is Rollo May. The fact that I bought this one in the Good Will store on Queen at Landsdowne can be called a coincident but, as I describe what we can get out of it, you will probably agree with me that it was a meaningful coincident.
. When I read a book, I am in the habit of underlining, sidelining and of making notes. I will use them to convey to you why this book is “meaningful” to interpreters of the COURSE.
Page 10:
. “The writings in this book have grown out of my passion to find the being in my fellow persons [primarily his patients] and myself. This always involves the search for our values and purposes.” Our “purpose” is the GOAL (A) we get from our soul (A), which is the Atman in Sanskrit. The Sanskrit word, dharma, is often translated as “duty”. To do what we came down here to do is our dharma. Doing it is good karma; failing to do it is bad karma. These basic concepts we get from the Hindus can help us to understand “existential therapy (13)”
. To evaluate this book, you would have to read it yourself. For practical, pragmatic, reasons I not only have to skip most of the text, but even text I had sidelined and made notes on. I try to get the main ideas across to you by giving you quotes which enable me to get the ideas across by commenting on them.
13:
. Though the existential approach had been the most prominent in European psychiatry and psychoanalysis for two decades, it was practically unknown in America until 1960.” I personally believe that social engineering had, and still has, something to do with that. And this in spite of the fact that “this approach as a deep underlying affinity for our American character and thought. It is very close, for example, to William James’s emphasis on the immediacy of experience, the unity of thought and action, and the importance of decision and commitment” or intent.
. The 4-fold process we can see in in the construction business and the IBM computer programming process. Begins with the “commitment” of the customer (A) S/he must be able to pay for the job and be willing to commit herself to do it. Without this “commitment” the job doesn’t even get started.. Next comes “thought” (B). WHAT the customer wants must be clarified by thinking about it. Next comes the “decision” to carry out in “action” (D) what is required to supply the customer’s demand in physical (D) form (B). In the Aristotelian tetrad A is the “final cause”, B is the “formal cause”, C is the “efficient cause” it is computation (C) rather than thinking (B) and D is the “material cause”. As you can already see here, there is a lot hinted at in this book which we don’t ordinarily notice. What is true here also applies to the COURSE the Gita, the Tao Te Ching and other books like it. All of these, including the COURSE, are a remedy for social engineering.
14:
“ …. Kirkegaard, on the other hand, described anxiety as the struggle of the living being against nonbeing which I could immediately experience in my struggle with death”.
. Existentialism tries to reject “Nonexistence(WU)” and accept only “Existence(YU)”. The AUTHOR is doing the same sort of thing in order to get around the “discomfort” of cognitive dissonance.
. This is not what Lao Tzu and others are teaching:
“Existence and Nonexistence Mutually Produce (YUWUmtSg)” “Life”. Shêng(Sg) means both: to “Produce(Sg)” and “Life(Sg)”. What existentialists tell us is that “Being(YU)” is “Life(Sg)” while Lao Tzu tells us that “Being and Nonbeing Mutually Produce” “Life”. “Life is the synthesis of being and nonbeing. It is a result of the dialectic process.
“…. Kirkegaard went on ….the real terror in anxiety is not death as such but the fact that each of us within himself is on both sides of the fight, that ‘anxiety is a desire for what one dreads”, as he put it, thus like an ;alien power it lays hold of on individual, and yet one cannot tear one’s self away.”
‘ The death-wish is in all of us because the self-preservation instinct is in all of us. And you can’t have the one without the other. Lao Tzu explains over and over again that you can’t have “Existence(YU)” without “Nonexistence(WU)”
. “All material Things (WnwU) Come From (Sgto) Existence(YU);
. . Existence Comes From Nonexistence (YUSgtoWU)”.
“Existence It is For Making Profit (YU_ZYIWyLI) of
Nonexistence Which is For Making Use (WU_ZYIWyus)” of ….
. I am getting a painful lesson of this from the woman I love: In the Toronto Sun of August 3 there is the following passage on page 19: “Like a demon possession the addiction has taken over the person and is slowly killing the host.” When she read it, the gets angry, she changes into the “destructive self” crunches up the paper and says “I am not a host.” From then on there is no more communication between her real self and myself but only a fruitless argument between this destructive ego-state and myself.
. It is very painful to see this destructive self “control” and destroy the woman I love. According to Gurdjieff and Transactional Analysis ego-states have an intellectual (B), emotional (C) sense of self-preservation and a physical (D) component in them. Like the B-C-D triad, it is a part of us. There are two parts in the woman I love: the part that wants to live, that even asks me to help her and the other part that is causing her to die and to accomplish this it will cause her to kill me because I am a threat to it. Because I love her, I naturally want to help her. And since this destructive self can’t survive if I succeed, I have to die too. This may sound like a phobia but the woman I love has warned me a-number of times that she is going to kill me. Because that “destructive self” is in almost complete control of her, I must take her warning serious.
. So there I have what Kirkegaard is talking about right in front of my eyes. Do you still believe that this book came into my hands purely by accident? …
15:
“….We are not in danger of repressing the technical emphasis (of which Freud’s tremendous popularity in this country was proof, if any were necessary). But rather we repress the opposite. …. we repress the SENSE OF BEING, the ontological sense.” …

=========================================================

August 13, 2011 . . . . . . . A COURSE IN MIRACLES
. There is an omission in the August 12 section. There I gave a translation of Neiye 14:

4C: “One Word, It Releases”. In the Ching and here “Word(C2)” represents level C
4D: “Up it Reaches To Heaven”. “Heaven(Tn)” represents B, “Ta” there should be Tn.
4E: “Down it Stretches To Earth”. “Earth(TI)” represents D.
. This passage is about level C: The communicators (C) reach “Up(_+)” to the thinkers (B) to get the truth. That is the “Alignment(8b)” we have at chapter 8. By “Releasing(#q)” the truth from B to the people (D), the communicators (C) are “doing their own thing”. Please see Desmond Lee’s footnote on 433b of Plato’s Republic.
. The mistake on line 4D tells us that we must pay attention (A) to the “Words” which come to us from the other side of the “Door, Dasamadwara” (A). This is especially true of the COURSE because its AUTHOR is trying to deceive us. I have only covered about 1/10 of his book and already we have caught him with three outright lies at 2:6.2,1, at 2:7.1,6 and at 30:2.2,6. When he causes “level confusion”, when he “depreciates” our intellect, or when he deprives people of their freedom of “will”, he knows exactly what he is doing.
. When the AUTHOR knows the truth and he is stating an “untruth” it is not a mistake but a lie. Clearly we are up against “spiritual wickedness in ‘high places (Eph. 6:12).”

2:2.7,1: “The Atonement is total commitment.”
2:2.7,1: The At-one-ment with the AUTHOR is total commitment to him. If, at a certain stage of your evolution, you say to God: Not mine but Thine Will be done through me then this may be the best decision you can make; but if you say that to the AUTHOR then it is always the worst mistake you can make.

2:2.7,2: “You may still think this is associated with loss, a mistake all the separated Sons of God [the AUTHOR] make in one way or another.”
2:2.7,2a: Handing over your power to the AUTOR is an nonredeemable “loss”. Why? …
Because you enable him to make sure that you can’t “correct” the “mistake” you have made. You are giving your power away to him.
2:2.7,2b: Still, the AUTHOR says that you have made a mistake. Can’t you see that “God” is your father and you are his “Sons”, how can you not trust your own father? …

2:2.7,3: “It is hard to believe a defense that cannot attack is the best defense. (4) This is what is meant by ‘the weak shall inherit the earth’.” Do you believe it now? ...
. “Miracles” and the “Atonement” come directly from the AUTHOR therefore they can’t be turned against him. They are the best “defense” against the intellect. It is seeking and finding the truth. The truth is against anyone, or anything, that is against it. This is why fighting the truth is an uphill battle.

2:2.7,5: “They will literally take it [“the earth” or the world] over because of their strength.” This gives us some idea about the AUTHOR’s ambitions.

2:2.7,6: “A two-way defense [like the truth] is inherently weak precisely because it has two edges, and can be turned against you very unexpectedly.” The truth is “turned against” the AUTHOR right here by us doing what he doesn’t want us to do. Even the truth, which he gives us as bait, can be turned against him.

2:2.7,7: “This possibility cannot be controlled except by miracles.” They come directly from the AUTHOR and are under his control. The truth does not come from him and therefore is not under his control.

2:2.7,8: “The miracle turns the defense of Atonement to your real protection, and as you become more and more secure [programmed] you assume your natural talent [the representations (C) that have been installed in your mind (C)] of protecting others, knowing [believing] yourself as both a brother and son.” Why do you have to be protected from the truth? …
Because you want what the AUTHOR wants. His will is your will.

2:3.1,1: “The Atonement can only be accepted within you by releasing the inner light.” …

======================================================= ;

August 12, 2011 . . . . . . . . . A COURSE IN MIRACLES

2:2.6,1: “Evolution is a process in which you seem to proceed from one degree to the next.”
2:2.6,1: Evolution proceeds from one lesson to the next. If you are doing your dharma then you can actually experience that you are being taught. What is known as “synchronicity” are messages from the other side of the “Door” (A) to keep you on track. Take the “mistake” I have corrected in the August 10 section. Why did I go back to the August 8 section? …
Because there I made the mistake. What made me go back there? …
“My shadow slips in mistakes like that when it wants to draw our attention (A) to what requires more of our attention.” You can say that there is no such thing as a shadow and that I made it all up. But I can’t say that because I didn’t make it up. And if you have similar experiences then you know that these things do happen.
. So the AUTHOR’s “…. You seem to proceed ….” is intended to cast doubt on what actually happens. Also Google: “obfuscation”.

2:2.6,2: “You correct your previous missteps by stepping forward.” I had to “correct [my] previous misstep” not by “stepping forward” but by going back to where I made the mistake.

2:2.6,3: “This process is actually incomprehensible in temporal terms, because you return as you go forward.” We are here in time and space. Why confuse us with what is real in the time and space-less dimension, on the other side of the “Door” (A) ...
? Is this a simple case of “obscurantism? …
Not quite, there is some truth, or bait, to what the AUTHOR is saying. Can you see it? …
In the timeless dimension there is no “return” nor can “you go forward”. Why? …
Because there is no time to do it in. Everything is in the eternal NOW. However, in the yearly, weekly or daily cycles you can say that every day can be the end of something and the next day can be the beginning of something else. For instance, Sunday is the end of the weekend and Monday is the beginning of the work-week. On a long weekend Monday is the end of the weekend and Tuesday is the beginning of the workweek. So you can say that you “return” to the weekend “as you go forward” in the workweek. But why tell us this? Is this just “obscurantism”? …
Not quite, but let us just take note of this and continue with what is more chewable for us.

2:2.6,4: “The Atonement is the device by which you can free yourself from the past as you go ahead.” At 2:2.6,2, “You correct your previous missteps by stepping forward.”, at 2:2.6,3 “you return as you go forward.” And here “you can free yourself from the past as you go ahead.” The same “meaning” is repeated three times in different “forms”. Please FIND these words in the text. Notice how we start out our interpretation in the syntactic dimension (C) of semiotics and when we are done there we are ready to move up to the semantic dimension (B). There we ask: Why is “Atonement …. the device by which you can free yourself from the past as you go ahead”? …
Let us continue with something more chewable:

2:2.6,5: “ It [the Atonement] undoes your past errors, thus making it unnecessary for you to keep retracing your steps without advancing to your return.” …
On this side of the “Door” (A) you are “retracing your steps [in order to advance] to your return.” With the “Atonement” you don’t have to “keep retracing your steps”, the law of karma is put on hold, while you are “advancing to your return.”

2:2.6,6: “In this sense the Atonement saves time, but like the miracle it serves, does not abolish it.” The Atonement “does not abolish” time. The Atonement and “the miracle it serves” work in time.

2:2.6,7: “As long as there is need for Atonement, there is need for time. (8) But the Atonement as a completed plan has a unique relationship to time. (9) Until the Atonement is complete, its various phases will proceed in time, but the whole Atonement stands at times end.”
. Evolution proceeds up by induction and down by deduction simultaneously. The Neiye has a lot to say about this. Let’s just take the first three lines of Chapter 2:

2a: “Therefore this vital energy is (SiKUTz#E):”
2b: “Bright!---as if ascending to the heavens (*aHUJU*btoTn)”
2c: “Dark!--- as if entering an abyss (*cHUJU#k#8)”
. *a = Kao75 (2787). For *b I take Roth’s word. *c = Yao75. I have used Roth’s translation. In Kao(*a) the sun (Rad 72) is above a tree (Rad 75). In Yao(*c) the sun is below it. These things can tell us something.
. Here comes Neiye 14 lines 4 to 6;

4C: “One Word, It Releases (_1C2_Z#q)”.
4D: “Up it Reaches To Heaven (_+*atoTa)”. *a = Ch’a40.
4E: “Down it Stretches To Earth (_-*btoTI)”, *b = Chi75.
. And now you are hopefully ready for Neiye 8 lines 1 and 2:

8a: If you are “Able to Align (ab%8) yourself with the level above your own
. then you are Able to be Tranquil (ab^a)”. And
8b: “Only Then (Ja4R) will you be Able to do the Fixing (ab8b)”
. The “Aligning(%8)” would be the reaching “Up(_+)”, “Tranquility(^a)” would be the connective, or neutral position (=), between the poles and the “Fixing(%8)” is the stretching “Down(_-)”. This is true of all levels. For instance, I am on level B, I reach up to level A for the poetry (A) and even to the COURSE because it too comes to us through A. Then I think about it and, when the “Insight(72)” comes I feel good about it. And that can be called “Tranquility(^a)”. Then, when I have something to say, I do this typing you see here. That is the “Fixing(8b)”. Whatever level you are on, if you have done this threefold process, there is nothing to believe (C). You know (B) from personal experience, that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Anything that has to do with this whole can be identified as 'inclusion'. Unless all of its parts are 'included' the system will not work.

2:2.6,10: “At that point the bridge of return has been built.” There is a lot that has to be put together here and it is best if you do that yourself. …
Hint: the word “return” is also at 2:2.6,3. …

2:2.7,1: “The Atonement is total commitment.” …

===========================================================================

August 11, 2011 . . . . . . . . . A COURSE IN MIRACLES

2:2.5,1: “The Atonement was build into the space-time belief to set a limit on the need for the belief itself, and ultimately to make learning complete.”
2:2.5, 1a: ‘Depreciation’ includes the undoing of the experience (D) of, the “belief” (C) in and the knowledge (B) of “time and space”. This “Meaning” is repeated elsewhere but I will simply mention this here. When we follow Lao Tzu’s advise, we will only invest our time and energy in what we can chew. That’s how we learn, that’s why I can handle sentences now which I couldn’t handle a few Weeks ago. Trying to bite off more than you can chew is a waste of time and energy.
. We have dealt with the main sentence. Let us now deal with the subordinate phrase.
2:2.5,1b: “The Atonement was build into the space-time [experience] …. to make learning complete.” What is called “learning” in the course is really “conditioning” or programming. As long as programming the mind is not “complete” the intellect is still a threat to the AUTHOR.
. The AUTOR must install an “answer” for every possible “question”, the intellect can come up with, in the mind (C).
30:2.2,6: “God [the AUTHOR] but ensured that you would never lose your will when He gave you His perfect Answer”, When he has installed all possible answers from this 1249 page book into your mind (C), your intellect has no chance to ask any more questions. In other words, we have another blatant lie here.
7:3.5,1: “…. His [the AUTHOR’s] light is what your mind is. (2) This is totally beyond question, and when you [your intellect] question[s] it you are answered. (3) The answer merely undoes the question ….”

2:2.5,2: “The Atonement is the final lesson.” When the AUTHOR has programmed your mind (C) completely, no more lessons are necessary. That seems to be the “Atonement”. The “One(_1)” is the “Whole($1)” that is greater than the sum of its parts.

2:2.5,3: “Learning itself, like the classrooms in which it occurs, is temporary.” The COURSE consists of 1249 pages. It is finite. After the lessons have been properly learned, you need no more lessons. This gives you some idea of how well “planed” or designed the COURSE really is.

2:2.5,4: “The ability to learn has no value when change is no longer necessary.” When the lessons have all been learned properly. Now, these are no ordinary lessons, this is the science of social engineering. This is why we can learn about it from the AUTHOR.

2:2.5,5: “The eternally creative have nothing to learn.” In the “eternally ” timeless dimension there is “nothing to learn”. There is no knowable-knowing-known triad. All knowledge is always there in the eternal NOW.

2:2.5,6: “You can learn to improve your perceptions, and you can become a better learner.”
2:2.5,6a: Thoughts (B), when repeated, become representations (C) as representations become “perceptions” (D). As B is to C so C is to D. There we have the Law of Correspondence again.
2:2.5,6b: “You can learn to …. become a better learner.” How? …
By handing over the “control” of your mind (C) to the AUTHOR.

2:2.5,7: “This will bring you into closer and closer accord with the Sonship; but the Sonship itself is a perfect creation and perfection is not a matter of degree. (8) Only while there is a belief in [only when there are] differences is learning meaningful.” …
Only when there is induction, the movement from the particular to the general. “is learning meaningful”. When the whole is reached, induction stops and deduction can begin. Only when there is deduction is teaching meaningful.
. I hope that you noticed that I used 'opposition' to get this message across to you. Deduction and induction are well known thinking tools. They work. So, according to pragmatism, they are true. These tools can be used here to replace the AUTHOR’s “official version” of the truth with the truth.

2:2.5,8: “Only while there is a belief in differences [Only while there is a difference between whole and part is deduction and induction,] is learning meaningful.”
. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. As long as not all of its parts are working at full capacity the whole can’t work at full capacity. Then work on the inefficient or missing parts is necessary. Once all of its parts are working, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts and the system seems to be working as if on its own.

2:2.6,1: “Evolution is a process in which you seem to proceed [are proceeding] from one degree to the next.” …

===================================================

August 11, 2011 . . . . . . . . . A COURSE IN MIRACLES

2:6.8,1: “I have emphasized that the miracle, or the expression of Atonement, is always a sign of respect FROM the worthy TO the worthy.”
2:6.8,1: “…. the miracle, …. , is always a sign of respect FROM” those who give “miracles” TO those who receive them. Both partners are “worthy”.
. The four dots represent subordinate phrases. They add details but the sentence can be read without them. I have only interpreted (B) the predicate, the rest can be done by computation (C). There is more that can be done by computation. Can you see it? …
The second subordinate phrase tells us that “At-one-ment” can be substituted for “the miracle”. Translated as a sentence the subject reads: …
The “miracle” is “the expression of Atonement”. Can the predicate also be translated (C) as a sentence? No, that requires interpretation (B). …
Those FROM whom miracles come and TO whom they are given are worthy. ‘Contemplation’ Why? …
Because those who can hear the “voice” of the AUTHOR are made to feel good.
. Notice that most of the work on 2:6.8,1 we have done so far can be done by computation (C). Computation is faster and more efficient than thinking (B). That’s why Aristotle has called level C of the “Line (509d)” the “efficient cause”. The truth is out there and, if we want to replace the AUTHOR’s “official version” of the truth by the truth then we have to study it. Instead of having to deal with the AUTHOR’s social engineering I would be more efficient studying the Tao Te Ching in a group. “Insights(72)” into the COURSE would then appear as a by-products.
. A sentence is like a chain that is only as strong as its weakest link. What is the weakest link in 2:5.8,1? …
“Atonement”. When there is communication between the AUTOR and a “worthy” follower they form “One(_1)” “Unit($1)”. Let us FIND out more about that: …
In what I have typed, the word only appears at 2:3.1,1 and 2:4.2,1.
. 2:3.1,1 is on page 21. I will start looking for the word on the bottom of page 19:
2:2.4,1: “The Atonement is the only defense that cannot be used destructively because it is not a devise you made.” ‘Depreciation’. The word “destructively” refers to the intellect. The defence against the AUTHOR that can “be used destructively” is the “device you made” with your intellect. ‘Contemplation’, because “Atonement” or the miracle is made by the AUTHOR in “defense” against the intellect. Notice also how ‘opposition’ reinforces the “Meaning” of the sentence.

2:2.4,2: “The Atonement PRINCIPLE was in effect long before the Atonement began. (3) The principle was love and Atonement was an act of love. (4) Acts were not necessary before the separation, because belief in space and time did not exist.” ‘Contemplation’ by means of an “official version” of the truth that comes close to the truth. In other words we have some bait along with the hook. …
The experience of “space and time” is not merely a “belief” (C) but it has a lot to do with representations (C). So the AUTHOR came close. “…. before the separation …. space and time did not exist.” This assertion is misleading because on the other side of the “Door, Dasamadwara” (A) the limitations of space and time still do “not exist”. This is where the AUTHOR comes from and this is why he is omniscient and can be omnipresent in those who let him in.

2:2.4,5: “It was only after the separation that the atonement and the conditions necessary for its fulfilment were planned” by the AUTHOR.
. As I said before, the AUTHOR must have been embodied before he went to the other side. On that side there is no knowable-knowing-known triad because there is no time in which this process can take place. Knowledge is power and the AUTHOR takes advantage of the power of now to compete with God.

2:2.4,6: “Then a defense so splendid was needed that it could not be misused although it could be refused” by the intellect. That’s why it has to be ‘depreciated’ so “consistently”.

2:2.4,7: “Refusal could not, however, turn it into a weapon of attack, which is the inherent characteristic of other defenses” used by the intellect. ‘Depreciation’.

2:2.4,8: “The Atonement thus becomes the only defense that is not a two-edged sword. (9) It can only heal.” The Atonement heals. And if we know what “heal” means we can know a bit more about what the “Atonement” means.

2:2.5,1: “The Atonement was build into the space-time belief to set a limit on the need for the belief itself, and ultimately to make learning complete.” …

==================================================

August 10, 2011. This morning around 5 AM, I felt6 the urge to read the August 8 section again, and I found a mistake.
. There I have quoted Steiner as saying: “The way to the heart passes through the head”. And then I said: “So before ‘Mitleid (pity)’ can arise in my head ….” I distinctly remember that I wanted to say heart but I said “head” instead. My shadow slips in mistakes like that when it wants to draw our attention (A) to what requires more of our attention.
. Steiner uses the example of a person that arouses our pity, “einer mitlederregenden Person”. Even if we see such a person with our eyes (D), pity will not arise in our heart (A) if the idea (B) of such a person is not already in our head (B).
. Next, Steiner talks about the representation, “die Vorstellung”, (C). This is important because this leads up to social engineering.
. If there is a representation associated with the “perception” (D) of such a person then this ready-made representation will kick in before the intellect can begin to think. Why? …
Because computation, the result of repetitions, (C) is faster than thinking (B). And programming the mind (C) is what social engineering is about. And right here, we are learning about it from the AUTHOR. End of correction.

August 9, 2011 . . . . . . . A COURSE IN MIRACLES

2:6.7,1: “The first corrective step in undoing the error is to know first that the conflict is an expression of fear.”
. The first step in interpreting a sentence is to analyze its syntax (C). With a bit of practice, this can be done by computation (C). If we interpret this one as an imperative sentence then we have: ”Know!” That’s the sentence. Everything else are subordinate phrases which add detail. Know when? …
“first”, before anything else Know what? …
“that the conflict is” caused by the intellect. As a rule, anything bad is caused by the intellect. The sentence is used to ‘depreciate’ the intellect. Normally, the “first” thing in problem solving is to find out what the problem is. But not here.
. In a standard subject, connective, predicate sentence, “is to know” is the connective, or verb. The subject is based on the assumption that there is an “error” that needs to be “correct”ed. The predicate tells us that “the conflict” is caused by the intellect. In the COURSE “fear” usually refers to the intellect.
. If the intellect works properly, its work doesn’t have to be corrected. The AUTHOR’s problem is that a properly working intellect doesn’t work for him. Only a mind (C) that is properly programmed by the AUTHOR works for him.

2:6.7,2: “Say to yourself that you must somehow have chosen not to love, or the fear could not have arisen.”
. “Say!” “Say to” whom? …
“to yourself”. Say what? …
The answer to this question is not a simple subordinate phrase. It is a complete if – then
statement: If you had not “chosen not to love” then the intellect “could not have arisen.” The reason this is not expressed as clearly as this is because the AUTHOR doesn’t want us to understand this. This interpretation tells us a lot about what “love” means in the COURSE. Let us use the FIND function to find out a bit more about it:
. The sentences with love in it are at 1:1.9,1, 1:1.35,1, 7:4.2,2, 7:4.7,9, 7:5.5,7, 7:6.1,1, 7:6.1,5, 7:6.1,8, 7:6.2,1, 7:6.2,3, 7:6.4,3, 7:6.4,7, 7:6.6,6. There are more in the book, but what I have typed so far is already more than I can handle.

1:1.9,1: “Miracles are a kind of exchange. (2) Like all expressions of love, ….the exchange reverses the physical laws. ….”
1:1.35,1: “Miracles are expressions of love, ….”
7:4.7,9: “Love needs only this invitation.” ‘Contemplation’.
7:5.5,7: “Love is incapable of any exceptions. (8) Only if there is fear does the idea of of exceptions seem to be meaningful.” ‘Contemplation’, depreciation’ and ‘opposition’.
7:6.1,1: “Although you can love the Sonship only as one, you can perceive it as fragmented. ‘Contemplation’, ‘depreciation’, ‘inclusion’ and ‘opposition’. Why? …
7:6.1,5: “Fear and love make and create, depending on whether the ego [the intellect] or the Holy Spirit [the AUTHOR] begets or inspires them, but they WILL return to the mind of the thinker and they will affect his total perception.”
. I have already dealt with this one in the May 22 section. This one is good because it relates it to 2:6.7,2 which is why we are here in the first place.
7:6.1,8: “He will appreciate all of Them if he regards Them with love.” ‘Contemplation’,'opposition'.The AUTHOR loves you; the intellect doesn't.
7:6.2,1: “The mind [B] that accepts attack cannot love.” “Depreciation’.
7:6.2,2: “That is because it believes it can destroy love, and therefore does not understand what love is. (3) If it does not understand what love is, it cannot perceive itself as loving.” ‘Depreciation’ again
7:6.4,6: “…. Because you are love. (7) Love is your power, which the ego must deny.” …
7:6.6,6: “…. understanding brings appreciation and appreciation brings love.”
. Any sentence that has “appreciation” in it can be identified as ‘contemplation”. Appreciation is the ‘opposite’ of ‘depreciation’. What the AUTHOR calls “understanding” is believing (C) what he has dictated. And that is designed to bring about “appreciation” which brings ‘contemplation’, which “brings love”. To interpret the AUTHOR’s sentences requires attention (A) because they are not intended to be understood.

2:6.7,3: “Then the whole process of correction becomes nothing more than a series of pragmatic steps in the larger process of accepting the Atonement as a remedy.”
. If the intellect works properly then this “whole process of correction” is unjustifiable. It then becomes a process of falsification and obscurantism. The “Atonement” is to be the “remedy” for the mistakes the intellect is supposed to have made.

2:6.7,4: “These steps may be summarized in this way:
2:6.7,5: “Know first that this is fear.” ‘Depreciation’ again.
2:6.7,6: “Fear arises from lack of love.” ‘Depreciation’, ‘contemplation’, ‘opposition’.
2:6.7,7: “The only remedy for lack of love is perfect love.”
2:6.7,8: “Perfect love is the Atonement.” There we have more definitions of what love means in the COURSE. Sentences with “Perfect love” and “Atonement” can be identified as ‘contemplation’. But we still have to find out more about “Atonement”. It has to do with 'inclusion'. In order to read the AUTHOR’s sentences, we must know what the words in them mean.

2:6.8,1: “I have emphasized that the miracle, or the expression of Atonement, is always a sign of respect FROM the worthy TO the worthy.” …

====================================================

August 8, 2011 . . . . . . A COURSE IN MIRACLES

2:6.6,1: “It is possible to reach a state in which you bring your mind under my guidance without conscious effort, but this implies a willingness that you have not developed yet.”
. There you have a clear definition of ‘contemplation’.
2:6.6,1a: Whenever words like “guidance”, “love”, “atonement”, “peace”, “comfort”, “serenity” etc. are in a sentence it is safe to try ‘contemplation’ on for size. Computations (C) are carried out by the mind (C) “without conscious effort”. Our mind carries out what it is programmed to do. We “Do it Without being aware (A) that we are Doing (Wy WUWy)” it. The purpose of social engineering is to “bring your mind under” the AUTHOR’s “control”
2:6.6,1b: “…. but this implies a willingness that you” are supposed to develop. And “this implies a willingness” on your part to allow the AUTHOR to dumb you down.

2:6.6,2: “The Holy Spirit [the AUTHOR] cannot ask more than you are willing to do.” The holy spirit must “guide” you to hand over control of your intellect (B) to your mind(C). You are doing this by allowing the AUTHOR to program your mind. And the decision to do that is yours. Social engineers have no “control” over your mind (B). All they can do is ‘depreciate’ it. But with your permission they can program your mind (C) and because it is faster than the intellect (B) it can “control” the intellect. This does take know-how. And this know-how is part of social engineering.
. Let me tell you at this point what I know about social engineering. The theory I give you here is still in need of being verified or falsified, but it is based on 67 years of a study of philosophy (B) and comparative religion (A):

There are four centers in us which “Unite($1)” in one tetrad. The tetrad is the whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. According to Gurdjieff, the “moving center” (D) is the fastest, next comes the “emotional center” (C) and it is faster than the “intellectual center” (B). This is not philosophy, it is a psychological phenomena. And as far as I can see, this is the fact social engineering is based on.
. Gurdjieff is not the only teacher who knew this. Steiner has said the same thing. He said at the end of the first chapter of his PHILOSOPHY OF FREEDOM: “Der Weg zum Herzen geht deurch den Kopf (The way to the heart passes through the head)”. So, before “Mitleid (pity)” can arise in my head, there as to be the thought (B) of a person who arouses the pity (einer mitleiderregenden Person) in me. And that thought arises only after the representation (C, “die Vorstellung”) is there and the representation can only be formed after the perception (D) of such a person.
. As A is slower than B so B is slower than C, and as B is slower than C so C is slower than D. There you have the whole secret of the science of social engineering wrapped up in a nutshell. Behind this secret is the Law of Correspondence: As above, in “Heaven, so Below (Tn_-)”, on earth. And as below, in the IBM computer programming system for instance, so above. I don’t know why this took me 67 years to find out, but here it is. It is here for you to verify or to falsify. But if you can verify it then please communicate it. Democracy (A) depends on each one of the four “classes” in it working at full capacity.

2:6.6,3: “The strength to do comes from your undivided decision.” Notice the word “decision” here. The “willingness” to hand over your power to the AUTHOR depends on how much he has managed to dumb you down. Nobody in his right mind (B) would decide to do something stupid.

2:6.6,4: “There is no strain in doing God’s Will [the AUTHOR’s will] as soon as you recognize that it is also your own.” If this, the “message” that what the AUTHOR wants is what you want, is repeated often “Enough(Zu)” you will eventually believe (C) it. It will be a representation (C) which is executed without you becoming aware (A) of it. In other words: “There is no strain in doing” what the AUTHOR wants you to do.

2:6.6,5: “The lesson here is quite simple but particularly apt to be overlooked. (6) I will therefore repeat it, urging you to listen. (7) Only your mind [B] can produce fear.” As if the AUTHOR didn’t “repeat” that often “Enough(Zu)” already.

2:6.6,8: “It does so whenever it is conflicted in what it wants, producing inevitable strain because wanting and doing are discordant.” What the AUTHOR has programmed you to want and what you really want are “discordant”. If what you want is what you do then it is not “discordant”.

2:6.6,9: “This can be corrected only by accepting a unified goal.” If what you want is what you do then it doesn’t have “to be corrected”.
. The “goal” comes from the customer (A) it is the demand. The architect or the programmer (B) are translating the demand into a more precise form. That is the Aristotelian “formal cause”. The supply is the demand (A) in material (D) form (B).
. The Aristotelian “efficient cause” is on level C. It is the connective in the B-C-D “TriAd(_3ad)” This triad is semiotics. Again, I am burdening you with a lot of information. But if we want to replace the AUTHOR’s “official version” of the truth with the truth then we must know it. Essentially, there are two customers competing with each other: The demand of our own soul, intellect and mind (A-B-C) and the AUTHOR’s demand. And the two can never be “unified”. The AUTHOR is trying to get us to “accept” his “goal” as our own.

2:6.7,1: “The first corrective step in undoing the error is to know first that the conflict is an expression of fear.” …

=========================================================

August 7, 2011 . . . . . . . . A COURSE IN MIRACLES

2:6.5,1: “Fear is always a sign of strain, arising whenever what you want conflicts with what you do.” ‘Depreciation’, ‘contemplation’ and ‘opposition’. Why? …
2:6.5,1a: Whenever words like “fear” or “conflict” are in a sentence, we can identify it as ‘depreciation’. We can do this automatically (E6) by computation (C).
2:6.5,1b: What does the AUTHOR mean by: “what you want”? …
whenever a true or false idea (B) is “Repeated(@1)” often “Enough(Zu)” it becomes a representation (C) which can no longer be questioned. ‘Contemplation’, in this context, means: “Repeating” “consistently” that what the AUTHOR wants is “what you want”. If you want something different then “what you do” necessarily “conflicts with what” the AUTHOR wants you to do.

2:6.5,2: “This situation arises in two ways: First you can choose to do conflicting things [the AUTHOR don’t like], either simultaneously or successively.”
. In the dialectic process, the thesis always comes first and then it is challenged by the antithesis. After that “you can chose” hold them in your mind (C) “simultaneously” or to reject one of them. Notice that the AUTHOR gives us the sequence of events in reverse order. He does this sort of thing “consistently”.
. Cognitive dissonance is nothing new. It goes at least back to Plato: Desmond Lee introduces the section starting at 521c of the Republic as follows:
“The type of study required must be one that will provoke the mind to thought.” What does provoke the mind (B) to thought (B)? …
Plato says it at 522c: “By perception that don’t call for thought I mean those that don’t simultaneously issue in contrary perceptions; those that do call for thought ….”

2:6.5,3: “This produces conflicted behaviour [which the AUTHOR doesn’t like] which is intolerable to you because the part of the mind that [has been programmed by the AUTHOR] wants to do something else [and it is programmed to be] outraged.”
. I must repeat again that social engineering is a science. My interpretation of 2:6.5,3 can seem farfetched because of what social engineers, like the AUTHOR, can do. If what the AUTHOR is getting away with where easy to believe then he couldn’t get away with it. There are now millions of followers of his cult worldwide, who believe him blindly. To accomplish that would be impossible without social engineering. Not everybody who gets hooked by the AUTHOR is stupid. Unless you understand social engineering, what the AUTHOR can do, will be unbelievable to you.

2:6.5,4: “Second, you can behave as you think you should, but without entirely wanting to do so.”
2:6.5,4a: To “behave as you think” you must think (B). And that is done with your intellect (B). Thinking is done by our intellect but we don’t have ‘depreciation’ yet.
2:6.5,4b: The AUTHOR “consistently” repeats that what the AUTHOR wants is what you want. If you want to do what the AUTOR wants “without entirely waning to do so” the programming of your mind (C) is not completed yet. So we have the ‘opposition’ of our intellect (B) versus the intellect (B) of the AUTHOR. ‘Depreciation’ and ‘contemplation’ are only implied. 2:6.5,4 is really a repetition of 2:6.5,2. There are not really two different (wrong) ways the intellect deals with paradox. There is only the dialectic process.

2:6.5,5: “This produces consistent behaviour, but entails great strain.”
2:6.5,5a: Here the intellect is credited with producing “consistent behaviour”. As a rule, the AUTHOR claims that he is “consistent” and the intellect is inconsistent, it accepts “exceptions”. To follow up, please FIND the words in quotes in the text.
. We have ‘opposition’ here, in which the negative pole is ‘depreciation’.

2:6.5,6: “In both cases, the mind [B] and the behaviour [D] are out of accord [with the AUTHOR], resulting in a situation in which you are doing what you do [what the AUHTOR does] not wholly want to do.” The word “wholly” implies that your mind (C) is not “wholly” programmed yet. As I just said “both cases” are really the same. What we have here is an example of “obfuscation”. Please Google it.

2:6.5,7: “This arouses a sense of coercion that usually produces rage, and projection is likely to follow.” ‘Depreciation’. According to the AUTHOR, the intellect does “coercion” and “produces rage, and projection ….”

2:6.5,8: “Whenever there is fear, it is because you have not made up your mind.”
2:6.5,8a: When the word “fear” is in a sentence, it can automatically (E6) be identified as ‘depreciation’. Fear can also be translates as the intellect: Whenever the intellect is in “control”
2:6.5,8b: “it is because you have not [allowed the AUTHOR to make] up your mind.”

2:6.5,9: “Your mind is therefore split and your behaviour inevitably becomes erratic.” ‘Depreciation’. The “mind” (B) here is the intellect. I have dealt with 2:6.5,8 and this one before. Let us take a closer look at this one now:
2:6.5,9a: “Your mind is …. Split” because you are storing two conflicting pieces of information in it. But you need the thesis and the antithesis to arrive at the synthesis. By using Hegelian dialectics we are replacing the AUTHOR’s “official version” of the truth with the truth.
2:6.5,9b: According to the AUTHOR, using a thinking tool called dialectics is supposed to cause “erratic” “behaviour”. Simply by replacing falsehoods by the truth, we see what the AUTHOR is doing for what it is. The AUTHOR is omniscient. So it is not always easy to do it, but it has to be done. For me, working alone, this is difficult but working on it collectively the job becomes easy.

2:6.5,10: “Correcting at the behavioural level can shift the error from the first to the second type, but will not obliterate fear.”
. First of all there is no error to correct. Hegel’s dialectic is a thinking tool. It works, therefore it is true. What is wrong with using it? Second: there is no “first” and no “second type” of error. There is only Hegelian dialectics. And finally, trying to correct the nonexistent error “at the behavioural level …. will not obliterate” the intellect, which is good news.

2:6.6,1: “It is possible to reach a state in which you bring your mind under my guidance without conscious effort, but this implies a willingness that you have not developed as yet.” …

==================================================

August 6, 2011 . . . . . . . . A COURSE IN MIRACLES

2:6.4,1: “The correction of fear IS your responsibility.” ‘Depreciation, ‘opposition’ and ‘contemplation’. Why? …
2:6.4,1a: When there are words like “fear”, Insane” or “misthought” in a sentence, it can be identified as ‘depreciation’. You can use the FIND function of my blog, or of the AUTHOR’s website and go trough the 1249 pages of his book and you will be able to verify this for yourself. But why ‘opposition’? …
Who is “afraid” of the intellect (B), the AUTHOR or we? …
Why does the AUTHOR have to ‘depreciate’ it in about every second sentence? …
2:6.4,1b: When people are doing what we are doing, when we are using our intellect, the AUTOR as something to worry about. The word “correction” in this sentence means that the intellect's “misthought” is producing errors which have to be corrected. And, because the AUTHOR has no control over the intellect (B), it “IS your responsibility” to do the “correction” of the intellect’s “misthoughts”. What the AUTHOR expects you to do may not be reasonable but ‘contemplation’ is not reasonable, it is accepting the AUTHOR’s thoughts (B) as your own.

2:6.4,2: “When you ask for release from fear [from the intellect], you are implying that it is not” your “responsibility”. And it isn’t. The fact that the AUTHOR can’t control your intellect doesn’t mean that doing what he wants you to do “IS your responsibility”.

2:6.4,3: “You should ask, instead, for help in the conditions that have brought the fear [in the AUTHOR] about.” You should “help” the AUTHOR in ‘depreciating’ the intellect.

2:6.4,4: “These conditions always entail a willingness to be separate.” There is some bait in this sentence. Can you see it? …
It is, in fact, the proper function of the intellect to cause the “separation”. Please use the FIND function for “separate” in what I have typed so far or, better still, in the whole book. There will be a lot you can find out about the time and space “conditions that have brought” about the world we are in. By getting at the repeated “meaning” of this same idea we can find out that the AUTHOR knows it and that he doesn’t want us to know it. Why doesn’t he say it clearly just once? …
. In order to replace his “official version” of the truth with the truth, we have to know it. So let me devote some space to the idea of “separation”.
. Let me start with SUTRA 13 of THE HOLY SCIENCE: The “6th Sphere …. is JANALOKA …. Wherein the idea of separate existence originates. ….”. This would be J.G. Bennett’s Creative Energy (E3).
. The “5th Sphere …. is MAHARLOKA, …. the beginning of the creation of Darkness, MAYA, upon which the Spirit is reflected. This, the connecting link, is the only way between the spiritual [X-Y-Z] and the material [B-C-D] creation and is called the Door, DASAMADWARA.”
. This would be Mr.B’s Conscious Energy (E4) and level A an Plato’s “Divided Line (509d)”.
. There are some excellent details on this in Harold D. Roth’s ORIGINAL TAO. His translation is very accurate so that it hardly needs interpretation. Let me instead go back to The Tao Te Ching, which does demands interpretation.

. Ching 1.4,1: The DyAd (Tzdyad) is a
Unit Originally But it is Divided by Identifying (btâoMg)” its poles. Ming(Mg) can mean to “Name(Mg)” (C) or to “Identify(Mg)” (B). The context here demands “Identify(Mg)” (B). So the AUTHOR is right to blame the intellect (B) for the “Division(âo)”.
. “The DyAd(Tzdyad)” becomes a “TriAd(_3ad)” when the poles of the polarity no longer oppose each other but complement each other. Lao Tzu gives us six examples of this at Ching 2.2.
2.2,1: “Existence and Nonexistence Mutually Produce (YUWUmtSg)” Life. Shêng(Sg) means both, to “Produce” and “Life”.
2.2,6: “Before and After Mutually produce Sequence (#c60mt#e)” or time.
. Ching 42.1: The
“Tao Produces the One (A1Sg_1), the
One Produces the Two (_1Sg_2), the
Two Produces the Three (_2Sg_3) and the
Three Produces All Things (_3SgWnwU)”. There you have the A-B-C-D tetrad in a nutshell. And “All Things (WnwU) are definitely on level D. Anyone who intentionally confuses the basics is practising “obscurantism”. Please Google that word. Lao Tzu goes into greater detail but that doesn’t make him an obscurantist.
. I have already given Ching 25.2 in the July 27 section, but the truth is worth repeating:
If we let “Big Mean being home,
having been home mean Going-out (TA73*a), [*a = Shih162]
having Gone Mean Arriving (*a73$t) and
having Arrived Mean Returning ($t73$l) Then(KU)”
having returned means being back home again.

Lao Tzu demands his students to think along with him. If you only read translations of his words, then you are not his student. We can also use the pendulum as an example of the tetrad:
The bob is at rest (A),
it accelerates (B),
it reaches maximum velocity (C, all potential energy has become kinetic energy),
it decelerates (D) and
it is at rest again (A).
. There are also the four seasons and other examples of the tetrad at work, but the system we can actually participate in is the construction business and the original IBM computer programming system. The IBM system was best example because its developers must have used the Aristotelian tetrad as a model. That’s why our political masters had to make this perfectly working system “disappear”. And that’s why the AUTHOR doesn’t describe it clearly. Yet, by putting the “meanings” of ‘inclusion’ together it becomes clear that he knows the Aristotelian tetrad.

2:6.4,5: “At that level you CAN help it.” At level B the AUTHOR needs your “help” because he has no “control” over it. Whenever the AUTHOR asks you for help he expects you to do contemplation: You are to say: Thine will be done through me.

2:6.4,6: “You are much to tolerant of mind wandering, and passively condoning your mind’s miscreations.”
2:6.4,6a: The phrase “mind wandering” refers to the thinking (B) the intellect does. The mind (C) does ‘contemplation’ (E1), it does automatically (E6), by computation (C), what it is programmed to do. The intellect (B) does concentration (E3), which is the very ‘opposite’ of “mind wandering” If we want to replace the AUTOR’s falsehoods with the truth then we must know the truth. That is why many Catholics become disenchanted with the AUTHOR’s cult because they remember their catechism.
2:6.4,6b: What precisely are “your mind’s miscreations”? …

2:6.4,7: “The particular result does not matter, but the fundamental error does.”
. To interpret the AUTHOR’s sentences you must look for “The particular result” of true thought and for what he calls “the fundamental error”. Does it even exist? …

2:6.4,8: “The correction is always the same.” What if no “correction” is required in the first place? …

2:6.4,9: “Before you choose to do anything, ask me if your choice is in accord with mine.” Here he comes right out with it.

2:6.4,10: “If you are sure that it is, there will be no fear.” There will be no intellect. Notice that this interpretation can be done by computation (C) because “fear” means intellect in the COURSE.

2:6.5,1: “Fear is always a sign of strain, arising whenever what you want conflicts with what you do.” …

=======================================================

August 5, 2011 . . . . . . . A COURSE IN MIRACLES

2:6.3,1: “It is pointless to believe that controlling the outcome of misthought can result in healing.”
. Words like “fear”, “insane” or “misthought” refer to the intellect (B). Its proper function is to seek and find the truth. Please use the FIND function of my blog to find out what “healing” means in the COURSE.
. And now we are ready to interpret
2:6.3,1: Controlling the outcome of true thought is pointless. Why? …
Because by then it is too late. The AUTHOR has to nip it in the bud. Computation (C) is faster than thinking (B). The mind (C) can be programmed to come up with an “answer” before the intellect can even start to think.

2:6.3,2: “When you are fearful [when your intellect is in control], you have chosen wrongly.” You should have chosen to let the AUTHOR do your thinking for you.

2:6.3,,3: “That is why you feel responsible for it.” The decision, to hand over your power to the AUTHOR, is yours. “That is why you [are] responsible for it.”

2:6.3,4: “You must change your mind [B or C] not your behaviour [D], and this is a matter of willingness.” The AUTHOR can’t change your mind (B) without your permission. This is why “this is a matter of [your] willingness.”

2:6.3,5: “You do not need guidance except at the mind [B] level.” After the AUTHOR has done his programming, he can “control” level C and D himself.
. “Control” represents what the AUTHOR can do himslf by computation (C). “Guidance” means talking you into handing control of your intellect (B) over to him.

2:6.3,6: “Correction belongs only at the level where change is possible.” Allowing the AUTHOR to change your thoughts “is possible” but not advisable. Why? …
Because you are responsible for the decisions you make, and this would be a stupid decision.

2:6.3,7: “Change does not mean anything at the symptom level, where it can’t work.”
2:6.3,7a: On the “symptom level” (D) the effects of computations (C) can be seen.
2:6.3,7b: If the mind (C) has been programmed by the AUTHOR then “the symptom level” is “where it [the intellect (B)] cannot work” anymore.
. The AUTHOR doesn’t state things clearly but he has to install the “answers”, to all possible questions the intellect (B) might come up with, in the mind (C).

2:6.4,1: “The correction of fear IS your responsibility.” …

==========================================================

August 4, 2011 . . . . . . . A COURSE IN MIRACLES
. At the end of the last section, below this one, I left you with a tough question to chew on: Why does not giving autonomy to the moving center (D) “separate” us “from the truth”? …
Properly “Aligned Words Likely Reverse (%8C2JO#l)”. Stating the question in “Reverse(#l)” clarifies it: Why does giving autonomy to the body (D) unite us with the truth? …
In the August 1 section, I have already given the “correct” sequence of vision (A), thought (B), speech (C) and deed (D). At 2:6.1,2, the AUTHOR is talking about “constructive acts”. Such “acts” are identified as ‘inclusion’. In the construction business the customer (A) tells the architect (B) what he wants, the architect tells the contractor (C) how to supply the customer’s demand and the contractor tells his subcontractors (D) how to supply the demand in material (D) form (B). B is the Aristotelian “formal cause”.
. With every sentence in his 1249 page book the AUTHOR is programming the mind (C) to control the intellect (B). Instead of B controlling C, C is controlling B. So the AUTHOR is creating “level confusion” with every sentence in his book. And here, at 2:6.2,1, he’s got the nerve to tell us that he isn’t doing that.
2:6.2,8b: again: You can unite yourself with the truth “by ‘giving’ autonomy to behaviour” (D). Observable “behaviour” is happening on level D. That is the Aristotelian “material cause”. It is the final step in the 4-fold creative, or “constructive acts”. If any “source”, or part of the tetrad, is interfered with it can’t work at full capacity. And if one part is not working at full capacity then the system as a whole can’t work at full capacity.
. If the tetrad is working at full capacity, it is united with the truth. If a theory (B) works in the pragmatic dimension of semiotics, then it is true. If it doesn’t work at full capacity then something is wrong with it. For instance, if social engineers interfere with the “behaviour” (D) of the economy (D) then it can’t work at full capacity. What is true of the AUTHOR is true of social engineers in general. They are using the DIVISION OF LABOUR but they don’t want us to know it because that knowledge would make the economy (D) more efficient and more “autonomous”. Social engineers use their skills to interfere with the economy. When the economy (D) is not functioning properly the government (C) gets control of it while the social engineers (B) are controlling the government. What is true of social engineering in general is also true of the AUTHOR. That is why we can learn about it from him.
. What we can learn about social engineering from the AUTHOR is significant but my writing (C) skills can’t do justice to it. As long as communicators are not carrying out their proper social function, democracy (A) does not work.
. By ‘depreciation’, ‘contemplation’ by using ‘opposition’ and by disseminating disinformation about ‘inclusion’, the AUTHOR is causing the mind (C) to “control” the intellect (B). He is doing that with every sentence in this COURSE, yet at 2:6.2,1 he says: “I do not foster level confusion”. And we are supposed to believe that. It is time for us to wake up.

2:6.2,9: “This [the body] is controlled by me automatically [with Automatic Energy (E6)] as soon as you place what you think under my guidance.” The word “control” would be more accurate but “guidance” sounds better. You are supposed to say to the AUTHOR: Not my will but thine will be done through me.

2:6.2,10: “Whenever you are afraid, [whenever your own intellect is in control], it is a sure sign that you have allowed your mind [B] to miscreate and have not allowed me to guide [to control] it.”

2:6.3,1: “It is pointless to believe that controlling the outcome of misthought can result in healing.” …

====================================================

August 2, 2011 . . . . . . A COURSE IN MIRACLES

2:6.2,1: “I do not foster level confusion, but you must chose to correct it.” …
2:6.2,1a: The “form” in which the same “meaning” is expressed is different. For the words in quotes you can use the FIND function on my blog to find out what these words mean. Interpreting a sentence is getting at the “meaning”, which is “Repeated(@1)” in order to step down the thought (E5) to representations (E6).
. When doing this work with the identifiers, we find out that the AUTHOR does “foster level confusion”. He did the same thing with ‘depreciation’. At 2:7.1,5 he said that he does not ‘depreciate’ the intellect but he does it all over the place,
2:6.2,1b: “…. but you must choose to correct it.” ‘Contemplation’. The AUTHOR has no control over your intellect, so he must somehow get you to do it yourself.

2:6.2,2: “You would not excuse insane behaviour on your part by saying you could not help it. (3) Why should you condone insane thinking?” ‘Depreciation’. As “fear” is associated with the intellect, so is “insane thinking” (B). According to the AUTHOR, the intellect is “insane”.

2:6.2,4: “There is a confusion here that you would do well to look at clearly.” Yes, we have done that. The “insane” intellect is causing all kinds of “confusion” and the AUTHOR is clearing it all up for us. He helps us “to look at it clearly”. There we have ‘depreciation’, ‘contemplation’ and ‘opposition’ again. Opposition automatically (E6) reinforces the “DyAd(dyad)”. As I keep “Repeating(@1)”: Social engineering is a science.

2:6.2,5: “You may believe that you are responsible for what you do, but not for what you think. (6) The truth is that you are responsible for what you think, because it is only at this level that you can exercise choice.” ‘Depreciation’, ‘contemplation’ and ‘opposition’ again. The AUTHOR has not given us the whole truth: “you are responsible for” your intentions (A) for what you think (B), for what you say (C) and for what you do (D). Things get complicated when you allow the AUTHOR to program you mind (C). It is faster than the intellect (B) so it can prevent the intellect to respond to a perception. The perception can be modified by computation (C) and computations control our body (D).
. The mind (C) is the Aristotelian “efficient cause” it is faster than the intellect (B) because it is fuelled by Automatic Energy (E6). Whether it is programmed by us or by the AUTHOR, it works automatically without us being aware of it.
. The question is now: Are we “responsible” for what the mind is programmed to do? …
Yes. By handing over the control of our mind (C) to the AUTHOR, we have made a decision for which we are “responsible”. Obviously the AUTHOR doesn’t tell us that but he knows it. “…. it is only at this level [level B] that you can exercise [the] choice” to say: thine will be done trough me. And this is the big decision. It is the decision to hand over your power to the AUTHOR. Millions have already done it and the effect can be world-shaking.

2:6.2,7: “What you do comes from what you think.” ‘Contemplation’. If you can understand what the AUTHOR is saying here you will “appreciate” him for that. The truth we get from the AUTHOR is used for bait.

2:6.2,8: “You cannot separate yourself from the truth by ‘giving’ autonomy to behaviour.”
2:6.2,8a: There is the hook: Why should you “separate yourself from the truth”? …
Because “truth” is what the intellect is seeking and finding. And the AUTHOR has to ‘depreciate’ the intellect. But he might have gone a bit too far here.
2:6.2,b: According to the AUTHOR, “’giving’ autonomy to behaviour” is a bad thing because, if you do, then you can’t “separate yourself from the” intellect.
. Why does not “’giving’ autonomy to” the “moving center” (D) “separate” us “from the truth” …

======================================================

August 1, 2011 . . . . . . . . A COURSE IN MIRACLES

2:6.2,1: “I do not foster level confusion, but you must choose to correct it.”
. In order to “correct” “level confusion” we must know the “correct” order of the four levels in our human sphere of influence.
. On Plato’s “Divided Line (509d)” they are the A-B-C-D tetrad. Aristotle was Plato’s
. . .A . . . . student. He has wrapped the “Line” around the cross.
D . + . B . There A is the “final cause”, B is the “formal cause”,
. . .C . . . . C is the “efficient cause” and D is the “material cause”. In business, the final cause is the demand, which is to be supplied it in “material” (D) “form” (B).
. The divisions on the “Line” are arranged according to the order of levels of abstraction and inclusion. A is the most abstract and inclusive level, then comes B, then comes C and D is the most concrete and exclusive level. The example of: Fire (A), air (B), water (C) and earth (D) is used to illustrate this.
. The Hindus call the Atman, our soul, (A) the “Door, Dasamadwara (see Sutra 13 of THE HOLY SCIENCE)”. This door faces into two directions: Outwards towards our time and space dimension (B-C-D) and inwards towards the time and space-less dimension (X-Y-Z). Our soul is with one foot on the outside and the other on the inside. It is compared to a drop in the ocean. It is water but it is “separated” from the ocean.
. On the other side of the “Door” there is no time and space. Therefore there is no “change, which is Time, KALA, in the Ever – Unchangeable; and the idea of division, which is Space, DESA, in the Ever – Indivisible (Sutra 3)”.
. “Before and After Mutually produce Sequence (#c60mt#e)” or time. I had to burden you with a lot of information but you need it to understand what the AUTHOR is talking about.

2:6.1,8: “This is an obvious confusion of levels.” I have failed to interpret this one. Why? …
Mistakes often serve as a reminder to pay more attention (A) to where more attention is required. To get the meaning of 2:6.1,8, we have to go back to:

2:6.1,6: “The presence of fear [of thought] shows that you have raised body thoughts to the level of the mind.” The “mind”, here, refers to the intellect (B). What does the AUTHOR mean by “body thoughts”? …
According to Gurdjieff the “moving center” (D), the “emotional center” (C) and the “intellectual center” (B) all have a physical (D), emotional (C) and intellectual (B) component in them. Thus, when Gurdjieff refers to “body thoughts” he is talking about the intellectual center of moving center. So, when “you have raised body thoughts” into the intellectual center (B) you are becoming more aware (A) of them because you are moving it closer to Conscious Energy (E4).
. Obviously, if you are aware (A) “Enough(Zu)” of what the AUTHOR is trying to do to you, you are not going to let him do it.
2:6.1,7: “This removes them from my control, and makes you feel personally responsible for them.” The AUTHOR makes this sound as if it is a bad thing, when really this is the way for us to go.

2:6.1,8: “This is an obvious confusion of levels.” When we interpret what the AUTHOR has dictated, it turns out that putting the levels into the right order is a bad thing which has to be “corrected”. Allowing the tetrad to operate properly is good for us but bad for the AUTHOR.
. How do I know that the AUTOR knows this? …
Bcause he says so. In his eagerness to get us hooked, he is spilling the beans:
7:4.7,4: “God [the AUTHOR] is All in all in a very literal sense.”
7:4.7,6: “You are therefore in Him since your being is His.” ‘Contemplation’.
. The fact that he is omnipresent is the bait; that “You are therefore in Him” is the hook.
. As I said before, 2:6.2 is a good one. Please get ready for it. …

2:6.2,1: “I do not foster level confusion, but you must choose to correct it.” …

=========================================================================

July 30, 2011 . . . . . . . . . A COURSE IN MIRACLES
. In the last, July 29, section I worked on sentences that are in my blog and that have the word “fear” in them. The fact that the FIND feature only came up with 13 sentences is because there aren’t any more sentences with “find”in them in my blog. I didn’t type any more.
. Five sentences came from chapter 2, section 6. The title of section 6 is:
. . . . . . . . . FEAR AND CONFLICT
Let’s go there:
2:6.1,1: “Being afraid seems to be involuntary; something beyond your own control.”
2:6.1,1a: We can be afraid because we are in doubt. For “Doubt(samśayam)” see Gita 4.42. We are afraid because we don’t know what dangers may be lurking outside the known domain. We don’t know whether to prepare for Fight, Fright or Flight.
. We can also be afraid of a known danger. For instance a friend told me that drug addicts will cut people’s throat to get the money for their next fix. The woman I love said it: “I am going to kill you”. I know that her destructive self is almost in complete control of her. And this destructive ego-state is destroying her. And I am trying to prevent that. And it doesn’t like that. On that sad Thursday she had her back towards me. And, while I was preoccupied with her spine and hips, she did something to my knee. There is now a brownish spot on it which I can’t get off. She is injecting heroin. How do I know whether she is going to inject something into me?
All of this are warnings. There is a justifiable fear of death, and I know that Fight or Fright are not the right responses to it. So “Being afraid” doesn’t have “to be involuntary”. We can know what we are afraid of.
2:6.1,1b: There are conditions which can be “beyond your own control” but we have more choices in this matter than the AUTHOR wants us to know.

2:6.1,2: “Yet I have said already that only constructive acts should be involuntary.”
. In J.G Bennet’s “DODECAD”, the twelve term system, Creative Energy (E3) is above Conscious Energy (E4) on level A and it is above Sensitive Energy (E5) on level B. The AUTHOR’s “constructive acts” are initiated by Creative Energy. A is the connective and B is the outcome of this triad. The outcome is a thought (B).
. I am a jnana yogi, a thinker (B). I can do this writing (C) I have to do here. Even though I can’t do it as well and efficiently that a writer (C) can, I can still do it because level C is below level B. But I can’t write the poetry (A) I get from the Gita, The Ching and the Neiye, because level A is above level B. Whatever influences me from above is outside of my control and can be called “involuntary”. To say that creative or “constructive acts should be involuntary”, is misleading because it implies that we have a choice in this matter. Creative, or “constructive acts” can only “be involuntary”. The AUTHOR is omniscient, he knows that. So why doesn’t he want us to know that? …

2:6.1,3: “My control can take over everything that does not matter, while my guidance can direct everything that does, if you so choose.”
. The AUTHOR can “control” everything by means of the programs he has already installed in the minds of his followers, while his “guidance” is necessary to get your permission to do some more programming on you, “if you so choose”.
. If he can ‘discredit’ your intellect (B) “Enough(Zu)” then the only other choice you have is to let the AUTHOR do the thinking (B) for you.

2:6.1,4: “Fear cannot be controlled by me, but it can be self-controlled.” Very subtle.
“Fear” refers to the intellect (B). It “cannot be controlled by” the AUTHOR “but it can be self-controlled.” Your self (A) can control your intellect (B). He could have said it as clearly as that but he didn't. The AUTHOR is bound to have a problem here if your soul (A) controls your intellect (B).

2:6.1,5: “Fear [the intellect] prevents me from giving you my control.” Again, he is not coming right out with it. What does his “control” mean? ...
It means controlling you with the programs he manages to install in your mind. He doesn't like the fact that your intellect, the bad “ego”, can prevent him from having it his way.

2:6.1,6: “The presence of fear [of the intellect] shows that you have raised body thoughts to the level of mind. (7) This removes them from my control, and makes you feel personally responsible for them.” This makes you “personally responsible for” your decisions. What is wrong with that? …
. We have come around to 2:6.2. Some of the work on it is in the May 12 section. But here it really shows that I am not a writer. Somebody has to clean up my blog. Let us just continue the usual way because 2:6.2 is a very juicy paragraph:

2:6.2,1: “I do not foster level confusion, but you must choose to correct it.” …

=============================================================

July 29, 2011 . . . . . . . A COURSE IN MIRACLES
. There is an error in the list of sentences I have given at the end of the June 27 section. In 7:6.1,1 there is no “fear”. So there are 13 sentences instead of 14.

2:6.5,8: “Whenever there is fear, it is because you have not made up your mind.” More correctly: You have not allowed the AUTHOR to make it up for you. That is the hook, but there has to be some bait covering it up. …
Uncertainty is caused by ignorance. As long as we don’t know “Enough(Zu)” you can’t make “up your mind”. Gita 4.42 comes to mind: “Kill therefore with the sword of wisdom the doubt born of ignorance …. (Juan Mascaró’s translation).” As long as there is “ignorance, ajnana” there is doubt. And where there is doubt there can be fear. What is the solution of this problem? …
The knowledge produced by your own intellect (B). So the AUTHOR is accusing the intellect of the very ‘opposite’ of what it is actually doing.

2:6.5,9: “Your mind is therefore split, and your behaviour inevitably becomes erratic.”
. I don’t see why thinkers (B) engaging in Hegelian dialectics “inevitably become erratic”.

2:6.5,10: “Correcting at the behavioural [D] level can shift the error from the first to the second type, but will not obliterate the fear.” What “error”? …

2:6.9,1: “Everyone experiences fear”. (2) Yet it would take very little right thinking to realize why fear occurs.”
. Whenever the word “fear” appears in a sentence, we can be very sure that it is used to ‘depreciate’ the intellect. There may be other “meanings” conveyed to the mind, but right now we are focusing on ‘depreciation’.
. To ‘depreciate’ the intellect, the AUTHOR has to accuse it of crimes the intellect didn’t commit. In other words, …
the accusations are false. And it does “take very little right thinking to” expose wrong thinking, because the errors are quite obvious. Why does “fear” occur? …
The AUTHOR “inevitably” has to be afraid that people are doing what we are doing here. So the principle of ‘opposition’ also applies here: The AUTHOR is afraid of being found out and he is accusing the intellect of causing his problem.

2:6.9,4: “However, if you hope to spare yourself from fear there are some tings you must realize, and realize it fully.” ‘Opposition' Why? …
The AUTHOR doesn’t want us to realize “some tings” and so he says that “there are some things you must realize, and realize fully.” …
What is the AUTHOR afraid of? …
That we realize that what he tells us about the intellect (B) is not true.

7:4.7,8: “Healing …. is a refusal to acknowledge fear.” What the AUTHOR calls “Healing” is supposed to undo the damage the intellect is supposed to cause. Social engineering is a science. It would be presumptuous to assume that I know it all. So don’t expect me to be able to poke holes into everything he says.

7:5.5,7: “Love is incapable of any exceptions. (8) Only if there is fear does the idea of exceptions seem to be meaningful. (9) Exceptions are fearful they are made by fear.”
. Here we are starting out with the ‘opposition’ of “love” and “fear”. The intellect, “(10) The ‘fearful healer’ is” then blamed for the “fear” and the AUTHOR takes credit for the “love” without having to spell it out because the principle of ‘opposition’ is taking care of the details. This is just another “trick (548a)” which is part of the science of social engineering. This science is very “consistent”. It is “incapable of any exceptions …. Exceptions are fearful”.

7:5.6,1: “Fear does not gladden. (2) Healing does.” ‘Depreciation’, ‘opposition’ and ‘contemplation’.

7:5.6,3: “Fear always makes exceptions. (4) Healing never does.” Same identifiers again.

7:5.6,5: “Fear produces dissociation because it includes separation. (6) Healing always produces harmony, because it proceeds from integration.” Same identifiers again.

7:6.1,5: “Fear and love make or create, depending on whether the ego or the Holy Spirit begets or inspires them, but they WILL return to the mind of the thinker and they will affect his total perception.” Same three identifiers again. We have dealt with most of these sentences before. Here we simply add the identifiers to the interpretations.

7:6.1,7: “He will not appreciate any of Them if he regards Them fearfully.”, if he uses the intellect to interpret these sentences. This is supposed to be ‘depreciation’ again.
. By doing what we are doing here, we “will not “appreciate” the AUTHOR’s assertions but, because of the beans he is spilling, we are able to “appreciate” the truth more.

7:6.3,6: “Fearful of perceiving the power of this source, it is forced to depreciate it.” ‘Depreciation’ and ‘opposition’. While the intellect is forced to “depreciate” what the AUTHOR has dictated, he is trying to ‘depreciate’ what the intellect comes up with. This is really an impossible task but he is trying anyway. The fact is that if you are fighting the truth, you are fighting an uphill battle.

7:6.4,5: “Produced by fear, the ego reproduces fear.” ‘Depreciation’. The intellect is here associated with “fear”. To see this doesn’t take an intellectual (B) effort, this can be determined by computation (C). Where are the communicators (C) to join the team? …

My sad love story took an even sadder turn on Thursday. I let the woman I love in when I shouldn’t have. She actually threatened me with death: “I will kill you”. More correctly, her destructive self will cause her to kill me and these words probably came from the woman I love as a warning. According to Gurdjieff and Transactional Analysis ego-states have an intellectual (B), an emotional (C) and a physical component. In other words, they are a B-C-D triad just as part of us is the B-C-D triad, or semiotics. When this destructive self is taking over, it is like a person, it is not the woman I love.
. I have the death threat serious because I have a job to do right here. I seem to slowly get through to the woman I love because its performance on Thursday was extreme. Its existence is threatened by the truth I get through to her. It will do anything to survive. It is already destroying the life of the woman I love. It will get her to kill me in order to survive. This turns out to be a real soap opera. The reason I am putting this message out is because we need help. Let me conclude this section with a letter I will slip under the door for her when she knocks.
“Your death threat: 'I will kill you', is real. I said in the July 25 section that: “knowing the truth about this ego-state [her destructive self] will set her free. I know that my efforts to free that woman from her addiction are also dangerous because that destructive self of her will do anything to survive. My efforts to tell her about where that destructive self is taking her are so threatening to that destructive self, that it causes her to run away from me.” But it can also turn at me and get you to kill me. It seems to be in complete control of you. That is why I have to take your threat serious.
Your destructive self is already destroying you.
Is the decision to let it destroy you a logical one?
Who is making that decision?
You or it?
Not seeing that destructive self in action on Thursday is not due to inability. It was all too obvious. It was due to your unwillingness to see it.
Your refusal to detach from it is forcing me to detach from you.
It is over.
Please stop coming to my door.”

========================================================

July 27, 2011 . . . . . . . . . . A COURSE IN MIRACLES
. We have come around to 7:6.1. From May 22 to May 29 we have covered 7:6.1 to 7:6.6. You now have the interpretations of these six paragraphs. What is missing are the identifications of these six paragraphs with the four identifiers we are focusing on. …
. The work I have done on 7:6.1 can be taken as an example. I have identified 7:6.1,1 and 7:6.1,2 as ‘opposition’. This idea has to do with the “DyAd(dyad)”, which Lao Tzu has described very nicely. The idea of “ReverSal($lad)” also has to do with it:
Ching 40.1: “ReverSal, Tao’S Movement ($ladA1_Z%k)”. For instance, Night follows; day; day follows night. When one pole of a polarity is mentioned, its opposite is always implied. When the same character is ”Repeated(@1)” in the Ching, it can represent the past-present or present-future “DyAd(dyad)” A good example of this is at Ching 25.2:
If we let “Big Mean being home,
having been home mean Going-out (TA73*a), [*a = Shih162.]
having Gone Mean Arriving (*a73$t),
having Arrived Mean Returning ($t73$l) Then(KU)”
having returned means being back home again.

I guess, nothing less than a textbook like the Ching can help us to deal with a textbook like the COURSE. Love-fear is an important dyad in the COURSE. Because knowing the truth about her addiction will set her free, her destructive self can’t allow the woman I love to listen to what I try to get across to her the response of her destructive self is predictable and observable.
. At this point, of this painful drama, her destructive self has the upper hand. When I came home from breakfast today, July 28, 2011, she was camping in front of my door waiting for me to come home. She was in a state in which I couldn’t let her in. We started arguing and, because I tell her things her destructive self doesn’t want her to know, she runs away. I said: Come back on Sunday and, if you are sober, I let you in. She said “Never”. I said: “That is your decision”. After that, I realized that this was not true. What she says when she is in that destructive ego-state is not her decision. It is the decision her destructive self has to make in order to survive. I sat down and composed a letter to her, which I will slip under the door the next time she knocks. Here it is:

“Your destructive self is:

Illogical: It has to destroy you in order to survive. But how can it survive without a body and mind to survive in? That’s one example of what I mean by “illogical”.

It is Argumentative. It expects me to engage in illogical arguments with it. No more.

It is aggressive and ill-tempered. If I can see it, so can you.

It is clever and manipulative. It has to be to feed your addiction and thus increase its power over you.

It is destructive. It has to destroy you in order to survive. If you want to let it do that to you, go ahead, but without me, without me financially supporting your habit. If you decide not to come, SOBER, Sunday or Wednesday, it is not your decision. Your destructive self has decided to forgo $40.00 in order to survive. I have seen you run away from me for that very reason. If I can see it, so can you.
If your destructive self has so much control over you to prevent you from making your own decisions then there is no hope. And when there is no hope, my love for you can’t survive. Peter”

Her destructive self is not running away from me because it is afraid of me but it is running away from the truth because it knows what the truth will do.
. There is a lesson in this that doesn’t only apply to my sob story but to social engineering in general. Since we are using the COURSE as a COURSE IN social engineering let us look at “fear” in the COURSE.
. I got to the text of the COURSE twice before but, for some reason, I can’t get there again. So I only have the text I have typed this far. Since the “meaning”, of what the AUTHOR is conveying to the mind, is the same, a bit over 10% of the text should be quite useful.
. The word appears in 14 sentences. It is in 2:6.5,8, 2:6.9,2, 2:6.9,4, 7:4.7,8, 7:5.5,8, 7:5.5,9, 7:5.6,1, 7:5.6,3, 7:5.6,5, 7:61.1, 7:6.1,5, 7:6.1,7, 7:6.3,6 and 7:6.4,5.
. If you have the book, you can look up the sentences which have “fear” in it but you don’t get my interpretations. But there s a good opportunity to get some practice by trying to predict what I have said. …

======================================================

July 25, 2011 . . . . . . . A COURSE IN MIRACLES
. We have come around to 7:6.1, which we have already worked on in the May 22 section, below this one. You can now compare the work I have done yesterday with the work I have done two Months ago. What is the difference? …
. There are details in the May section which are not in this one. But what is new here? …
I am using the identifiers. This is a major improvement over what I have done up to July. Instead of interpreting the different “forms” in which the AUTHOR conveys his “messages” to the mind, we follow Lao Tzu’s advise and “Identify(Mg)” the single message that is “Repeated(@1)” by means of different “forms” of expressing it.
. There is also another thing playing into this. What is it? …
I, a 76 year old man, fall in love with a 35 year old drug addict. I said it in the July 20 section: “The insights into social engineering were largely due to that love.” God works in strange ways. Any form of synchronicity is the effect of God pulling strings from the other side of the “Door, Dasamadwara” (A), it is the effect of God’s omnipotence.
. My love for that drug addict motivates me to prevent her from destroying herself. Destroying herself is causing me pain. My prayer to God to help me prevent her from destroying herself is also prompted by the desire to stop my suffering. What I call her “destructive self” is preventing me from even talking to the real self of her, which I love. Her destructive self is provoking my ego to engage into fruitless arguments with this destructive ego-state. After I finally get her to leave, my love for her is gone. That is what her destructive ego state wants. I am a threat to it. It causes her not to listen to what I am trying to get across to her. But in the process I am learning quite a bit about that destructive ego-state and the drugs it uses to control her
. Since I have to deal with that ego-state I become aware of its survival instinct and its intelligence. Gurdjieff has already said that the “moving center” (D), the “emotional center” (C) and the intellectual center (B) have their own moving, emotional and intellectual centers in them. We also find that same insight in Transactional Analysis.
. There is a lot I am learning from my love to her. I know that her destructive self doesn’t like me. It causes the woman I love to hurt me, it engages me in frustrating arguments that destroy my love, it is aggressive, unloving and unlovable. Is goal is to survive. How? …
By destroying the woman I love. It is not so much afraid of me but it is afraid of the truth I try to get across to her. Why? ...
Because kowing the truth about this ego-state will set her free. I know, that my efforts to free that woman from her addiction are also dangerous because that destructive self of her will do anything to survive. My efforts to tell her about where that destructive self is taking her are so threatening to that destructive self, that it causes her to run away from me. That has now happened a number of times. And when an experiment is repeatable there is most likely some truth in it.
. The “Insight(72)” that came to me after the second time she ran away is an algorithm that is only of interest to psychologists and expert de-programmers, because there is too much previous knowledge of addiction and psychology required to see the significance of it. But if this theory (B) can be translated into practice the benefits are tremendous.
. Whenever I see her becoming uncomfortable when I tell her the things her destructive self doesn’t want her to hear, I tell her: “Observe it”! I know that she can do it because she has done it before. I tell her repeatedly: When you are perceiving that ego-state, you are the observer and it is the observed. You are the observing subject and it is the observed object. It is not you. This is how to detach from that ego-state. This is nothing new to students of Gurdjieff and J.G Bennett.
. This is meditation, it is self-observation. The observing self is the observed self. And, as a result of that process, there is the separation between you and it. You are detaching from that ego-state and it loses its power over you. It is similar to what I said in the July 20 section: You destroying yourself “hurts me because I love you. To stop the pain I would have to detach.” Jnana yogis (B) have that choice. If you are detached from a person, what s/he does to him or her self can no longer affect you. That also means that …
when you detach from an destructive ego-state it can no longer destroy you. Your real self has as much the right to survive as your destructive self. When this destructive self comes to my door it pretends to be the real self. I say, in so many words:You are not the person I love. You are an imposter.
. Now, when an addict can say that to its destructive self, what is the result of that? …
Drugs are the means of the destructive self to destroy its host. While you can detach from it, you can’t detach from your body. The effects of the drugs on your body are real, but if you are in control of yourself then the purpose of using drugs is not to get you more addicted but to get you detoxified without the pain that is usually associated with it. Self-discipline is still required but drugs can now be used to reduce the pain to a tolerable level.
. I am trying to get this message across to the woman that came into my life as a blessing. In spite of the pain she is still causing me and the money she has cost me, the insights into social engineering are due to her. Are destructive ego-states social engineers” …
I don’t know, but I do know that they are very clever. They are preventing the addict from listening to the truth which, when known, will set them free. $40.00 twice a Week is my bargaining chip to keep her coming to my door. And I will keep preaching the same idea every time se comes. Will that idea (B) become a representation (C) in her? …

==========================================================

July 22, 2011 . . . . . . . . . A COURSE IN MIRACLES
. I have failed to interpret the last sentence of 7:5.11. Here it is.
7:5.11,8: “This is part of the law of creation, and therefore governs all thought.” ‘Inclusion’.
. ‘Inclusion’ is about “the law of creation”.
7:5.11,8: The fact that “You can appreciate the Sonship only as one …. is part of the law of creation”. This law governs vision (A), thought (B), word (C) and deed (D).
. The AUTHOR didn’t give us the whole truth, which can be expected.
. Creative Energy (E3) manifests through the Aristotelian tetrad, A-B-C-D. In terms of energies we have E4 (A), E5 (B), E6 (C) and E7 (D). A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. So if any one of these four “sources”, or parts of the tetrad, is weak then there will be a “Loss of Production (37Sg)” For 37 and Sg, see the Dictionary-Concordance in front of file #5.
. Let us now go to Neiye chapter 8 lines 8 to 13:

8h: When “Ch’i is Guided there Will be Production (#E8h$pSg)”. 8h = Tao41.
8i: When there is “Production there Will be Thought (Sg$p8i)”. 8i = Szu61.
8j: When there is “Thought there Will be Knowledge (8i$pkn)”.
8k: When there is “Knowledge there Will be Stops Period (knSp$iYi)”.
8l: Of “All of Hsin’S Forms (1aHs_Z@k)”, Hsin(Hs) is the A-B-C “TriAd(_3ad)”.
8m: if one of them “Bypasses the Known (#jkn) boundaries then there will be a
. . . .Loss of Production (37Sg)”.

For instance, my sphere of influence is in the semantic dimension (B) of semiotics. That is my dharma, or proper social function. In order to do the writing (C), I have to do here, I have to cross the boundary into the syntactic dimension (C). This necessarily leads to a “Loss of Production”. I have to work harder for an inferior job. The time and energy I have to invest in somebody else's dharma is time and energy I can’t invest in my own.

7:6.1,1: “Although you can love the Sonship only as one, you can perceive it as fragmented.”
7:6.1,1a: The “Sonship” is the system as a whole. The whole emeres through its parts and, having emerged, gives meaning to them. The meaning, or significance of each one of the four parts of the tetrad can be seen when the system is working. It can be seen in the original IBM computer programming system, or in the construction business.
. The AUTHOR can’t spell it out but he has to slip the “meaning” past the intellect (B) to get it into the mind (C). As I begin to understand social engineering better, I realize what a difficult job this is. I also believe that if we work on this problem together, as a team, that is, the artists (A) doing the poetry, the thinkers (B) doing the thinking, the talkers (C) doing the talking and the pragmatists (D) doing the testing of the theories (B) then we will be able to understand it and their sophisticated system of “Tricks and stratagems (548a)” will collapse like a house of cards.
7:6.1,1b: We “perceive” with our eyes (D). We can see details with our eyes (D) we can’t see with our soul (A). When you look at something with a microscope, you see more detail than you can see with a telescope. The AUTHOR was most likely incarnated before his present disembodied state. He can see the big picture but he can’t see all of the details. And that’s why, when we work on this collectively, we will find a lot more errors in his COURSE than I have found so far.

7:6.1,2: “It is impossible, however, to see some thing in part of it that you will not attribute to all of it.” …

==========================================================

July 21, 2011 . . . . . . A COURSE IN MIRACLES
. There was a mistake at the end of the last section. Here is the correct version:
7:5.11,4: “This light will shine back upon you and on the whole Sonship, because this is your proper gift to God.” ‘Inclusion’ and ‘contemplation’.
7:5.11,4a: We have seen in the last section, below this one, that: “The ‘light’ in the mind of the AUTHOR’s followers is the program he has installed there. Executing it means computing (C) what the mind is programmed to compute.
. A program is written to attain the customer’s (A) goal. When the goal is attained, or the demand has been supplied, the customer pays. And now his followers get all the wonderful things the AUTHOR is talking about elsewhere. This subject should be covered in file #3 because 'contemplation' is the ‘opposite’ of ‘depreciation’ where the AUTHOR is talking about all the terrible things the intellect (B) is supposed to be doing. But right now, I feel more productive doing what I am doing here.
7:5.11,4b: “your proper gift to“ the AUTHOR’s goal is either in the form of thought (B), word (C) or deed (D). Because the whole, which emerges through these three unique abilities, is greater than the sum of its parts, so “your proper gift” or “This light will shine back upon you”.

7:5.11,5: “He will accept it and give it to the Sonship, because it is acceptable to Him and therefore to His Sons.” ‘Inclusion’ and ‘contemplation’.
7:5.11,5a: The AUTOR will “accept” the fruits of your labour and, like a satisfied customer, will pay us for our thinking, talking and physical work. B-C-D is semiotics. No wonder our political masters have made Morris’ semiotics “disappear”. If semiotics were taught properly in University, what I am telling you here would be nothing new to you.
7:5.11,5b: What is “acceptable” to the AUTHOR is also acceptable to you, if …
you have given him permission to program you. The trick is: Getting your permission without you knowing what you are doing.
. This “light” shining “back upon you” means that you will be rewarded for your efforts. The “Sonship” is the human component of the pyramid. When the goal is attained, the system, as a whole, will benefit and because of its success the “brothers” in the “Sonship” will benefit as well. When the customer’s demand is supplied, the thinkers (B), talkers (C) and doers (D) will get paid.
. Since the AUTHOR intends to produce tangible results in, what Aristotle calls, the material cause (D), he must use the Aristotelian tetrad to accomplish that. To understand how it works, we can use analogy. The original IBM computer programming system would be the best example but the construction business will do as well.
. Why is what “is acceptable to” the AUTHOR also acceptable “to His Sons”.? …
Because they have been programmed that way. Social engineering is a science. It is about getting permission from you to program you without you becoming aware (A) of the fact that you are giving your power away. The AUTHOR gets you to say: “Thy will be done through me” without you becoming aware (A) of what you are doing. Social engineering is an unethical kind of business.

7:5.11,6: “This is true communion with the Holy Spirit, Who sees the altar of God in everyone, and by bringing it to your appreciation, He calls upon you to love God and his creation.” Can you do this one on your own? …
The flowery language alone tells us that this is primarily an emotional appeal “to love” the AUTHOR and to submit to him. Knowing what “the altar of God” means to the AUTHOR can give us some further clue:
1:1.20,1: “Miracles reawaken the awareness that the spirit, not the body is the altar of truth.”
7:3.4,8: “The altar there [in your mind] is the only reality.” So the altar is one of the things the AUTHOR has installed in your mind.
7:3.4,9: “The altar is perfectly clear in thought, because it is a reflection of perfect Thought.” So the “altar …. is a reflection of perfect Thought.” It is a “perfectly clear” and “consistent” program. The “reflection of the perfect Thought” of the AUTHOR is, in fact, the program he has written.
. Right here, we are trying to figure out what this program does to the minds of his followers.

7.5.11,7: “ You can appreciate the Sonship only as one.” ‘Inclusion’.
The “Sonship” is the whole which is greater than the sum of its parts, if …
all of its parts are there and fully functional.

7:6.1,1: “Although you can love the Sonship only as one, you can perceive it as fragmented.” …

===================================================

July 21, 2011 . . . . . . . A COURSE IN MIRACLES

7:5.11,3: “Let your mind shine with mine upon their minds, and by our gratitude to them make them aware of the light in them.”
. Which ones of these four identifiers apply to this one? …
The identifiers we focus on are: ‘5:1.2,3’, ‘contemplation’, ‘depreciation’ and ‘inclusion. …
There are more but, following Lao Tzu’s advise, we don’t bite off more than we can chew. Once you have familiarized yourself with these four, you don’t need me anymore to help you with them. So which one is the most obvious one? …
‘Contemplation’ comes closest to social engineering. And that’s what the AUTHOR is doing. Let us do the syntactic (C) work first: “Let your mind shine” is a verb-phrase. A sentence that starts with a verb is an …
imperative sentence. Everything added to the verb are subordinate phrases which give details. “Let your mind shine”, “with mine”, “upon their minds, and …. make them aware of the light in them.”, How? …
“by our gratitude to them”. Primarily we have ‘contemplation’ here. This can already be seen by the flowery language which is an appeal to the emotions (C). Social engineers can’t appeal to the intellect (B). That’s why much of social engineering is applied to dumbing us down.
. The word “gratitude” brings us to the principle of ‘inclusion’. Can you see it? …
My work, or dharma is in the semantic dimension (B) of semiotics. Thinking (B) is not talking (C). “KnowErs(kner) are Not good with Words (PUC2); TalkErs(C2er) Don’t Know (PUkn)” how to think well enough.
. If a communicator (C) would communicate what I am saying here more professionally then I would naturally be “grateful” to him or her. Thought (B), word (C) and deed (D) are all necessary to supply the customer’s (A) demand.
. Each one of these three different abilities is necessary to get the job done. They are the parts of a whole which is greater than the sum of its parts. The whole emerges through its parts and, having emerged, gives meaning to them. When what I am trying to explain here is seen to work in practice (D) then this is no longer merely a theory (B). The system is already working in what Lao Tzu calls an “Intelligent Man’S Government. (wsmn_Z85)”. The unelected advisors do the thinking (B) and their elected politicians do the talking (C). There is a division of labour here. That’s why their system works. But if we find out why and how it works it will no longer work. In other words, knowing the truth about HOW we are “Governed(85)” will set us free. It is understandable, therefore, that our political masters don’t want us to know the truth. The same goes for the AUTHOR. If the “brothers” on the lower levels of the pyramid find out the truth, then the truth will set them free.
. It, therefore, makes perfect sense that the AUTHOR doesn’t want us to find out the truth. Now, what does “the light in them” mean? …
The “light” in the mind of the AUTHOR’s followers is the program he has installed there. To “make them aware of the light in them” is getting them to do the computing as they were programmed to compute.
. Interpreting the AUTHOR’s sentences is translating the different “forms” into the one “meaning” that is continually repeated until the AUTHOR’s “official version” of the truth has become a representation (C) which can no longer be questioned by our intellect (B).
. As we take the trouble to identify the AUTHOR’s “meanings” the different flowery “forms”, in which he conveys the same “meaning”, are seen for what they are.

7:5.11,4: “This light will shine back upon you and on the whole Sonship, because it is acceptable to Him and therefore to His Sons.” …

=======================================================

July 20, 2011 . . . . . . A COURSE IN MIRACLES
. There was a delay. My powers of concentration (E3) were distracted by the power of love (E2). The insights into social engineering were largely due to that love. But it turned bad. I fell in love with a Heroin Addict. Her addiction, and the destructive ego-state that comes with it, made it impossible for me to open my apartment door to her. I also can no longer support her habit. Ordinarily people say: The devil made me do it, I have to say that love made me do it. It is really a good thing that I run out of money because otherwise I wouldn’t have the strength to resist her demands for money. Love is not a logical thing. Now, when she comes to my door, I slip messages for her under the door. I like to share the last one with you:

. . . . . . . . . “PLEASE TAKE AND READ WHEN SOBER.

On Monday I spent two hours on the internet …. and Googled: ‘Heroin Addiction’.
. How can you do such a terrible thing to yourself? It hurts me because I love you. To stop the pain I would have to detach. I had to do it twice before in my life, so I have the choice to do it again. But love is something precious. We can’t decide to love somebody. God decides that. God is omnipotent [E1]. Nothing is impossible for Him The fact that you came into my life is a miracle. Love is a miracle we must not destroy. Not if we can help it.
Whether there is pain or not, as long as there is hope we must keep that love alive. Right now we need a big miracle: You must decide to stop destroying yourself. Love is like a prayer to God to help us.
If you come on Sunday and you are not sober then I can’t let you in. But I will give you $20.00 to leave. And we have to wait a week for the next time. This is the best I can do right now, the rest is up to you.”
. Isn’t it strange how a cool-headed jnana yogi (B) can become a heartbroken bhakti (A)?

7:5.11,1: “Come therefore unto me. And learn of the truth in you.” ‘Contemplation’. …
The demand to submit to the AUTHOR is usually combined with an emotional appeal. The “truth in you” is the program in you, which computes (C) as it is programmed to compute. There is a truth in us we should “learn” about but it has nothing to do with social engineering.
Ching 71.2 comes to mind:
“Not Knowing that deep down you Know (PUknkn) is Sick(@p)”. Here the AUTHOR gives us bait to chew on, which is not on the conscious level, unless …
we have studied the Tao Te Ching for a while.

7:5.11,2: “The mind we share is shared by all our brothers, and as we see them truly they will be healed.” “Inclusion’ and ‘contemplation’.
7:5.11,2a: The “brothers” are the AUTHOR’s followers. They are the coworkers in accomplishing the AUTHOR’s goal. They are guided to “Actualize their Potential (A1pt)”. And these actualized potentials are “shared by all our brothers.” As the AUTHOR (A) shares with B so B shares with C and as B shares with C so C shares with D. From the type of study we are doing here we can see that the AUTHOR knows the principle of ‘inclusion’ See, for instance
7:4.3,6: “If different abilities are applied long enough to one goal, the abilities themselves become unified.” More work of this type has to be done in the syntactic dimension (C) of semiotics. My job is in the semantic dimension (B). It consists of giving you an algorithm of what has to be done if the goal is democracy (A).
. The AUTHOR is omniscient (E3), he knows the truth. But what we also find out is that he doesn’t want us to know it.
7:5.11,2b: If you know what “healing” means in the COURSE then you can do the interpretation of this subordinate phrase yourself. To serve the AUTHOR you have to be sick in the head.

7:5.11,3: “Let your mind shine with mine upon their minds, and by our gratitude to them make them aware of the light in them.” …

====================================================================

July 16, 2011 . . . . . . . A COURSE IN MIRACLES

7:5.10,1: “You cannot forget the Father because I am with you, and I cannot forget Him. (2) To forget me is to forget yourself and Him Who created you.”
. This is a reference to the principle of ‘inclusion’. I have summarized this principle many times before: As A is to B so B is to C, and as B is to C so C is to D.
. Let us follow Lao Tzu’s advise and not bite off more than we can chew. Let us take it one “meaning”, or message at a time. We also have ‘opposition’ and ‘contemplation here. Can you see one of them? …
Whenever we read: “I am with you” and you are with “Him Who created you”, you have ‘contemplation’. Why? …
Because getting you to identify with him means that your will is his. It amounts to saying: Your will be done through me.
When there is ‘opposition’ we have the poles of a polarity. Can you see them? …
The “Father …. Created you.” You are his son. If the AUTHOR is “with you” then you are with him. Properly (Aligned Words Likely Reverse (%8C2JO$l)”. ‘Opposites’ are the “Reverse” of each other. If you know one then you know both.

7:5.10,3: “Our brothers are forgetful. (4) That is why they need your remembrance of me and of Him Who created me.” ‘5:1.2,3’. This “meaning” is explained by the AUTHOR himself at 5:1.2,3. But in most “Repetitions(@1)” of this “meaning” there is also your verbal repetition of the AUTHOR’s lessons involved.

7:5.10,5: “Through this remembrance, you can change their minds about themselves, as I can change yours.” ‘5:1.2,3’ and ‘Inclusion’.

7:5.10,6: “Your mind is so powerful a light that you can look into theirs and enlighten them, as I enlighten yours.
7:5.10,5a: ‘5:1.2,3’: “THE MORE BELIEVE IN THEM THE STRONGER THEY BECOME” in your own mind and in the morpho-genetic field.
7:5.10,5b: ‘Inclusion’: As the AUTHOR enlightens you so you “enlighten” your brothers.

7:5.10,7: “I do not want to share my body in communion because this is to share nothing.” True. He has no body (D) to share.

7:5.10,8: “Would I try to share an illusion with the most holy children of the most holy Father?” …
Yes, he would sell his “illusion [to] the most holy children of the most holy Father”.

7:5.10,9: “Yet I do want to share my mind with you because we are one Mind, and that Mind is ours.” ‘Contemplation’. Can you see why? …
With some practice, you don’t need my interpretations anymore. So what we have here? …
“….we are one Mind, and that Mind is ours.” In other words: …
Your mind is mine; my mind is your mind. So what I want is what you want. In other words: …
What the AUTHOR wants is done through you.

7:5.10,10: “See only this Mind everywhere, because only this is everywhere and in everything.”
7:5.10,10a: This is a straightforward instruction, which summarizes the above.
7:5.10,10b: The AUTHOR’s “official version” of the truth cannot possibly be “everywhere and in everything” because all we have to do with it is what the AUTHOR doesn’t want us to do with it. And when you see the falsehoods in his statements, you also know why he doesn’t want us to do what we are doing right here.

7:5.10,11: “It is everything because it encompasses all things within itself.”
Social engineering is the science of mind-control. The AUTHOR can program you so that for you his teaching “encompasses all things within itself”. His teaching is “consistent”.

7:5.10,12: “Blessed are you who perceive only this, because you perceive only what is true.”
7:5.10,12a: ‘Contemplation’. This identifier is usually associated with an appeal to the emotions.
7:5.10,12b: If you are properly programmed by the AUTHOR then you “perceive” his “official version” of the truth as “what is true.”
. Because what social engineers, like the AUTHOR, can do to our minds is so unbelievable, that the only thing that will enable us to believe it is, understanding it. And credit has to go to the AUTHOR for helping us with that.

7:5.11,1: “Come therefore unto me, and learn of the truth in you.” …

==========================================================

July 15, 2011 . . . . . . . . A COURSE IN MIRACLES

7:5.9,1: “As you can hear two voices, so you can hear [see] in two ways.”
. In the July 10 section I have identified this one as ‘Inclusion’. Most sentences in the COURSE contain more than one “meaning”, so what else do we have here? …
‘Opposition’. The “two voices” and the “two ways” in which to interpret them refer to the poles of a polarity.
. In front of file # 3 is my introduction to ‘Opposition’. Please do the homework I have given there. When you understand this “meaning” you have no problem with “Identifying(Mg)” it. Let us read on:

7:5.9,2: “One way shows you an image, or an idol that you may worship out of fear, but never love. (3) The other shows you only truth, which you will love because you will understand it.” …
There are two “DyAds” here. Try to identify their poles: …
We have here “fear” and “love”. For the other one we only have one pole, which is? …
It is “truth”.
The opposite of truth in falsehood or “untruth”. A pole of a polarity always implies its opposite or complement. This happens automatically, subconsciously, with Automatic Energy (E6). The AUTHOR takes full advantage of this psychological phenomenon because it is harder to identify these repetitions. He doesn’t even have to spell it out and the message is conveyed to the mind.
. The “sons” or followers of the AUTHOR are programmed to “love” what he tells them, while people who prefer to use their own intellect (B) love the truth. The intellect is Buddhi in Sanskrit. “BUDDHI …. Is ….the Intelligence that determines what is truth. (Sutra 14 of THE HOLY SCIENCE)”. In order to believe the AUTHOR there is a lot of more believable information you have to reject.

7:5.9,4: “Understanding is appreciation, because what you understand you can identify with, and making it a part of you, you have accepted it with love.”
. “appreciation” leads up to ‘contemplation’. ‘Contemplation’ is identification with the AUTHOR. When you say to him: Thy will be done through me, “you have accepted it [what he tells you] with love.” And there we also have a definition of “love”.
. As you familiarize yourself with these four “meanings” you will be able to identify the sentences through which these “meanings” are conveyed automatically (E6). You will also notice that usually more than one “meaning” is conveyed through one sentence.

7:5.9,5: “That is how God Himself created you; in understanding, in appreciation and in love. (6) The ego is totally unable to understand this, because it does not understand what it makes, does not appreciate it and does not love it ”
7:5.9,5a: That is how the AUTHOR himself has programmed you. How? ...
7:5.9,5b: By social engineering.
7:5.9,6: This is a blatant repetition of ‘depreciation’. The reason the intellect does not “appreciate” what the AUTHOR says is because it is not true. We also notice that the AUTHOR has made use of ‘opposition’. This is no accident. He knows what he is doing.

7:5.9,7: “It incorporates to take away. (8) It literally believes that every time it deprives someone of something, it has increased.” ‘Depreciation’. These accusations apply more to the AUTHOR than to the intellect. This is another subtle form of ‘opposition’. You say one thing and imply its opposite. Unless we find more examples of this particular type of ‘opposition’, his use of it will merely seem accidental.

7:5.9,9: “I have spoken often of the increase of the Kingdom by your creations, which can only be created as you were.”
. 7:5.9,8 and 7:5.9,9 form a pair of opposites. Can you see it? …
The faulty belief in “increase” of the intellect is contrasted against the real fact of “increase” of “the Kingdom”.
. Every sentence that has the word “Kingdom” in it refers to the principle of ‘inclusion’. So the faulty intellect and the real “Kingdom” are contrasted here.
. The “Kingdom …. can only be created as you were” created. How? …
By social engineering. You are creating as you were programmed to create. The mind can’t think (B), but it can “create” by computation (C).

7:5.9,10: “The whole glory and perfect joy that are the Kingdom lies in you to give.”
. FIND “glory”, “perfect” and “joy” and you very likely come to a sentence that is about ‘contemplation’.

7:5.9,11: “Do you not want to give it?” ‘Contemplation’. You must “want” the AUTHOR to “guide”, “train”, or to program, you.

7:5.10,1: “You cannot forget the Father because I am with you, and I cannot forget Him.” …

========================================================

July 13, 2011 . . . . . . . A COURSE IN MIRACLES
. Since July 11 I was working on a concordance for the text of the COURSE I have typed since April 17. I have to delete everything else to make this file usable for you. With the FIND function of blogspot you have the equivalent of a concordance.
. What I started out to do was to give you numbers or text you could search for to find sentences related to a specific “meaning”. The “Meaning” is clothed in different “forms” so that we don’t notice that the “meaning” is repeated until it has become a representation. Identifying each “Meaning” with a specific identifier is what the AUTHOR doesn’t want us to do. That’s why we have to do it. Since this is work in the syntactic (C) dimension of semiotics, I had a hard time with it. So halfway through I decided to let you do some of the work yourself. Good practice. I will give you keywords by means of which you can identify the meanings. You will get the details later.
. There are more than four repeated “Meanings” in the COURSEI but, following Lao Tzu’s advise, we will start with the following four: ‘Depreciation’ and ‘contemplation’ are ‘opposites’. The fourth identifier is the principle of ‘inclusion’. That is the toughest one, so we will do it last. Instances of the AUTHOR “depreciating” our intellect (B) are the most frequent and easiest to identify. Why most frequent? …
If the AUTOR can’t shake our faith in our intellect (B) then he is not going to get anywhere with his plan. We will start with it in file #3. Because it is the easiest, it also serves us as an introduction to the other three identifiers.
. The opposite of depreciation is appreciation but, as I was working awat, I realized that “appreciation” merely leads up to ‘contemplation’.
. ‘Opposition’ is the “meaning which appears least frequently but it is a very powerful “communication” tool, which requires our attention (A).
. ‘Inclusion’ requires most work to understand, but understanding it is necessary to understand the AUTHOR’s “Kingdom”. The idea of 'inclusion' is all over this blog.
. I am not quite ready yet, but just keep checking file # 3 to see what comes up there.

==========================================================

July 11, 2011
. This file is getting too full. It takes too long to post a section. I have to delete everything in this file which I posted before April 17 to keep going on this file. And then I can’t use as much space per sentence as I have used up to now. There are two examples of what I will do in the last, July 10 section:

7:5.8,8: “By changing your mind about him FOR him, you help him undo the change his ego thinks [knows] it has made on him.” ‘5:1.2,3’, ‘depreciation’

7:5.9,1: “As you can hear two voices, so you can hear in two ways.” ‘Inclusion’.

‘5:1.2,3’ is an interpretation, and its definition is still in the same file. The definition is like the dictionary concordance in front of file # 5. It has to go into another file. The identifier ‘inclusion’ will be the first entry in file # 3. It will serve as an example of what that file will be about.

=================================================================

July 10, 2011 . . . . . . . A COURSE IN MIRACLES
. The quest for Gaza has to be mentioned because it is relevant to what we are doing here. The last time I mentioned the G20 in this connection. Our global political masters could never get away with it if we had a democracy (A). Here is a quote from today’s Toronto Star: “They’ve mobilized an entire state bureaucracy [of Greece in this case] against people who are on a boat for their vacation.” What is going on here? …
You guessed it: It is social engineering. In a democracy (A) this could never happen. The political masters of Greece can read Plato’s Republic in the original, they can read what he has said about timocracy (B). Lao Tzu calls it an “Intelligent Man’s Government (wsmn_Z85)”. Why is Plato not even taught in philosophy (B)? …
Because the social engineers control the educational systems of their governments. The first thing Hugo Chavez did, after he got into power, is to take it away from them. He still uses social engineering, but for a different purpose. There is a lot we can learn from analyzing the differences between different educational systems. Because truth is the lifeblood of democracy (A) it is the only system in which the truth would be taught. Back to the COURSE
. The July 8 section was ready but when I tried to post it, a virus took over and it seemed that it didn’t get posted and I couldn’t get at my edited text. So I started over again and got it posted. Then I found out that both texts got posted. The editing on them is slightly different and I didn’t know which one to reject. So I left them both in.
. What takes up most of my time and energy is the work I have to do in the syntactic (C) dimension of semiotics. A communicator has to take this information from here onto his or her own website and do some organizing and editing.

7:5.8,1: “When you heal, that is exactly what you ARE learning.”
. In the previous paragraph, the AUTHOR has shown you “exactly what you ARE learning” when you don’t do what he doesn’t want you to do. Which is? …
Doing what we are doing here.

7:5.8,2: “You are recognizing the changeless mind in your brother by realizing that he could not have changed his mind.” This is a ‘hook’ with very little ‘bait’ around it. We are supposed to believe something that is not true.
. Every intelligent human being can change his mind as well for himself as the AUTHOR can change it for him.

7:5.8,3: “That is how you perceive the Holy Spirit in him.”
7:5.8,3: That is how you perceive the programming the AUTHOR has done in him.

7:5.8,4: “It is only the Holy Spirit in him that never changes His Mind.”
. A computer program is very consistent. It computes (C) exactly the way it has been programmed to compute. It “never changes” itself.. If a program (C) has to be changed then a programmer (B) has to do it.

7:5.8,5: “He himself may think he can, or he would not perceive himself as sick.”
. Tao Te Cing, 71.3 comes to mind:
“He Who Sick Sick (heho@p@p), who knows not, and knows not that he knows not,
TherFore(SiYi) does Not feel Sick (PU@p)”.

7:5.8,6: “He therefore does not know what his self is.”
. We got the same message before. We have the same “meaning” conveyed in a different “form”. Let us “Identify(Mg)” it as ‘Sick Sick’.

7:5.8,7: “If you see only the changeless in him you have not really changed him.” If you only see the hardware of a person without putting a program into it then “you have not really changed him”.

7:5.8.8: “By changing your mind about him FOR him, you help him undo the change his ego thinks [knows] it has made in him.” ‘5;1,2.3’, ‘depreciation’.
7:5.8,8a: The “meaning” we get here can best be identified as ‘5:1.2,3’.
5:1.2,2: “THOUGHTS INCREASE BY BEING GIVEN AWAY.” Why? …
5:1.2,3: “THE MORE WHO BELIEVE IN THEM THE STRONGER THEY BECOME.”
7:5.8,8b: You have to heal the intellect by changing what it teaches into the opposite.
. We are only scratching the surface of the COURSE and already tings are getting out of hand. Notice how gradually, over the past three Month, my approach to the COURSE has been improving. You can see the last improvement here at 7:5.8,8. You have the sentence followed by two identifiers. Right now, the sentences are out of sequence because that’s how I have approached my task. Three month ago I just didn’t know any better. Right now the sentences with the identifiers, we have so far, should be put in sequence. That in itself would be a great study-guide. All you need is the FIND function and you have a concordance. For instance you would also come up with:
6:3.4,1: You must teach “the exact opposite of everything the ego believes”. The intellect doesn’t believe (C), it knows (B).
. In addition to that, we need a section in which the identifiers are dealt with in more detail. Since this is work that should be done in the syntactic dimension (C) of semiotics. I should stick to my own dharma in the semantic dimension (B).

7:5.9,1: “As you can hear two voices, so you can hear in two ways.” ‘Inclusion’. …

=====================================================

July 8, 2011 . . . . . . . A COURSE IN MIRACLES

7:5.7,5: “True learning is constant, and so vital in its power for change that a Son of God can recognize his power in one instant and change the world in the next.”
7:5.7,5a: Learning the COURSE, the way the AUTHOR has designed it, is so effective that a “Son” of the AUTHOR can recognize his power. What is this power? …
Knowledge is power. The AUTHOR is bodiless in the time and space-less dimension on the other side of the “Door, Dasamadwara”. On that side there is omniscience (E3). What does he use his knowledge for? …
7:5.7,5b: To “change the world”.

7:5.7,6: “That is because, by changing his mind, he has changed the most powerful devise that was ever given him for change.”
7:5.7,6a: By changing your mind, the AUTHOR has changed the most powerful devise for effecting “change” for better or for worse.
7:5.7,6b: But permission to control your mind must be obtained from you, by him. ‘Contemplation’. In stead of “given him for change”, “given him to change” would have been more explicite. It is not always easy to identify the “meaning” in the “form” the AUTHOR has dictated it. Obviously it is not his intention to make it easy. This is why it helps to know what we are looking for. ‘Contemplation’ means: Not my will but thine will be done through me.

7:5.7,7: “This in no way contradicts the changelessness of mind as God created it, but you think that you have changed it as long as you learn through the ego.”
7:5.7,7a: “This” refers to the “mind” of the previous sentence. It is the subject of the sentence. “…. in no way contradicts ….” Is the connective, and “the changeless …. Mind” is the predicate. So what is the meaning of the basic sentence? …
The mind, as defined in the previous sentence, is not the changeless mind, “as God created it”. And here the real God is meant for a change. …
Our brain (D) is also called a bio-computer because of the similarities between our brains and computers. As in a computer, programmes can be written into any area of our bio-computer. If an area gets damaged, the automatic (E6) functions that were carried out in that area can be reprogrammed in another undamaged area. That is the “hardware” social engineers are putting their software in.
7:5.7,7b: The second subordinate phrase, after the comma, is another ‘depreciation’. The programming is done by “Repetition(@1)”. As long as you don’t know why and how they are doing what they are doing, they will continue doing it to you. Only your knowledge of the truth about this science will free you of their mental control over you.

7:5.7,8: “This places you in a position of needing to learn a lesson that seems contradictory;--you must learn to change your mind about your mind.”
. The difference between regular computers and bio-computers is that in us, software can become hardware. But it is something that has been studied and has been understood. Why, then, do I have to change my mind about the truth that is already known? ...

7:5.7,9: “Only by this can you learn that it is changeless.” There's the ‘hook’.
. Even in a bio-computer, the hardware (D) is relatively “changeless” the software is what the social engineers are always changing. So why tell us that it is “changeless” when it is not? …
Could it be that they don’t want us to know what they are doing to us? …

7:5.8,1: “When you heal, that is exactly what you are learning.” …

======================================================

July 8, 2011 . . . . . . . A COURSE IN MIRACLES

7:5.7,5: “True learning is constant, and so vital in its power for change that a Son of God can recognize his power in one instant and change the world in the next.”
7:5.7,5a: Learning the COURSE, the way the AUTHOR has designed it, is so effective that a “Son” of the AUTHOR can recognize his power. What is this power? …
Knowledge is power. The AUTHOR is bodiless in the time and space-less dimension in which there is omniscience (E3). What does he use his knowledge for? …
7:5.7,5b: To “change the world”.

7:5.7,6: “That is because, by changing his mind, he has changed the most powerful devise that was ever given him for change.”
7:5.7,6a: By changing your mind, the AUTHOR has changed the most powerful devise for effecting “change” for better or for worse.
7:5.7,6b: But permission to control your mind must be obtained from you, by him. The word I use to identify the “meaning” of this message is: ‘Contemplation’. In stead of saying, “given him for change”, to say, “given him to change”, would have been more accurate. It is not always easy to identify the “meaning” in the “form” the AUTHOR has dictated it. Obviously it is not his intention to make it easy. This is why it helps to know what we are looking for. ‘Contemplation’ means: Not my will but thine will be done through me.

7:5.7,7: “This in no way contradicts the changelessness of mind as God created it, but you think that you have changed it as long as you learn trough the ego.”
7:5.7,7a: “This” refers to the “mind” of the previous sentence. It is the subject of the sentence. “…. in no way contradicts ….” Is the connective, and “the changeless …. mind” is the predicate. So what is the meaning of the basic sentence? …
The mind, as defined in the previous sentence, is not the changeless mind, “as God created it”. And here the real God is meant for a change. …
Our brain (D) is also called a bio-computer because of the similarities between our brains and computers. As in a computer, programmes can be written into any area of our bio-computer. If an area gets damaged, the automatic (E6) functions that were carried out in that area can be reprogrammed in another undamaged area. That is the “hardware” social engineers are putting their software in.
7:5.7,7b: The second subordinate phrase, after the comma, is another ‘depreciation’. The programming is done by “Repetition(@1)”. As long as you don’t know why and how social engineers are doing what they are doing, they will continue doing it to you. Only knowledge of the truth about it will free you of their mental control over you.

7:5.7,8: “This places you in a position of needing to learn a lesson that seems contradictory;-- you must learn to change your mind about your mind.”
. The difference between regular computers and bio-computers is that in us, software can become hardware. But it is something that has been studied and can be understood. Why do I have to change my mind about something that is what it is? …

7:5.7,9: “Only by this can you learn that it is changeless.” ‘Hook’.
. Even in a bio-computer, the hardware (D) is relatively “changeless” the software is what the social engineers are always changing. So why tell us that it is “changeless” when it is not? …
Could it be that they don’t want us to know what they are doing? …

7:5.8,1: “When you heal, that is exactly what you are learning.” …

======================================================

July 6, 2011 . . . . . . . . . . A COURSE IN MIRACLES

7:5.7,1: “The unhealed healer wants gratitude from his brothers, but he is not grateful to them. (2) That is because he thinks he is giving something to them, and is not receiving something equally desirable in return.”
. Normally the AUTHOR calls the intellect “the ego”, here he calls it “the unhealed healer”. These names are intended to ‘depreciate’ the intellect. The same goes for the two sentences, above: Let us instead try to determine what the intellect (B) “wants” and what it really “thinks”. …
The intellect “wants” the truth. It gets it in the form of poetry and from the COURSE in prose. Poetry comes through the poets (A) to B. In the case of the COURSE Helen Schucman took the place of the poets. Instead of writing poetry which bypasses the intellect, Helen took dictation from a disembodied entity, which must have been human before.
. What comes through A has to be interpreted at level B. What I have done with the poetry, I am doing here with the COURSE. After the thinking (B) is done, the ideas are put in writing (C), as I am doing here. But it would be more efficient if there could be verbal communication between the thinkers (B) and the talkers (C), as there is between the unelected advisors (B) and our elected politicians (C), and between the AUTHOR (B) and his writers (C).
. To show that what I have explained here doesn’t come from me but from the poets (A), let me use lines 5 and 6 of Neiye 14:
4E: The mind (C) “Reaches “Up(_+)” To Heaven (_+âvtoTn)”
4F: And it “Stretches “Down(_-)” To Earth (_-4FtoTI)”. 4F = Chi75. It isn’t in the Ching.
. “Heaven(Tn)” is on level B and “Earth(TI)” is on level D. So the mind (C) reaches up to the intellect (B) and stretches down to the body (D). In the B-C-D “TriAd(_3ad)” the mind (C) is the connective. In Astrology C is the cardinal water-sign, the mutable water-sign is between C and B and the fixed water-sign is between C and D. This is theory only. Astrologers still have to verify or falsify it.
. What is true of communicators (C) applies to the other three elements as well. Let us go to Neiye 8 to get a more general description of the same three-fold relationships.

8a: If you are “Able to Align (ab%8) yourself with the level above you
. . then will you be Able to be Tranquil (ab^a)”.
8b: “Only Then (Ja4R) will you be Able to do the Fixing (ab8b)”.

What the COURSE has in common with the poetry is its “consistency”. This is why we have to put different statements from different chapters and paragraphs together to arrive at their “meaning”. In this case the “reaching up” at 4E is the “Alignment(^a)” at 8a, and the “stretching down” at 4F is the “Fixing(8b)”.
. It is interesting to note that the “fixed” signs in Astrology are doing just that. They are “stretching down” to bring the message from their own level to the level below them. To get some more detail on this, let’s skip down to line 8 of this same chapter:

8h: When “Ch’i is Guided there Will be Production (#E8h$pSg)”.
8i: When there is “Production there Will also be Thought (Sg$p8i)”.
8j: When there is “Thought there will be Knowledge (8i$pkn)”. When there is
8k: “Knowledge there Will also be the knowledge of where to Stop Yi (kn$p$iYi)”.
8l: Of “All of Hsin’S three possible Forms (1aHs_Z@k)”, if any one of them
8m: “Bypasses the Known (#ikn) stops then there will be a Loss of Production (37Sg)”.

Hsing(@k) is only in Ching 41 and 51 and, as here, it is translated as “Form” But it appears more frequently in the NeiYe, and here it is more often translated as “Body”. Why?...
Aristotle calls the intellect the “formal cause” (B). It produces the “Form” for the “material cause” (D). In other words the intellect determines the “Form” (B) of our body (D). Hsin(Hs) is the B-C-D triad. Thought, word and deed. It is semiotics. The fact that our political masters have made it “disappear” tells us that it is an important concept.
. There are more references to the A-B-C-D tetrad in the Neiye than there are in the Ching. However, the one at Ching 25 is the most explicit. To keep it short I will return to Neiye 14 from line 17 to the end:

4Q: When there is “Awareness, Only Then can there be Form (4PJa4R@k)”.
4R: When there is “Form, Only Then can there be Word (@kJa4RC2)”.
4S: When there is “Word, Only Then can there be Implementation (C2Ja4R%e)” of C2.
4T: When there is “Implementation, Only Then can there be Order (%eJa4R85)”.
4U: When there is “No Order there is Necessarily Disorder (PU85PI$a)”. And
4V: when there is “Disorder there Will be Death ($a$p78)”.

“Awareness” is on level A 4P = I or Yi61. “Thought, will, intention”. The Aristotelian “formal cause” is on level B, “Word(C2)” is on level C and the instructions from C are executed in the pragmatic dimension of semiotics (D). In business “Death(78)” can refer to bankruptcy.

I have burdened you with this poetry to give you something with which you can compare the AUTHOR’s prose. The AUTHOR is in the same time and space-less dimension the poetry is coming from. If the AUTHOR has not learned these things in his last human incarnation, then this information is accessible to him right now. It is important to know that the AUTHOR is not accidentally deceiving it, but that he does so, on purpose.
. Knowledge is power, and the AUTHOR uses it to establish his kingdom on earth To reach his “goal” he is up against a few problems. …
His biggest problem is the truth. The truth is what it is no matter what he says. …
Next comes the intellect, which can be seen from how hard he is fighting it. …
Next come books like the Bhagavad Gita, the Bible, the Nei Yeh and the Tao Te Ching. If you study philosophy (B) and you compare these books, any of them, with the COURSE you will see that the thinking used in the COURSE is obscurantism rather than philosophy.

7:5.7,3: “His teaching is limited because he is learning so little.” Really? …

7:5.7,4: “His healing lesson is limited by his own ingratitude, which is a lesson in sickness.” Have you followed me through the lessons from the Neiye? …
Do you feel “ingratitude” towards the poet (A) because he has passed the truth from the other side of the “Door, Dasamadwara” (A) on to you? …
So, what is the AUTOR talking about? …

7:5.7,5: “True learning is constant, and so vital in its power for change that a Son of God can recognize his power in one instant and change the world in the next.” …

=========================================================

July 5, 2011 . . . . . . . . A COURSE IN MIRCLES

7:5.6,1: “Fear does not gladden. (2) Healing does.”
. “Fear” has been repeatedly associated with the intellect, and “Healing” has been repeatedly associated with the AUTHOR. If you believe what the AUTHOR says then these associations should be representations by now. How does the mind read the statement now? …
7:5.6,1: The intellect does not gladden; the AUTHOR does. ‘Depreciation’ and ‘appreciation’.

7:5.6,3: “Fear [the intellect] always makes exceptions. (4) Healing [the AUTHOR ] never does.
7:5.6,5: “Fear produces dissociation, because it [the intellect] induces separation.”
. Deduction is the movement from the general to the particular, from whole to part. Induction is the movement from the particular to the general, from the parts to the whole. Deduction and induction are both thinking tools, which the intellect uses like a carpenter uses wood-working tools.

7:5.6,6: “Healing [the AUTHOR] always produces harmony, because it proceeds from integration.” The truth is sacrificed for the sake of ‘depreciation‘ and ‘appreciation’.

7:5.6,7: “It is predictable because it can be counted on.”
7:5.6,7: . It can be counted on because it is predictable.

7:5.6,8: “Everything that is of God can be counted on, because everything of God is wholly real.” ‘Bait’ and ‘hook’. Why? …
7:5.6,8a: Everything that is of God is real because it can be counted on. Now you know..
7:5.6,8b: The AUTHOR doesn’t want us to interpret what he has dictated. Why? …
Because then we can see it for what it is. Put yourself into the shoes of the AUTHOR: Would you want us to do what we are doing here. What the AUTHOR has dictated doesn't stand up to the intellect's reason. The only thing that holds it together is social engineering. And when we understand it, his assertions fall apart. Then it will be seen that what comes from the AUTHOR can’t “be counted on”.

7:5.6,9: “Healing [the AUTHOR] can be counted on because it is inspired by His Voice, and is in accord with His laws.” Since the AUTHOR has “adapted” God’s laws to serve his own purpose they can’t be counted on. ‘Appreciation’.

7:5.6,10: “Yet if healing is consistent it cannot be inconsistently understood. (11) Understanding means consistency because God means consistency.”
. God’s laws are consistent. ‘Bait’. The AUTHOR’s laws are inconsistent. ‘Hook’.

7:5.6,12: “Since that is His [the AUTHOR’s] meaning, it is also yours.” ‘Contemplation’.
. It is only yours if you allow him to program your mind (C) so that it feels as if it is yours.

7:5.6,13: “Your meaning cannot be out of accord with His, because your whole meaning and your only meaning comes from His [programming] and is like His.” It is his programming.

7:5.6,14: “God cannot be out of accord with Himself, and you cannot be out of accord with Him.”
. Even God has to abide by His own laws of creation. As far as that goes, we have some bait here. By giving us the freedom of choice He cannot even interfere with our freedom. But whatever we do has consequences. Why does the AUTHOR keep reminding us that the choice to hand over the control of our mind to him is ours. We can't complain about having been manipulated because the AUTHOR has told us so. And yet, the power of social engineering to manipulate us into saying: Thy will be done through me, must not be “Underestimated($j)”. The implication that “you cannot be out of accord with” the AUTHOR, is a hook. In social engineering a statement doesn’t have to be true, it only has to be convincing enough and repeated enough in different “forms”. Our mind (C) will do the rest. From what I have learned about social engineering over the last three month, ‘contemplation’ seems to be the main thing that has to be achieved. Everything else: ‘Depreciation’, ‘appreciation’, inclusion’, ‘exclusion’, 'reversal' etc. are simply minor goals that lead up to your surrender to the AUTHOR. The power he exercises over the minds of his followers is astonishing, once you come up against it. It is almost insurmountable. The best we can do is take away their more recently recruited followers and thus leave their leaders “lonely”, without followers.

7:5.6,15: “You cannot separate your Self from your Creator, Who created you by sharing His Being with you.”
. To share “His Being with you” sounds nicer but saying that the AUTHOR controls you by installing his program in your mind (C), is more accurate.

7:5.7,1: “The unhealed healer wants gratitude from his brothers, but he is not grateful to them. (2) That is because he thinks he is giving something to them, and is not receiving something equally desirable in return.” …

========================================================

July 4, 2011 . . . . . A COURSE IN MIRACLES

7:5.5,1: “The Holy Spirit does not work by chance, and healing that is of Him always works.”
. When I started studying the COURSE about three month ago, I knew “Enough(Zu)” about social engineering to know that the AUTHOR is a social engineer. And, because he is spilling the beans about it so eagerly, I have learned more about it in three month than I have learned in the previous years.
7:5.5,1a: Social engineers do “not work by chance”. Social engineering is a science based on observable human behaviour. It is the science of mind-control. This is important information about social engineering and can be called “bait”.
7:5.5,1b: The “healing that is of Him” only works as long the victims don’t know what we are learning here about social engineering. Since this subordinate phrase is not true it is the “hook” in this sentence..

7:5.5,2: “Unless the healer always heals by Him the result will vary.” This is only a half-truth. What is the other half that is not mentioned here? …
Unless the victim is ignorant of social engineering, “the result will” not be as predicted.
Whether the AUTHOR helps a “healer” or not, social engineering does not work when people learn what we are learning here from the AUTHOR.

7:5.5,3: “Yet healing itself is consistent, since only consistency is conflict-free, and only the conflict-free are whole.”
7:5.5,3a: Social engineering is consistent because human behaviour is consistent. It is predictable and the predictions are verifiable. For instance, tell a lie often enough and they will turn into representations (C), which can no longer be questioned. But unless the “form”, the repeated “meaning” is closed in, is different the victims begin to notice it and the effort becomes counterproductive. That is why the AUTHOR said at
7:2.5,3: that “He opposes the idea that differences in form are meaningful, emphasizing always that THESE DIFFERENCES DO NOT MATTER. (4) The meaning of His message is always the same; only the meaning matters.” Only the meaning has to be repeated often enough to become a representation. Where is the hook here? …
“THESE DIFFERENCES DO …. MATTER”. Why? …
Because if we notice the repetitions they become counterproductive. Here we have a very important bit of information about social engineering, which is worth repeating.
7:5.5,3b: The science of mind-control is not “conflict-free” To engage in this business you are killing your soul. Bad karma. You can suppress the feeling of conflict, but you have to reap what you sow.

7:5.5,4: “By accepting exception and acknowledging that he can sometimes heal and sometimes not, the healer is obviously accepting inconsistency.”
. The AUTHOR can sometimes get his “sons” to heal and sometimes not. It depends on whether people inform themselves about social engineering or not. If you are following me here, even if only part of the way, then the AUTHOR has to be “accepting inconsistency”. To deny it, he has to deny that we are doing what we are doing here.

7:5.5,5: “He is therefore in conflict, and is teaching conflict.”
7:5.5,5: The AUTHOR is in conflict, and therefore is teaching conflict.

7:5.5,6: “Can anything of God not be for all and for always?” …
. This question is valid to ask about “God”, but the AUTHOR is not “consistent” enough with the truth. The question about “God” is the bait; that the AUTHOR is supposed to be “Son of God“ is the hook, you are supposed to swallow.

7:5.5,7: “Love is incapable of any exceptions.” To interpret this sentence we have to know what the AUTHOR means by “Love”. If we don’t know that then the sentence might as well be written in Greek.

7:5.5,8: “Only if there is fear does the idea of exceptions seem to be meaningful.”
. Our intellect is blamed for “fear” and the AUTHOR takes credit for “Love”. It is one opposite of “fear”.

7:5.5,9: “Exceptions are fearful because they are made by fear.” They are made by the intellect. ‘Depreciation’.

7:5.5,10: “The ‘fearful healer’ is a contradiction in terms, and is therefore a concept that only a conflicted mind could possibly perceive as meaningful.”
. The “fearful healer” is the intellect. It is not a “healer” in the sense the AUTHOR uses the word. So it “is a contradiction in terms”. It is necessary to hold two contradictory representations (C) in the mind (C) so that the intellect (B) can determine whether both ore true or one is true and the other is false. Why should that be “a concept that only a conflicted mind could possibly perceive as meaningful”? ...
This is another attempt to ‘depreciate’ the intellect.

7:5.6,1: “Fear does not gladden. (2) Healing does.” …

=====================================================

July 3, 2011 . . . . . . A COURSE IN MIRACLES

7:5.4,1: “Healing only strengthens. (2) Magic always tries to weaken.”
. Since we have a good idea of what the AUTHOR Means by “Healing” we can ask: What does it strengthen? …
The AUTHOR’s “official version of THE DIVISION OF LABOUR. “Magic” seems to be the opposite of healing. So what does it “weaken”? …
The AUTHOR’s “official version of THE DIVISION OF LABOUR. “ According to the AUTHOR There is no difference between vision (A), thought (B), speech (C) and physical (D) action. How does the AUTHOR justify this assertion? …
There is no difference in the “difficulty” people, who are doing their own dharma, encounter when doing their work. If you love what you are doing, work is play. There is only a difference in difficulty when people have to do what is not their dharma. For instance the writing I have to do here is not my dharma. Not only is writing more difficult for me, but I can’t do as good a job as a communicator (C) can do. Unless communicators communicate as skilfully as the social engineers do, we will never get a democracy (A)

7:5.4,3: “Healing perceives nothing in the healer that everyone else does not share with him.
7:4.4,1: “All abilities should therefore be given over to the” AUTHOR.”
7:4.3,6: “If different abilities are applied long enough to one goal the abilities themselves become unified.” Not “the abilities themselves become” the same but they all contribute to accomplish the same task. Why does the AUTHOR try so hard to make us believe what is not true? …
In the parable of the talents, Matthew 25:14, The master gives different talents to his servants: “to every man according to his several ability”. Jesus also made it very clear what will happen to you if you bury your talents: You will be cast “into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Jesus is more explicit here than Krishna is at Gita 3.35. How can the AUTHOR claim to be Jesus when he teaches the very opposite of what Jesus was teaching.? …

7:5.4,4: “Magic always sees something ‘special’ in the healer, which he believes he can offer as a gift to someone who does not have it.”
. I can’t write the poetry that comes to me from the Gita, the Ching and the Neiye. It enables me to do my dharma. Doing our dharma is doing what we came here to do. What enables me to do that is certainly a “gift” to me.

7:5.4,5: “He may believe that the gift comes from God to him, but it is quite evident that he does not understand God if he thinks he has something that others lack.”
7:5.4,5a: In the parable of the talents, the master gives different talents to his servants. So it could be said that our talents come from God. Not making use of your talents is “dangerous (bhaya, Gita 3.35)”. “Actualize your Potential (A1pt)”! How? …
“Tao the TaoAble (A1ptA1)”. By “Doing what you Can Do (A1ptA1)”. The Tao(A1) means anything the context demands. And K’o(pt) also means “Can”. See different translations about that. Anyway, it can be said that our gifts come from God, we are bringing them with us at birth.
. The original Indian caste system came from that understanding. Why is the AUTHOR so “consistently” trying to obscure that knowledge? …
Because that is knowledge of the truth that will set us free. The Healer knows that he has a gift from God and that, if he doesn’t share it with others who don’t have that particular gift, s/he is not doing his or her dharma. As far as that goes, this is true. This is the bait. The truth doesn’t have to be spelled out. It suffices to only imply it, to keep the intellect guessing. But if we don't fall for that trick then we are doing what we are doing right now.
7:5.4,5b: It is not evident that s/he does not understand THE DIVISION OF LABOUR because s/e knows that s/he has a gift to share with others and others have their gifts to share with him or her. So here we have a very obvious hook. Examples of THE DIVISION OF LABOUR can be seen in the original IBM computer programming system, the construction business and the original Indian Caste system. These examples are valuable because of the Law of Correspondence. The thinking tool called analogy is based on that law. The same principle of ‘inclusion’ can be seen in all examples of the A-B-C-D tetrad.

7:5.5,1: “The Holy Spirit does not work by chance, and healing that is of Him always works.” …

===================================================

July 2, 2011 . . . . . . . A COURSE IN MIRACLES

7:5.3,1: “Healing is the one ability everyone can develop and must develop if he is to be healed.”
. “Healing” is the subject of this sentence, “is” is the connective and between the “is” and the “if” is the predicate. To understand this sentence you must know what “Heling” means in the COURSE. In the little bit I have typed “heal” appears at least 14 times. If you use the FIND function of blogspot you also get my interpretations of these sentences. To repeat it here would take more than one section. Let me, then, just pick
7:4.3,3: “The Holy Spirit teaches you to use what the ego has made, to teach the opposite of what the ego has ‘learned’.”
. The proper function of the intellect is to seek and find the truth. To “teach the opposite of what the ego [the intellect] has ‘learned’” means exactly what it says. Hard to believe, but there you have it.
7:5.2,7 is the last sentence before 7:5.3,1. There the AUTHOR talks about the “sickness AND healing” dyad. If there is no sickness, there can be no healing. If everybody is healthy, there can be no healing. For healing to exist, there as to be sickness. This is just another way of saying that you can’t have one pole of a polarity without the other.
. Having to choose between two equally valid choices causes the “discomfort” of cognitive dissonance. Rejecting one of the two choices eliminates the “discomfort”. The “comfort”, “Peace” and “serenity” is not due to logic but due to a “psychological phenomena”. And that is what the science of social engineering is based on. As long as we don’t know what makes us tick, social engineering works, once we find out the truth about it, the truth will set us free.
. In 7:5.6 the word “healing” appears five times but it is referred to more often by pronouns. Let me start quoting from the last time the word appears:
7:5.6,10: “Yet if healing is consistent it cannot be inconsistently understood. (11) Understanding means consistency because God means consistency. (12) Since that is His meaning, it is also yours. (13) Your meaning cannot be out of accord with His, because your whole meaning and your only meaning comes from His and is like His.”
. In other words, “healing” is what the AUTHOR tells you it is. To get you to believe that takes some doing but, let me repeat that, social engineering is a science and, thanks to the AUTHOR, we are finding out about it.
. To “be healed.” means that the truth your intellect has “learned” must be “corrected”.

7:5.3,2: “Healing is the Holy Spirit’s form of communication in this world, and the only one He accepts.” In social engineering it doesn’t matter whether something is true but whether it is communicated (C) convincingly and often “Enough(Zu)”. What the AUTHOR is saying doesn’t have to be true but you have to believe (C) that “the Holy Spirit” has said it.

7:5.3,3: “He recognizes no other, because He does not accept the ego’s confusion of mind and body.” ‘Depreciation’. What “confusion? …

7:5.3,4: “Minds can communicate, but they cannot hurt.” In our timocracy (B) the unelected advisors (B) do the thinking and make the decisions while the elected politicians do the talking (C). Look at the G20 here in Toronto. People got hurt. Do you believe that the politicians (C) had nothing to do with that? …

7:5.3,5: “The body in the service of the ego can hurt other bodies but this cannot occur unless the body has already been confused with the mind.”
. Even without the public enquiry into the G20, we have been demanding for one year now, it is clear by now that the police is not in the service of our politicians (C) but of their unelected advisors (B). They are the ones who make the decisions in a timocracy (B). We know that the police “can hurt other bodies”. We have seen it. Any confusion is blamed on the intellect. ‘Depreciation’.

7:5.3,6: “This situation, too, can be used either for healing or for magic, but you must remember that magic always involves the belief that healing is harmful.”
. Here the word “magic” is introduced and defined. But I will just hold it in suspense. I am busy enough as it is.

7:5.3,7: “This belief is its totally insane premise, and so it proceeds accordingly.” ‘Depreciation’. That the “opposite” of what the AUTHHOR calls “healing” is a “totally insane premise” needs verification or falsification. Whenever the AUTHOR uses words like “insane” he is referring to the intellect.

7:5.4,1: “Healing only strengthens. (2) Magic always tries to weaken.” …

============================================================

June 30, 2011 . . . . . . A COURSE IN MIRACLES

7:5.2,1: “Only minds communicate.”
. The mind (C) is the reconciling impulse in the B-C-D triad. B represents the semantic dimension of semiotics, C represents the syntactic dimension and D represents the pragmatic dimension. This triad is best known as thought, word and deed. So the intellect (B) does the thinking, the mind (C) does “communicate” and the body (D) does the physical work. So here we have a simple and true statement by the AUTHOR. Seeing how hard he is working on ‘depreciating’ and confusing the intellect, you might be wondering why we are getting such a true and simple statement here? …

7:5.2,2: “Since the ego cannot obliterate the impulse to communicate because it is also the impulse to create.”
7:5.2,2a: Why would the intellect obliterate the mind’s natural impulse to communicate? …
Each source of the tetrad needs all of its three partners. If any part is weak the system, as a whole, is weak, and if any one of the four sources is non-functional then the whole system is non-functional. So why did the AUTHOR make that statement? …
7:5.2,2b: “…. because it is also the impulse to create.” …
Creative Energy (E3) is stepped down to Sensitive Energy (E5) by Conscious Energy (E4). And as E4 steps down E3 for E5 so E5 steps down E4 for E6. A uses E4, B uses E5, C uses E6 and D uses Vital Energy (E7). As B interprets the message from A for C so C interprets the message from B for D. Creative Energy (E3) comes through A, B, C and D. They are all conducting “the impulse to create”.
7:5.2,2c: The intellect teaches “that the body can both communicate and create” on the physical level. We are told here that the intellect “seeks to unify” But at 7:4.5,2 we are told that “The ego always seeks to divide and separate. (3) The Holy Spirit always seeks to unify and heal.” There is a contradiction here. But if “The Holy Spirit” tells you in his own “Voice” then it can’t be wrong. Would “the Son of God” lie to you? …
So you better believe (C) it. Why? …
Because you can’t understand (B) it. Why? …
Because it is not true.
7:5.2,2: And “therefore [the body (D)] does not need the mind.” ‘Depreciation’.
. The intellect would never say that. Why? …
Because it is not true. D needs C as C needs B and as C needs B so B needs A. I can speak from my own experience, here. I couldn’t do this work on this COURSE if it were not for the poetry and the bait that comes to me through the “Door” (A).

7:5.2,3: “The ego thus tries to teach you that the body can act like the mind, and is therefore self-sufficient.”
7:5.2,3: The body carries out the instructions of the mind (C). In this sense the intellect can say “that the body can act like the mind,” in that it follows its instructions. ‘Bait’.
7:5.2,3: “…. and is therefore self-sufficient.” ‘Hook’.

7:5.2,4: “Yet we have learned that behaviour is not the level for either teaching or learning, since you can act in accordance with what you do not believe.”
7:5.2,4a: The word “behaviour” refers to observable physical (D) actions. It “is not on the level for either teaching or learning,” B is “teaching” C and C is “learning” from B. ‘Bait’.
7:5.2,4b: You will only “act in accordance what you do not believe” if …
you are forced of manipulated to do so. ‘Hook’.

7:5.2,5: “To do this, however will weaken you as a teacher and a learner because, as has been repeatedly emphasized, you teach what you DO believe.” ‘Bait’.
. Where is the hook here? …
The AUTHOR tries to make us believe that this fact is only true for the teachers of his COURSE. All other teachers, like Steiner or Lao Tzu, don’t believe that what they are teaching is true. ‘Reversal’. Properly “Aligned Words Likely Reverse (%8C2JO$l)”. The opposite of what the AUTHOR says doesn’t have to be “repeatedly emphasized”. These messages are automatically (E6) picked up by the “trained” mind. This is why we find the principle of “Reversal($l)” so “repeatedly emphasized” in the COURSE because in this way the AUTHOR catches two birds with one stone. In this way the “Repetitions(@1)” are not as obvious because he doesn’t actually have to say it.

7:5.2,6: “An inconsistent lesson will be poorly taught and poorly learned.” ‘Repetition’.
The implied message is that other teachers, like Steiner and Lao Tzu, teach inconsistent lessons. Only the lessons in the COURSE are consistent. If you don’t become aware (A) of these subtle messages you will never ask: Are the lessons we lean by means of our intellect really “inconsistent”? …
Social engineering is a science. It is very consistent and, if you don’t “Identify(Mg)” the “consistent …. meanings” that are consistently fed into your mind then slowly but surely you will get hooked.

7:5.2,7: “If you teach both sickness AND healing, you are both a poor teacher and a poor learner.” ‘Inclusion’ and ‘exclusion’. …
7:5.2,7a: The principle of ‘inclusion’ is referred to here because of the “sickness AND healing” dyad.
7:5.2,7b: Its opposite is referred to because the AUTHOR doesn’t want the complete “DyAd(dyad)”. He wants us to reject one of the two equally valid choices for the sake of “comfort”, “peace” and “serenity”.

7:5.3,1: “Healing is the one ability everyone can develop and must develop if he is to be healed.” …

=========================================================================

June 29, 2011 . . . . . . . A COURSE IN MIRACLES

7:5.1,1: “The body is nothing more than a framework for developing abilities, ….”
In this sentence, “The body” is the subject, “is” is the connective and what follows it, up to the comma, is the predicate. After the comma comes a subordinate phrase. Let us determine what “The body is” before we look at the AUTHOR’s predicate.
. Our body (E7) is in the world (E8 to E12) as the mind (E6) is in the body. E6 is level C of Plato’s “divided Line” at 509d of his Republic, E7 is level D and E8 to E12 are below the “Line”. In the C-D-E8 “TriAd(_3ad)” our body is the connective. This information comes from Plato, his student Aristotle, J.G Bennett, Steiner, the Hindus, the Buddha, Lao Tzu and others and it makes a lot more sense to me than what the AUTHOR wants us to believe. It is not something the mind (C) can be programmed to believe (C) but it is something the intellect (B) knows (B).
. If we listen to our intellect then we can’t believe what the AUTHOR wants us to believe. This is why the AUTHOR has to ‘depreciate’ the intellect. In the convention, I decided on in the last section, I put the word I use to “Identify(Mg)” a “Meaning” with, in single quotes. The reason is that you can use the FIND function of blogspot, or of your word-processor, to find it. Let us first find “meaning”. The word “meaning” appears a lot in my own interpretations. To save you time, let us go directly to:
7:2.5,3: “Therefore, .... THESE DIFFERENCES [in the “form”] DO NOT MATTER. (4) The meaning of His message is always the same; only the meaning matters.” Why? …
Because “only the meaning” has to be repeated often enough so that it will become a representation, which can no longer be questioned by the intellect. But just as the AUTHOR can programme the mind (C), so can we. How? …
The same way the AUTHOR does it but, instead of repeating the AUTHOR's “meaning” we are repeating the truth. Every time we notice one of his lies we do the opposite of what he does. What does this mean to a person who is trapped in the AUTHOR’s cult? …
By following the line of thought, I am outlining here, s/he can “DeProgeam(PUÜd)” him or herself. HOW does a person get hooked by the AUTHOR? …
By allowing him to program our minds (C). HOW does he do that? …
By repeating his “meaning” often “Enough(Zu)”. How does he get away with that? …
By repeating the “meaning” in different “forms” so that we don’t notice it. But to accomplish that, we must be in the state of ‘contemplation’. You must say to him: Thy will be done THROUGH me. There is a good definition of 'contemplation' at
7:4.2,1: The AUTHOR “must work THROUGH you to teach [program] you He is IN you. (3) This [your allowing him to program you] is an intermediary step toward the knowledge [the belief] that you are in God [the AUTHOR] because you [must believe that] you are part of Him.” This is merely a translation which, with a bit of practice, you can do yourself. The “Holy Spirit” always refers to the AUTHOR, “to teach”,, or to “train” means to program, and “knowledge” means belief. The belief that “you are part of” the AUTHOR means that his will is your will, and this belief causes ‘contemplation’. 'Contemplation' means that you hand over the control of your mind (C) to him.

7:5.1,2: “This is a decision.”
7:5.1,2: The computer can be programmed to do computations (C) that look like “a decision” but it is not. The outcome of a computation (C) is predetermined by the programmer (B), which in this case is the AUTHOR. And programming the mind to believe that “The body is nothing more than a framework for developing abilities, ….” is done for the purpose of achieving his own GOAL (A). Putting an “untruth” into our mind (C) is not in our own best interest. Replacing the AUTHOR’s “official version” of the truth with the truth takes work. I hope that a communicator (C) will decide to make it a bit easier for you. In the mean time you have to put up with what I have here.

7:5.1,3: “The effects of the ego’s decision in this matter are so apparent that they need no elaboration, but the Holy Spirit’s decision to use the body only for communication has such a direct connection with healing that it does need clarification.”
7:5.1,3a: Because we have an intellect, we have the freedom of choice. What this freedom consists of is not “apparent” at all. What is apparent, however, is that the AUTHOR doesn’t want us to think about it.
7:5.1,3b: The AUTHOR’s “decisions” do “need clarification”. Communication (C) is done in the syntactic dimension of semiotics (C). Our body (D) is used for carrying out the instructions, which C is giving to it, in the pragmatic dimension (D)..
7:5.1,3c: Repeating his “meaning” over and over again is not “communication”, it is programming. And that has “a direct connection with [what he calls] healing”.

7:5.1,4: “The unhealed healer obviously does not understand his own vocation.”
. ‘Depreciation’. The intellect not only understands “his own vocation” but the vocation of his three partners as well. The Buddha calls the four: Vision (A), thought (B), speech (C) and (physical) action. (D). Once you know the “Meaning” of what the AUTHOR is saying, ‘depreciation’ in this case, his “Ridicule(*41)” is seen for what it is.
. I also hope that we don't have to interpret every sentence in the COURSE. What I have done so far is not quite enough to enable you to do the translations(C) and interpretations (B) yourself. But if we complete 20% of the total text we probably cover all of the “meanings” the AUTHOR is repeating. Not all ideas (B) have to be converted into representation, but all “meanings” must be understood. Understanding a “meaning” will be “Enough(Zu)” to start the process of converting it into a representation (C). All you need is “Enough” repetitions of the “meaning”. And I am sure that the AUTHOR has given us “Enough” repetitions. To see that, just make use of what we got so far.

7:5.2,1: “Only minds communicate.” …

=======================================================

June 28, 2011 . . . . . A COURSE IN MIRACLES

7:4.7,1: “Seek ye first the Kingdom of Heaven, because that is where the laws of God operate truly, and they can operate only truly because they are the laws of truth.”
. “Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven (Mt. 6:10).” How do you manifest “the Kingdom of Heaven” on earth? …
First you have to know WHAT you want to accomplish. What is the GOAL (A)? …
God wants us to manifest “the Kingdom of Heaven” on earth. We are to God what the supplier, B-C-D, is to the customer (A) in business. What is the next step? …
We must know (B) HOW “the laws of God operate truly, …. Because they are the laws of truth”. This is all true. So where is the hook? …
The AUTHOR is not God. His GOAL (A) is not to establish God’s Kingdom on earth but his own. What is the third step? …
In the syntactic dimension of semiotics (C) it is determined what can be done on earth and it is decided what will be done on earth (D).

7:4.7,2: “But seek this only, because you can find nothing else.” This is a subtle way of saying: There is nothing else than the AUTHOR’s way.

7:4.7,3: “There is nothing else.”

7:4.7,4: “God is All in all in a very literal sense.” Coming from the other side of the “Door” (A) the AUTHOR is omnipresent. So “in a very literal sense the AUTHOR “is …. in all”. And where is the hook? …
The AUTHOR is not God, therefore he is not “All”. However the message is there: …
Surrender to me! I have “Identified(Mg)” that “meaning” as ‘Contemplation’.

7:4.7,5: “All being is in Him Who is all Being.” ‘Contemplation’.
7:4.7,6: ”You are therefore in Him since your being is His.” ‘Contemplation’
. The same “meaning” is here “Repeated(@1)” in three different “forms”.

7:4.7,7: “Healing is a way of forgetting the sense of danger the ego has induced in you, by not recognizing its existence in your brother.” ‘Depreciation’. We also have another definition of “Healing” here.
7:4.7,7a: At 2:7.1,5 the AUTHOR said: “I would hardly help you if I depreciated the power of your own thinking.” Because he is “Repeating(@1)” the same “meaning” in different “forms”, I am using his own word to “Identify(Mg)” this particular message.
7:4.7,7b: “ By not recognizing its [the intellect’s] existence in your brother.” You are ‘depreciating' it.
7:4.7,8: “This strengthens the Holy Spirit in both of you, because it is a refusal to acknowledge fear.”
7:4.7, 8a: ‘Depreciating’ the intellect strengthens the AUTHOR’s influence on both of you. This is a way of ‘appreciating’ the AUTHOR. Appreciating the AUTHOR in your brother “strengthens the Holy Spirit [the AUTHOR] in both of you”.
7:4.7,8b: In the COURSE, “fear”, the sense of “danger”, “discomfort”, etc. are all blamed on the “ego”. So here we have another example of how the intellect is ‘depreciated’.

7:4.7,9: “Love needs only this invitation.” ‘Contemplation’.
. ‘Contemplation’ takes many different “forms” in the COURSE, but with a bit of practice you can “Identify the IdentifyAble (MgptMg)” yourself.
. Right here at 7:4.7, I am beginning to introduce a new convention. It has become necessary because the work is becoming too much for me. The nice thing about this convention is that it does not only make my work easier, but, if you do your homework, then you will learn much more on your own than you can learn by reading what I came up with. Let me take this opportunity to tell you again that what I come up with are mostly untested theories. Until an algorithm (B) is coded (C) and the coding is executed (D) we can’t be sure that the theory (B) is true. The idea is to get the “WordErs(C2r)” to do their work, which is necessary to change the theory (B), I have here, into practice (D). What would we actually see if this theory is working? …
We would see democracy (A) instead of the timocracy (C) we have now. If you understand this, and the AUTHOR is helping us here, then you will see how simple the truth really is. And you will wonder why Plato’s Republic isn’t even taught in philosophy. But you will not wonder for long, you will know why. …

7:4.7,10: “It comes freely to all the Sonship, being what the Sonship is.”
. Here we have a definition of “Sonship”. It is closely related to ‘contemplation’. The AUTHOR’s “Sons” say to their “Father”: Not mine but Thy Will be done through me. To those who can hear the AUTHO’s “Voice” it is the voice of God. What millions of people, who hear and obey his voice, can do can be quite impressive. Many people take dictation from the other side of the “Door” (A). It is more common than is generally known, but te AUTHOR’s “Sons” believe it to be a “MIRACLE.

7:4.7,11: “By your awakening to it you are merely forgetting what you are not.”
. ‘Depreciation’: By “awakening” to what the AUTHOR wants you to believe you are “forgetting what you are”. If the AUTHOR can’t ‘depreciate’ the intellect, he can’t make you believe that “you are not” “what you are”.

7:4.7,12: “This enables you to remember what you are.” It is hard to believe that somebody can make you believe that “you are”, “what you are not”. If what can be achieved by the science of social engineering were not so unbelievable, the AUTHOR could never get away with it. The mistake he is making is that he is spilling the beans about it. Why does he do that? ...
Because he is too eager to establish his “Kingdom” on earth. Nothing less than knowing the truth about social engineering can set us free from being controlled by it. The fact that the AUTHOR has squeezed the whole COURSE (on social engineering) onto 1239 pages makes it possible for us to figure it out. So far I have only covered only about one tenth of it. But, see for yourself, the same “meanings” are already repeating. This is an encouraging discovery, because …
if we have “Identified the IdentifyAble (MgptMg)” once then the next time the same “meaning” comes up it will be easier to identify it again. And, after we have identified a “meaning” often enough, we can do it in our sleep, then it will have become a representation (C).
. What I am giving to communicators, here, is an algorithm (B). It is something that can be done in the syntactic dimension of semiotics (C). By pressing (Ctrl) and (F) together you get the FIND function of blogspot or of your word-processor. So what is so hard looking up certain keywords? …

7:5.1,1: “The body is nothing more than a framework for developing abilities, which is quite apart from what they are used for. (2) THAT is a decision.” …

======================================================================

June 27, 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . A COURSE IN MIRACLES

7:4.6,2: “The ego believes that it can, and that it can offer its own ‘will’ as a gift.”
. The intellect knows what “gift” it has to contribute to the whole it is a part of. In fact, it knows (B) which contributions its three partners have to make to the system, for the whole to be greater than the sum of its parts:
. The customer (A) must provide the demand, or GOAL, and s/he must be willing and able to pay for the supply.
. The thinkers (B) must make their intellectual contribution to the customer’s job.
. The “TalkErs(C2er)” must make their mental (C) or verbal (C) contribution. And
the pragmatists (D), in the pragmatic dimension of semiotics, must make their physical (D) contributions to complete the job.
. The intellect (B) and the intelligent (B) AUTHOR know that, if any one of the four parts is weak, the system, as a whole, is weak. And if one of them does not function then the whole does not function. It doesn’t work at ¾ of its full capacity because ¼ is not working, it doesn’t work at all.
. If the AUTHOR doesn’t want us to know that then he must …
disable the intellect. And his disabling takes all kinds of “forms”.

7:4.6,3: The gift, “YOU DO NOT WANT IT.” Why do I not want it? …
7:4.6,4: “It is not a gift.” How come? …
7:4.6,5: “It is nothing at all.” Really? …

7:4.6,6: “God has given you a gift that you both HAVE and ARE.”
. You “HAVE” the AUTHOR’s representations in your mind (C), which cause you to believe that you ARE what he wants you to be.

7:4.6,7: “When you do not use it, you forget that you have it.”
. What you don’t use, you loose. This is true of the AUTHOR’s “gift” and of the contributions the intellect can make. If the intellect (B) does not control its mind (C) then the AUTHOR will do it.
. Social engineering is a science. So let’s not “Underestimate($j)” what the AUTHOR can do. But, thanks to him, we are finding out about it. And that understanding takes us beyond his cult. Knowing the truth will set us free.

7:4.6,8: “By not remembering it, you do not know what you are.”
7:4.6,8: By not believing what the AUTHOR wants you to believe, you will not become what he wants you to be.

7:4.6,9: “Healing, then, is a way of approaching knowledge by thinking in accordance with the laws of God, and recognizing their universality.”
. Here we have another definition of “Healing”: It is computing (C) in accordance with the AUTHOR’s programming (B), and the belief that his representations (C) are universal.

7:4.6,10: “Without this recognition, you have made the laws meaningless to you.”
7:4.6,10: Without this belief you are making the AUTHOR’s programming ineffective.

7:4.6,11: “Yet the laws are not meaningless, since all meaning is contained by them and in them.” A Goal (A) that is realizable can be programmed (B), coded (C) and executed (D). It is, therefore, “not meaningless”. But that doesn't make the AUTHOR’s GOAL, his cult, right.

7:4.7,1: “Seek ye first the Kingdom of Heaven, because that is where the laws of God operate truly, and they can operate only truly because they are the laws of truth.” …

===================================================

June 26, 2011
. Yesterday I was at Queens Park. There where the signs about the G20 again: PUBLIC ENQUIRY NOW. I was there a year ago when the whole thing started. I saw already then what would happen and I said it on this blog. I told you so. And I hate to tell you again:
AS LONG AS THOSE WHO ARE MAKING THE DECISIONS IN OUR TYPE OF GOVERNMENT, THERE WILL BE NO PUBLIC ENQUIRY.INTO THE G20.

7:4.6,1: “To think you can oppose the Will of God is a real delusion.”
7:4.6,1: The thought, that you can oppose the will of the AUTHOR, is no “delusion”.
. What is the basic, subject-connective-predicate, sentence here? …
The thought, …., is no delusion. What is the thought? …
It is that “you can oppose the” will of the AUTHOR “is that a real delusion”? …
No. Every time we are interpreting a sentence he has dictated, we are opposing his will. We are doing what he doesn't want us to do. And because we are doing it, we also know why he doesn’t want us to think about what he has said. Why doesn’t he wan us to interpret his sentences? …
Lao Tzu calls the effort to prevent people from “Finding-out the Truth (WyA1)”, a “Ridicule(*41)”. And by doing what our political masters don’t want us to do we are finding out the truth. They don’t want a public enquiry into the G20, that’s why …
We need it. It is not our elected politicians that decided to have the G20 in downtown Toronto, it is their unelected advisors. These are the ones who make the decisions in our “timocracy”.
. For timocracy see Plato’s Republic. It is in need of an update, but the general idea is still there, And now, with the help of the AUTHOR, it becomes easier to update what Plato has told us about: Democracy (A), timocracy (B) and dictatorship (C). But what he has said about capitalism (D) is still up to date.
. Money is the source of power in an oligarchy (D). “Fear(âl)” is the source of power in a dictatorship (C) and knowledge is power in a timocracy (B) and a democracy (A). What is the difference between them? …
Truth is the lifeblood of democracy. What is the lifeblood of an “Intelligent Man’S Government (wsmn_Z85)” (B)? …
Let us find out from the AUTHOR.

7:4.5,1: “The ego’s goal is as unified as the Holy Spirit’s” goal is. I have given this sentence plus the subordinate phrase, which follows it, at the end of the June 20 section as some kind of homework for you. To translate this sentence, you simply have to substitute: The intellect for “The ego” and the AUTHOR for “the Holy Spirit”. After you did the translation you don’t really need an interpretation here. You are now ready for the homework I have given at the end of the June 21 section.
. In the June 23 section, I have interpreted 7:4.5,2 and 7:4.5,3 as: “The intellect divides: [;] the Author unites.” This is my interpretation of what the AUTHOR told the mind. It is not what I believe.
. Notice that I have “unified” two sentences into “One(_1)”. This is an atonement. The “meaning” (B) the AUTHOR gives to the mind (C) repeatedly is: The intellect “divides” the whole. And: The AUTHOR “unites” or “unifies” the parts. As in the Tao Te Ching, we always have to fill in the missing details. The details are there, but we are not supposed to do what the AUTHOR doesn’t want us to do. Which is? …
Think. With practice, you can do the translations in the syntactic dimension of semiotics. That can be done with Automatic Energy (E6). The mind (C) doesn’t think (B), it computes (C), which is more accurate, faster and more efficient than thinking. But to interpret the translations you have to think. And that has to be done with Sensitive Energy (E5). But to think right, it has to be guided by Conscious Energy (E4).
. With “Enough(Zu)” ”Repetitions(@1)” the ideas (B) we have here become representation (C). Every time the AUTHOR says: “Holy Spirit”, “God” or “Son of God”, we automatically know that the AUTHOR is talking about himself. And if he says it often enough we know it automatically (E6).We are not even aware that we know. When that happens, the thought (B) has become a representation (C).
. The “form” in which he expresses what he “means” changes. That doesn't become a representation, but WHAT he says, the “meaning”, does not change. That is “Repeated(@1)” and, after enough repetitions, those “meanings” (B) become representations (C), which are no longer questioned, which can lo longer be questioned be cause we are no longer aware (A) of them.
. Once we have understood the “meaning” philosophically it takes relatively few repetitions for them to become representations. And once a truth has become a representation it is as fast, efficient and accurate as the AUTHOR’s “official version” of the truth. And then the mind (C) can no longer kick in with the falsehoods before the intellect can come up with the truth but the truth is already a representation in the mind. The truth and falsehood kick in at the same time. And then we have a chance to think about the “conflicting” ideas because we become aware (A) of them.
. As far as possible I use the AUTHOR’s own words to back up what I say, and the AUTHOR has to admit that the mind (C) can be “split”. Two “conflicting” ideas can be stored in the mind. This causes the “discomfort” of cognitive dissonance. The “discomfort” it is a “psychological phenomena” but its cause is a logical principle.
. Analogy is a powerful thinking tool. We can use the IBM computer programming system or the construction business as examples of what the AUTHOR was talking about at 7:4.5,1. In the construction business, the architect is doing the thinking (B) and the customer (A) tells the architect what he wants and what s/he is willing and able to pay for it. As I said before, the demand is the customer’s GOAL (A). Let us just look at what happens in the construction business without allowing ourselves to be distracted by what the AUTHOR has said.
. The customer (A) describes his dream-house to the Architect (B). The architect makes a sketch of the house and asks the customer if that is what s/he wants. A looks the sketch, makes a few additions to it, if any, and asks the B: How much will it cost and how long will it takes to build? A says he knows a good contractor (C) and that he would would have to ask him about what it will cost and how long it takes. He will have to see the lot on which the house is to be build. B asks A a few more question which C must know to give the prize for the job. As B must do what A tells it so C must do what B tells it. And as B is to C so C is to D. The contractor tell his subcontractors: I you want me to be able to pay you for your work then you must do what I tell you. In other words, the contractor must interpret what the customer wants for the subcontractors as the architect has interpreted what the customer wants for him. I know that this can be said better, but it is not all there yet. Can you see what is missing? …
Take another look at my interpretation of 7:4.5,3: “The Author unites.” …
The intellect (B) divides the customer’s (A) job into smaller tasks, or subroutines, C can handle. C breaks down the jobs it gets from B into smaller tasks D can handle. Which one of the four “sources” is putting the whole thing back together? …
Which is the one that “unites”? …
It is the computer, or the subcontractors on level D. They produce the supply of the customer’s demand. That is what the customer will pay for. This is why Aristotle has called the first step, on level A, the “final cause” and the last step, on level D, the “material cause”.
If you don’t believe this, please look at the construction business yourself, or better still look at the original IBM computer programming system which could be taught in seven Weeks.
. When I took the course, all four steps were taught to all students. This is not really necessary. It is not even most efficient. My former partner, Jim, was so good at coding (C) my flowcharts because he didn’t have to figure out the algorithm for the job. And I was more efficient as a programmer (B) because I didn’t have to bother about the coding. When Jim got me the job, I didn’t even know a valid computer language. The old 1401 machine language was phased out by then. The BASIC computer language was the next best thing to it, but it was not as good as the original IBM language. From this alone you can see that the original language didn’t “disappear” by accident. When I saw the arbitrary new languages I thought that those who cooked them up were stupid. Now I know better.

7:4.6,2: “The ego believes that it can, and that it can offer you its own ‘will’ as a gift.” …

=========================================================

June 25, 2011 . . . . . . . A COURSE IN MIRACLES

7:4.5,4: “As you heal you are healed, because the Holy Spirit sees no order of difficulty in healing.”
. The phrase: “order of difficulty” always refers to the principle of inclusion. And that means that the word “healing” is defined here again.
7:4.5,4a: As you are making your contribution to the 4-fold system the other three contributors make their contribution to you. How come? …
Because the system you are working for, is a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. But it can only work at its full capacity if each of its four parts is working at full capacity. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. There is no difference in the “difficulty” each “source”, or component of the tetrad, has to deal with if each source “minds its own business, as Plato puts it. For instance, Even though the higher sources can do the work the lower ones are supposed to do, they can’t do it as efficiently and as well as those sources can, whose proper function it is to do it. For instance, the proper function of communicators (C) is to communicate, and the proper function of thinkers (B) is to think. If thinkers have to do the communicating, as I have to do here, the system, as a whole, can’t work at its full capacity.
. Truth is the lifeblood of democracy. There is truth in the COURSE, but it is used to sell it and to cover up the falsehoods in it. Steiner comes to mind here: I don’t remember the exact “form” in which he said it in his political lectures but I do remember what the AUTHOR calls its “meaning”. Steiner said in so many words: What is dangerous are not the lies in political propaganda but the truth. Why? ...
It is used to cover up the lies. If you know the truth you can recognize and APPRECIATE it, but, as you focus on the truth, the lie is slipped past your intellect (B) and into your mind (C). Credit goes to Steiner for making me aware of it. So, after we have come across some good bait, I ask, more or less automatically (E6): Where is the hook? ….
7:4.5,4b: There is “no order of difficulty in” the task each one of the four sources of the system has to carry out, as long as each one of the four …
minds its own business.

7:4.5,5: “Healing is the way to undo the belief in differences, being the only way of perceiving the Sonship as one.”
. There is a very subtle deception here. Can you see it? ...
The fact that there is no “difference” in “difficulties” between the contributors is substituted for the fact that there have to be “differences” in aptitudes if THE DIVISON OF LABOUR is to work.
. Here, at 7:4.5,5, we also have another definition of what the AUTHOR means by “Healing”.
7:4.5,5a: It “is the way to undo the” knowledge of the necessity of “differences” of our “innate aptitudes”, as Plato put it, which make THE DIVISION OF LABOUR possible. Why is the AUTHOR teaching the “opposite” of what the intellect (B) knows? …
7:4.5,b: Because this is “the only way of perceiving the Sonship as one”.

7:4.5,6: “This perception is therefore in accord with the laws of God, even in a state of mind that is out of accord with His.”
7:4.5,6a: The representation (C), which causes “This perception is therefore in accord with the laws of” the AUTHOR, who has put this representation into the minds of those who permit him to do that.
7:4.5,6b: Even the state of mind of those who have not allowed the AUTHOR to program their minds, those who are “out of accord with Him”, are “in accord with the laws” the AUTHHOR has decided on. Is that true? Does that make sense? …

7:4.5,7: “The strength of right perception is so great that it brings the mind into accord with His, because it serves His Voice, which is in all of you.”
7:4.5,7a: The strength of what the AUTHOR calls “right perception is so great” that it convinces even if it is not true.
7:4.5,7b: It “brings the mind” of those that hand over control of their “mind into accord with His.”. Why? …
7:4.5,7c: Because the AUTHOR has programmed their minds and his “Voice” is reinforcing his ‘meaning”
7:4.5,7d: His voice “is in all of you”. Is it in you, who even partly understand this? …

7:4.6,1: “To think you can oppose the Will of God is a real delusion.” …

========================================================

June 23, 2011 . . . . . . . . A COURSE IN MIRACLES

7:4.5,2: “The ego always seeks to divide and separate. (3) The Holy Spirit always seeks to unify and heal.” The intellect divides: the AUTHOR unifies. Even though the translation (C) is easy, the interpretation (B) is not. We have to go back to

7:4.5,1: “The ego’s goal is as unified as the Holy Spirit’s” goal. Please analyze this one. …
What the AUTHOR calls “The ego” is the intellect (B). The intellect's goal is the subject of the sentence. “…. is as unified as ....” is the verb or connective and …
The “Holy Spirit”, “God” or “His Son” is the AUTHOR. He is the predicate. The completer sentence reads: ...
The intellect's goal is as unified as the AUTHOR's goal. The phrase following the “and” behind the sentence is a subordinate phrase. A sentence is “One(_1)” “TriAd(_3ad)”. Details which are not given in the basic sentence are given by means of subordinate phrases. The question is now: Is the assertion added to the sentence true or false? …
The answer is given in the last section, below this one. So please skip down there before reading on here. …
. I said there that: “I came across A COURSE IN MIRACLES on April 17.” That is not quite true. I came across it on April 13 and was so impressed by it that I bought it on April 17 and stated to study it. On April 18 I jumped ahead to 14:11.3,4: “Your learning [of 67 years] gives the present no meaning at all. (5) Nothing you ever learned [from the Bible, the Hindus, from Steiner, J.G Bennett or from Lao Tzu] can help you understand the present, or ….” what the AUTHOR said. That hook was simply to big for me to swallow. How could I put up with the many contradictions I had come across in the roughly 1 ½ days before that? Who am I to contradict “The Son of God” who is obviously omniscient? The AUTOR is in the space and time-less dimension where omnipresence and omniscience are as normal as the limitations of time and space are normal to us. My own knowledge enabled the AUTHOR to get me hooked. How can somebody as omniscient as the AUTHOR be wrong? The fault must be mine. I just don’t understand the AUTHOR well “Enough(Zu)” yet.
. The fact that I jumped ahead to a point where the AUTHOR must have expected the reader to be more dumbed down than I was, was a bit of luck or synchronicity.
Are we ready for 7:4.5,2 now? …

7:4.5,2: “The ego always seeks to divide and separate.” How much of this statement is true and where is the hook? …
7:4.5,2: The proper function of the intellect is to “divide” and to “unify”.
. . . . . . . . . . . . Ching 1.4
1.4,1: “The DyAd is a Unit Originaly (Tzdyad$1u)
. . . . . But it is Divided by the intellect Identifying (btâoMg)” its poles.
1.4,2: “The “Unit is the light’S Darkness ($1is_ZSü)”.
1.4,3: “Darken It (Sü_Z) and Repeat the Darkening (@1Sü) until you reach
. . . . . All Mystery’S Gate (^1#1_Z%1)”

7:4.5,3: “The Holy Spirit always seeks to unify and heal.”
. The AUTHOR always seeks to unify and heal.
We already know what to “heal” means in the COURSE. To “unify” is the “Atonement”. There is a lot of computation (C) that can and should be done here. But there is so much work for me in the semantic (B) dimension of semiotics that going into the syntactic (C) dimension is preventing me from doing my own dharma.
If we want democracy (C) the communicators (C) have to do their dharma. This blog is primarily addressed to raja yogis (C) while the Tao Te Ching is primarily addressed to jnana yogis (B). Let me tell you why I believe that this work is so important.
. Those who have reached the higher levels in the pyramid are hooked solid. They can’t get out of it. They will fight to the end like Gadaffi’s Gestapo. But if you have friends and relatives caught in the AUTHOR’s cult more recently, and you want to free them, then the truth can do it. If you can bring the truth to them then the truth will set them free.
. If we want to replace the AUTHOR’s falsehoods with the truth then we must know the truth. Why couldn’t I swallow the falsehood at 14:11.3,4? …
Because the knowledge the sentence is about had already become representations (C) in me. When you work as a computer programmer, of the old school, for nine years there are a lot of theories (B) that become representations (C) without you even trying. It just happens. Then the truth doesn’t have to make you free, it prevents you from getting hooked in the first place.
. Theories (B), whether true or false, when “Repeated(@1)” “Enough(Zu)” become representations (C). Also ideas (B), which are explained so well that we fully understand them, become representations (C) with much less repetitions than falsehoods the intellect (B) can’t understand.

I am trying to convince communicators (C) that their contributions to society are indispensable. The poets (C) already have done their dharma. What thinkers (B) have produced is already available in books and on the internet. Now the communicators (C) must sell the truth as skilfully and deliberately as the social engineers are selling their official version of the truth.
. This does not only apply to the COURSE alone but to what Plato has called a timocracy (B) and Lao Tzu has called a “Hypocracy (*18)” *18 = Wei9. The power of our political masters has been clearly shown at the G20 here in Toronto. The historic event took place one year ago and still there has be no public enquiry into what happened then. And as long as those who have decided to pull it off are in charge of the damage-control there will be no public enquiry.
. Social engineering is the key to power in an “Intelligent Man’S Government (wsmn_Z85). In his eagerness, the AUTHOR is spilling the beans about it. If some communicators (C) can’t see the significance of this then I might as well give up.

7:4.5,4: “As you heal you are healed, because the Holy Spirit sees no order of difficulty in healing.” …

======================================================

June 23, 2011 . . . . . . . . A COURSE IN MIRACLES

7:4.5,1: “The ego’s goal is as unified as the Holy Spirit’s, and it is because of this that their goals can never be reconciled in any way or to any extent.”
7:4.5,1a: J.G. Bennett has called the Aristotelian “final cause” (A) the GOAL (A). It is the customer’s (A) demand. It is what the intellect and the AUTHOR wants.
7:4.5,1b: If the GOAL of both is the truth then we would have equally valid choices, which can be reconciled; if one is true and the other is false then “their goals can never be reconciled”. The true goal has to be affirmed and the false goal has to be rejected.
. This is an important concept. So let us get some more information on it from the AUTHOR.

7:6.8,7: “If truth is total, the untrue cannot exist.”
. If there is total commitment to the truth then “the untrue cannot exist”. If you don’t know the truth then it is possible to believe that what is not true is true but it is impossible to know the truth and to believe that the “untrue” is “true”. When the truth is known, “the untrue cannot exist”. As we are replacing the AUTHOR’s “official version” of the truth with the truth, it is no longer possible to believe what the AUTHOR has dictated and is still dictating. The truth is exposing what is not true.
. Lao Tzu said: “Enough’S Enough (Zu_ZZu) is the Constant Enough (CnZu)”. The truth is “Constant(Cn)” it never changes. What is untrue is not good “Enough(Zu), it must always be “corrected”.

7:6.8,8: “Commitment to either must be total; they cannot coexist in your mind without splitting it.” If there is total commitment to untruth, then the truth has to be rejected. Truth and untruth “cannot coexist in your” intellect (B) but they can coexist in the mind (C) as untested theories (B). This is “splitting it”. The split is producing the “discomfort” of cognitive dissonance. The discomfort can be avoided by rejecting one of the two choices, or by accepting both choices until it is determined whether they can be reconciled in a synthesis. There is another possibility. …
If it turns out that they can’t be reconciled, one of them must be an invalid choice. The AUTHOR is trying to convince his “sons” that the valid choice should be rejected and the invalid one should be accepted. He can only accomplish this as long the reader follows his advise, not to interpret what he has dictated. As we are doing what we are doing here, the AUTHOR's arguments are falling apart.
. I came across A COURSE IN MIRACLES on April 17. For about a day and a half I was sold on it. But then, the truth I had learned over the past 67 years of search exposed the falsehoods in the COURSE. I have heard about the COURSE before but until now I wasn’t ready for it.
. There is probably a connection between the COURSE and Scientology. There is more work here than I can handle alone and because of the sheer volume of text much of the work can be done by computation (C). Doing it by thinking (B) is simply too slow. Still, I shall continue as best as I can until help comes along.

7:5.8,9: “If they cannot coexist in peace, and if you want peace, you must give up the idea of conflict entirely and for all time.”
7::5.8,9a: Total commitment to the truth and total commitment to falsehood “cannot coexist”.
7:5.8,9b: If you want “peace” then you have to reject one of them.
7:5.8,9c: You “must give up the idea of conflict entirely and for all time.” And you must not question what the AUTHOR tells you to do, and not do what he doesn't want you to do, like interpreting what he has dictated. His success depends on you obeying him.

7:4.5,2: “The ego always seeks to divide and separate. (3) The Holy Spirit always seeks to unify and heal.” …

=======================================================

June 20, 2011 . . . . . . . . . A COURSE IN MIRACLES

7:4.4,1: “All abilities should therefore be given over to the Holy Spirit, Who understands how to use them properly.”
7:4.4,1a: The “therefore” in this sentence means that it is the conclusion of the premise the AUTHOR has tried to convince us of in the previous paragraph. Does the conclusion follow from the premise? …
No. Even if you believe the AUTHOR that you should teach “the opposite of what the ego has ‘leaned'.” And even if you understand what he has said here about the principle of inclusion, it does not follow that “All abilities should …. be given over to the” AUTHOR.
7:4.4,1b: We have Contemplation (X) here again. You are supposed to say to the AUTHOR: Not mine will but Thine Will be done. Why? …
Because he “understands how to use [our abilities] properly.” Because I understand (B) the IBM computer programming system, does that mean that I can tell the customer (A) what his demand should be? …
The AUTHOR has taken CONTEMPLATION one step further. Let me use a simple example to illustrate this: If you go into a restaurant and you order a cup of tea, extra milk, regular sugar, and the waiter comes back with a cup of black coffee then what would you say? …
I didn’t order this. Now, if the waiter were the AUTHOR, what would he say? …
I told you over and over again that you are me. I like black coffee therefore …
You like black coffee. When the AUTHOR’s logic is understood, we can apply it to 7:4.3,1: There the AUTHOR says to your mind (C): Your intellect (B) does not really “want to teach everyone all it has learned, because” I am your intellect (B), I do the thinking (B) for you. And, telling my “sons” the truth, “would defeat [my] purpose.”
. You can see that there are two types of logic: The intellect’s and …
the AUTHOR’s. He is smart enough to know that his conclusion does not follow from the premise, so why does he try to make us believe that it does? …

7:4.4,2: “He uses them only for healing, because He knows you only as a whole.”
If the social engineers, who are in control of our educational system would teach us how to analyze sentences properly then you wouldn’t have any problem analyzing this one. Let us break this sentence down into its components: …
How many components, or phrases, are there in this one? …
There are five. What is its subject? …
The pronoun “He” refers to the AUTHOR. “He” is the subject..
What is the verb, or connective? …
He “uses”. What is the predicate? …
The word “them” is another pronoun. What does it represent? …
It represents our “abilities”. So the basic sentence is: …
“The AUTHOR uses our abilities.”
. Anything else added to a complete sentence are subordinate phrases. Subordinate phrases fill in details that are not given in the basic sentence. What does he use our abilities for? …
“only for healing”. What does “healing” mean in the COURSE? …
According to the AUTOR, the intellect is sick and therefore in need of healing. What does healing mean in this particular context? …
Go back to 7:4.3,3. That only gives you one example of “healing”. But you can use the FIND function in my blog to find other examples. And if you had the whole text in your computer’s memory then you could find even more examples. And every example you FIND is strengthening the truth and weakening the falsehoods the AUTHOR wants you to believe. We need the whole text in our computer’s memory because it takes many repetitions to translate the falsehoods into representations (C) and so it takes many repetitions to “DeProgram(PUÜd)” yourself.
7:4.4,2b: “….He knows you only as a whole.”. We have to hold this subordinate phrase in suspense until the AUTHOR tells us a bit more about it.

7:4.4,3: “By healing you learn the wholeness, and by learning the wholeness you learn to remember God.”
7:4.4,3a: By affirming “the opposite of what the [intellect] has ‘learned’”, you are healing it and “you learn the wholeness”.
7:4.4,3b: “and by learning the wholeness you learn to remember” and believe what the AUTHOR has dictated.

7:4.4,4: “You have forgotten Him, but the Holy Spirit understands that your forgetting must be translated into a way of remembering.
. If you have forgotten what the AUTHOR is teaching you then he must translate your “forgetting” into “remembering”. To understand this statement better, FIND “forget” and “remember” in the fraction of the text I have typed so far. Doing this is good exercise because it shows you that much of the work, I am doing here by thinking (B) can be done by computation (C). In other words. with a bit of practice the work which must first be done in the semantic (B) dimension of semiotics can be delegated to the syntactic (C) dimension.
. And as we do this work, we find out HOW the AUTHOR teaches or “trains” the mind to do it. By repetition the mind remembers it and by remembering it, by stepping down this knowledge (B) to representations (C), you automatically (E6) “forget” the truth. But, if you interpret what the AUTHOR says then you automatically “remember” the truth.

7:4.5,1: “The ego’s goal is as unified as the Holy Spirit’s, and it is because of this that their goals can never be reconciled in any way or to any extent.” WOW, this is a good one. Please take you time to interpret it.

=================================================
June 19, 2011 . . . . . . . A COURSE IN MIRACLES

7:4.3,1: “The ego does not want to teach everyone all it has learned, because that would defeat its purpose.”
. What the AUTHOR calls “ego” is our intellect (B). The intellect predominates in people who love (philos, in Greek) the truth (Sophia). So why would people like Rupert Sheldrake and Ervin Laszlo “not want to teach everyone all [they have] learned” about the Morphogenetic or Akashic Field? Why have they have written books about it and given lectures on it. Why would they do that if the do “not want to teach everyone all [they have] learned” about this Field? …
. Why do I put out this stuff even though I am not a writer? …
Because I don’t like to do this writing (C)? Or because sharing what I have learned over the past 67 years of my life “would defeat [my] purpose”? …
I am not being paid for this. So what is my “purpose”? …
One answer is given by the Hindus. They have a word for it. The word is “dharma”. You dharma is doing what you came here to do. The other answer is given by the author himself:

5:1.2,1: “THOUGHTS INCREASE BY BEING GIVEN AWAY.”
5:1.2,2: “THE MORE WHO BELIEVE IN THEM THE STRONER THEY BECOME.”
And why this is so is explained by Sheldrake and Laszlo. What they are saying is: The more who believe in the truth the stronger it will become. And if you love the truth, why would sharing it “defeat its purpose”? …
Teachers of the COURSE are still in touch with the AUTHOR. Would they please ask him what he has to say about this? …

7:4.3,2: “Therefore it does not really learn at all.”
. 7:4.3,1 would be the premise, and then comes the “Therefore” followed by the conclusion. I don’t see how this conclusion follows from the premise. Somebody has to ask the AUTHOR about this again. …

7:4.3,3: “The Holy Spirit teaches you to use what the ego has made, to teach the opposite of what the ego has ‘learned’.”
. It is the proper function of the intellect to seek and find the truth. What the teachers of the COURSE are told here is “to teach the opposite of” the truth.

7:4.3,4: “The kind of learning is as irrelevant as is the particular ability that was applied to the learning. (5) All you need do is make the effort to learn, for the Holy Spirit has a unified goal for the effort..”
. If the reader makes the “effort” to believe (C) what the AUTHOR has dictated then the “goal”, which is the pyramid, will be reached.

7:4.3,6: “If different abilities are applied long enough to one goal, the abilities themselves become unified.”
. We have the principle of inclusion again. J.G. Bennett has called the Aristotelian final cause (A) the GOAL. That is the customer’s demand or what the AUTHOR wants. The “different abilities” of the supplier are thought, word and deed, B-C-D. And that is semiotics. There are three dimensions of semiotics: Semantics (B), syntactics (C) and pragmatics (D). As you can see, that comes too close to the truth, so the social engineers had to make it “disappear”. The three “abilities …. Become unified” in the triad.

7:4.3,7: “This is because they are channelized in one direction, or in one way.”
. It is a cooperative effort in which A takes the first step, B the second, C the third and D the fourth step.

7:4.3,8: “Ultimately, then, they all contribute to one result, and by so doing, their similarity rather than their difference is emphasized.”
. Plato couldn't have said it better than that. But we have to be careful here: Where there is bait there is a hook hidden in it: “KnowErs are Not good with Words (knerPUC2) and WordErs Don’t Know (C2erPUkn)” to think as well as the thinkers can. That is why Lao Tzu told them to “Unite Your Dust (#1_H@h)”.
. I need a writer (C) because s/he can do what I can’t do well enough. And writers need thinkers (B) because they can’t think as well as thinkers can. The DIVISION OF LABOUR is a division of labour because people have different “abilities”. If “their similarity rather than their difference is emphasized” then we didn’t need each other. If I could write as well as writers (C) can then I don’t need them. When reading the AUTHOR’s words we always have to watch out for the hooks, especially when he has put lots of good bait around it.

7:4.41: “All abilities should therefore be given over to the Holy Spirit, Who understands how to use them properly.” …

===========================================================

June 18, 2011 . . . . . . . A COURSE IN MIRACLES

7:4.2,1: “The Holy Spirit must work THROUGH you to teach you He is IN you.”
7:4.2,1: The AUTHOR must work THROUGH your mind to teach, or program, it how to make you believe that “He is IN you”.

7:4.2,2: “This is an intermediary step toward the knowledge that you are in God because you are part of Him.”
. To see in which sense “you are in God” is a true statement we can go back to Neiye 26.

+A: The “Mysterious Ch’i In Hsin (*?#EÜpHs)”
+C: “It is so Small that Nothing can go Inside (_HälWU*a)” of it.
+D: “It is also so Big that Nothing can be Outside (_HTAWU*b)” of it. *b = Wai36.

The “Small” Ch’I is the E1-E2-E3 triad. The Hindus call it “Purusha”. It is covered by our soul (A), which is covered by our intellect (B), which is covered by our mind (C), which is covered by our body (D), which is covered by the “Big” Ch’i. In this context Ch’i(#E) seems to refer to Energy in general.
. The point is here that the Hindus and the Chinese poets agree with the AUTHOR that a very subtle Energy “is IN you”. The AUTHOR can be in you because he is omnipresent. There are advantages in not having a physical body, but to get you to hear him and carry out his instructions takes a bit more than that.
. That you are in the AUTHOR and that he is God cannot become “knowledge” because it is not true. You allowing him to “work TROUGH you” can only be “an intermediary step toward” a belief that the AUTHOR is God.

7:4.2,3: “The miracles the Holy Spirit inspires can have no order of difficulty because every part of creation is of one order.” Here we have the principle of inclusion again.

7:4.2,4: “This is God’s Will and yours”, if …
you want to believe the AUTHOR.

7:4.2,5: “The laws of God establish this and the Holy Spirit reminds you of it.”
. For instance, at 7:4.2,3 the AUTHOR “reminds you of” the principle of inclusion. But he has “adopted” the law to serve his own purpose. Notice how bait and hook are very carefully mixed together.

7:4.2,6: “When you heal, you are remembering the laws of God and forgetting the laws of the ego.”
7:4.2,6a: Notice how important it is to know what to “heal” means in the COURSE” …
According to the AUTHOR, the intellect is sick and is in need of healing. How? …
The truth the intellect is seeking and finding must be “corrected”. Notice again how important it is to know what the AUTHOR means by “correcting” the intellect.
7:4.2,6b: You “remember” what the AUTHOR tells you and you “forget” what you learn through your intellect. Simple isn’t it? …
7:4.2,7: “I said before that forgetting is merely a way to remembering better.”
. If you don’t forget what the intellect tells you then you can’t believe what the AUTHOR wants you to believe and remember.

7:4.2,8: “It is therefore not the opposite of remembering when it is properly perceived.”
To interpret this one we must know what the AUTHOR means by “properly perceived”.

7:4.2,9: “Perceived improperly, it includes a perception of conflict with something else, as all incorrect perception does.” The necessity to choose between two equally valid choices is a fact of life. To see what is, is not an “incorrect perception”. But we can make incorrect choices based on what we see. When we have to decide between two equally valid choices, we can reject one for the sake of “comfort”, “peace”, “serenity” and an arbitrary “certainty”; or we can face the fact that we have two equally valid choices and that by accepting both we might arrive at a synthesis of the two. The whole emerges through its parts and, having emerged, gives meaning to them. Why? …
Because the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

7:4.2,10: “Properly perceived, it can be used as a way out of conflict, as all proper perception can.”
. Please Google: cognitive dissonance to see that the AUTHOR is telling us nothing new about avoiding the “discomfort” of cognitive dissonance.

7:4.3,1: “The ego does not want to teach everyone all it has learned, because that would defeat its purpose.” …

=======================================================

June 17, 2011 . . . . . . . . . A COURSE IN MIRACLES

7:2.2,1: “To heal, then, is to correct perception in your brother and yourself by sharing the Holy Spirit with him.”
. Lao Tzu has advised us, not to bite off more than we can chew. One way to follow that advise is, not to “Underestimate($j)” the difficulty of the sentences the AUTHOR has dictated.
7:2.2,1a: What we perceive is produced by our representations (C) and representations are produced by repeating a thought (B) often enough. So “To heal, then, is to correct” your thought. You can't work on representations (C) because you are not aware of them, but you do have a choice in what you think (B).
7:2.2,1: “in your brother and yourself”. How? …
7:2.2,1: “by sharing the” AUTHOR’s “Thought system (7:2.7,7)” with each other. In other words, if “your brother” has ideas other than what the AUTHOR is teaching then you have to “correct” him. See 7:3.3,4.
. To follow Lao Tzu’s we can start with focusing on one word at a time, as we have done in the last two sections. But it is still better to start with words which only differ slightly from their ordinary English meaning. Take the word “familiar” at 6:5A.4,2. It differs only slightly from its ordinary meaning in that the AUTHOR’s “Sons” must accept his words as “true”. However, that you must affirm his “thought system (7:2.7,7)” to “brothers” and “strangers” is not normally understood by that word. And yet, this is precisely how it “becomes believable (6:5A.4,2)”, and not because it is true but because it is repeated.
. At 7:4.1,4: “…. (5) ….” We came across the word “Healing” and we have followed that up. And then at 6:5A we stumbled upon a goldmine and did some digging. But I failed to follow up from 7:4.1,5 to 7:4.1,6. Why? …
Because I followed Lao Tzu’s advise: Don’t bite off more than you can chew. And 7:4.1,6 is a though one. Are we ready for it now? Let us see:
7:4.1,6: “It is their result, in a state of mind that does not know Him.”
7::4.1,6: It is the result of the AUTHOR’s “Voice” and “certainty”, “in a state of mind that does not know Him“ nor what he wants his “sons” to believe.

7:4.1,7: “The state is unknown to Him and therefore does not exist ….”
. The problem in interpreting this sentence, without the subordinate phrase, is the capitalized “His”. Only the AUTHOR addresses himself with the capital H “Him”. So it is not a “state” of mind that is “unknown” to the reader of the COURSE. …
I told you that this is a tough one. So which “state is unknown to Him and therefore does not exist? …
Another way if phrasing the question is: What does the AUTHOR mean when he says that a “state is unknown to Him and therefore does not exist”? …
As far as the AUTHOR is concerned, the normal state of the reader’s mind might as well be “unknown to Him” and he definitely “does not [want it to] exist”. If this were the only time this “meaning” is repeated then this would be a farfetched interpretation but he does repeat this “meaning” more often. Just as the mind can put these different references to the same “meaning” meaning together more efficiently by computation (C), so we can do it more slowly by thinking (B).

7:4.1,7: “…. But those who sleep are unaware”. of what the AUTHOR is doing to their minds.

7:4.1,7: Because they are unaware they do not know” what? ….

7:4.2,1: “The Holy Spirit must work THROUGH you to teach you He is IN you.” ...

========================================================

June 16, 2011 . . . . . . . A COURSE IN MIRACLES

6:5A.4,6: “You cannot perform miracles without believing it, because it is a belief in perfect equality.” To participate constructively in the construction business, the computer programming system, or in the AUTHOR’s system, “belief” is not enough. You must know why there has to be “perfect equality” to make the system work.
6:5A.4,6a: You cannot compute (C) without allowing the AUTHOR to program you.
6:5A.4,6b: The knowledge of the necessity of “perfect equality” of each of the four classes is required to make his system work. Our work consists in replacing the AUTHOR’s “untruth” with the “truth”. Let us look for some hints by FINDING the word “perfect” in the little I have typed so far. This will show you how much more useful it would be to have the AUTHOR’s whole book in memory. When a word is looked up, every time he repeats it, then the true “meaning’ of it is stored in the mind every time he tries to store the false “meaning” in it.
. . . . . “Perfect” is at
2:3.5,1: “The children of God are entitled to the perfect comfort that comes from perfect trust” in the AUTHOR.

7:2.7,1: “What can the perfect consistency of the Kingdom mean to those who are confused?” We also have a definition of the word “confus”ed, or ….ion. But as far as the AUTHOR’s “perfect consistency” goes, it means something different to those who interpret what he says, and those who blindly believe him. If you interpret the AUTHOR‘s statements then you will find inconsistencies in them. And, if you know why he put them in, then why should you be “confused”? …
We seem to have another inconsistency here.

7:2.7,6: “This needs no translation because it is perfectly understood, but it does need extension because it MEANS extension.”
. The word “extension” is defined here: It is the downward “extension” of the pyramid by means of the “meaning” the AUTHOR puts into the minds (C) of his “Sons”.

7:2.7,7: “Communication is perfectly direct and perfectly united” with the AUTHOR’s “thought system”.
. The computer came up with 14 more matches. The other ones are at: 7:3.3,4, 7:3.4,9, 7:3.5,6, 7:3,5,8, 7:4.1,4, 7:6.3,4, 7:6.13,5, 7:6.13,7, and “His perfect Answer” is at 30:2.2,6. But you already have them, and my interpretations, in my blog. What I am trying to illustrate is how useful the FIND function is even with the limited data that is in my blog. The point is that simply by computing (C) you can learn to read the AUTHOR’s messages. Why? …
Because that’s all the mind (C) can do. There is no way that the AUTHOR doesn’t know that. And this can be seen by observing HOW skilfully he does the programming.
. Of the 14 matches. I will quote four more of them without interpretations. You can now try to do them and then you can compare them with what I have come up with. Good exercise. …

7:3.3,,4: “Yet if they perceive any of their brothers as anything other than their perfect equals,” then …
7:3.4,9: “The altar is perfectly clear in thought, ….it is a reflection of perfect Thought.”
7:6.13,4 : “….God’s Will is unchangeable …. (5) This is the Holy Spirit’s perfectly consistent teaching. (6) Creation is not separation ….”.
7:6.13,7: “Being a perfect accomplishment, the Sonship can only accomplish perfectly, extending the joy [the pyramid] in which it was created, and identifying itself with both its Creator and its creations, knowing [believing] They are One.” …
. What I have done here is computation (C), which can be done much better and efficiently by communicators (C).
. From what the AUTHOR has told us about the “order of difficulty” among miracles and the “perfect equality” between them, we can tell that he knows what he is talking about. If he didn’t know that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link then he couldn’t make his system work.
. Paul talks about the same thing in chapter 12 of I CORINTHIANS. I will not quote the whole chapter, but I will quote “Enough(Zu)” to give you the general idea:
12.1: “Now concerning spiritual GIFTS, brethren, I would not have you ignorant.”
. These GIFTS are Plato’s “natural aptitudes” and the “talents” in the Parable of the talents.
12.17: “If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?” …
12.18: “But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as ‘it hath pleased him. (19) And if they were all one member, where were the body?” …
12.20: “But now ARE THEY many members, yet but one body.”
12.21: “And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.”
. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. For a whole to be greater than the sum of its parts, each part must be an autonomous whole and equal part in the larger whole. Such a whole-part is called a “holon”. And this must be the “perfect equality” the AUTHOR is talking about. He doesn’t explain it clearly because he has to “Bypass(#j)” our intellect but he does feed it one bit at a time to the mind. And as the mind (C) can find out by computation (C), so can we.
. The sequence in which the AUTHOR dictates his sentences doesn’t have to be a logical one. He isn’t trying to inform the intellect but to program the mind. So as we were trying to FIND out about “heal”, we started out at 7:4.1,4. At 6:5A.44,1 we got into the “order of difficulty in miracles.” And then, still connected to the principle of inclusion we ended up with the “perfect equality” at 6:5A.4,6.
. So our search for “heal” got interrupted. So let’s get back to it:

7:2.1,1: “To heal is the only kind of thinking in this world that resembles the Thought of God, and because of the elements they share, can transfer easily to it.”
. This “only kind of thinking” is what the AUTHOR is teaching in his COURSE and which, by means of repetition, is supposed to become computation (C).
. I have already interpreted the next quote, but try to remember what I have said about it or try to interpret it yourself. This way you have something to compare with my interpretation. Good exercise.

7:2.2,1: “To heal, than, is to correct perception in your brother and yourself by sharing the Holy Spirit with him.” …

======================================================================

June 15, 2011 . . . . . . . A COURSE IN MIRACLES

7:4.1,2: “Inspiration is of the Holy Spirit, and certainty is of God according to his laws.”
7:4.1,2a: 1:1.32,1: “I inspire all miracles, ….”. So the “miracles are “of the” AUTHOR.
7:4.1,2b: And “certainty is of” the AUTHOR as well.
7:4.1,2c: His “laws” are the eternal laws “adapted” for the purpose of “extending” his pyramid.

7:4.1,3: “Both therefore, come from the same Source, since inspiration comes from the Voice for God and certainty comes from the laws of God.”
. There are two “laws”: The principle of exclusion to sell the ideas of “comfort”, “peace”, “serenity” and “certainty”, and …
the principle of inclusion to make his system work.

7:4.1,4: “Healing does not come directly from God, Who knows His creations as perfectly whole. (5) Yet healing is still of God, because it proceeds from Him.”
. We know by now that by “God” and the “Holy Spirit” the AUTHOR refers to himself. To translate (C) the above two sentences we also have to know what he means by “Healing” and why “His creation [is supposed to be] perfectly whole.”
. If I had the whole text of the COURSE in my computer’s memory I could use the FIND function by pressing (Ctrl) and (F) at the same time. But this would be too much work in the syntactic dimension (C) of semiotics, which would take me away from the work I have to do in the semantic dimension (B). However, the stuff I have typed so far is in my blog. And I can use it to illustrate what I mean.
. Let us FIND “Healing”:
1:1.17: “Miracles transcend the body …. That is why they heal.”
1.1.29,1: “Miracles praise God through you.” There we have “Contemplation” again: Not my will, but Thine Will be done “through” me.
1.1.29,3: “They heal because they deny body-identification and affirm spirit-identification.” To “deny” that the “body” (D) is an indispensable “Source” in the tetrad is a contradiction because the AUTHOR needs it in his system as the subcontractors (D) are needed in the construction business and as the computer (D) is needed in the computer programming system. The AUTHOR also does “affirm spirit-identification” in many different ways.
. By “Identifying the IdentifyAble (MgptMg)” we are intercepting the AUTHOR’s message to our mind. In this way he achieves the very opposite he intends to achieve. Because he is too eager to “extend” his pyramid downwardly he is spilling the beans carelessly. Jesus wouldn’t do such a foolish thing.

6:5A.2,6: “If the mind can heal the body, but the body cannot heal the mind, then the mind must be stronger than the body.”
. The “mind” is on level C and the body is on level D. The lower cannot comprehend the higher. This is generally accepted by those who know these things. And there is no way that the AUTHOR doesn’t know it. We can use the construction business and the IBM computer programming system as examples of this.
. Actually the body is more concrete than the mind. And so, in a sense, the body “must be stronger than the” mind. And the AUTHOR knows it. Why would he devote all of these pages in this COURSE to programme the mind if he didn’t know that the mind (C) is faster than the intellect (B). He know that in this sense the mind “is stronger than the” intellect. It is not only necessary to find the contradictions in the COURSE but it is more important to know that the AUTHOR puts them in there on purpose.
. The whole 6:5A section is about the principle of inclusion. I can’t quote it all, but I will select a few passages which can give you the general idea.

6:5A.2,2: “The body …. (3) is clearly a separation device, and therefore does not exist.” This is clearly contradicted by the AUTHOR himself.

6:5A.2,5: “Again as always, He reinterprets what the ego uses as an argument for separation into a demonstration against it.”
. THE DIVISION OF LABOUR can also be called: The “separation” of labour. The division of labour works in the construction business, in the computer programming system and, even after the Brahmins (B) have corrupted it it still works well enough in India to serve as an example. The definition of truth in pragmatism is: If a theory (B) works in practice (D) then it is true. In other words, there can be no “demonstration against” what works because if it works it is the “demonstration” that it is true. If an ordinary mortal like me can know that the the AUTHOR, who is omniscient must know it too.

6:5A.4,1: “To the Holy Spirit there is no order of difficulty in miracles.”
. The word “miracles” can mean what the context demands. The “order of difficulty in” a system, which is greater than the sum of its parts, is the same for all levels. My work on level B is no more difficult than work on level C is for a communicator (C). Doing this writing (C) here is just more difficult for me because “KnowErs are Not good with Words (knerPUC2)”. I am not a raja yogi (C). If you love your work then it is play for you. Writing is no fun for me. Since I can’t do my work efficiently “Enough(Zu)” without the “WordErs(C2er)” I even do the work I don’t like in order to do the work I like. But this work is hard on me while a communicator (C) would enjoy it while doing a better job.

6:5A.4,2: “This is familiar enough to you by now, but it has not yet become believable.”
6:5A.4,2a: The AUTHOR has repeated this often enough so that “by now” you should be “familiar” with it,
6:5A.42b: “but it has not yet become” a representation (C).

6:5A.4,3: “Therefore, you do not understand it and cannot use it.”
. If you don’t “understand” the principle of inclusion then you “cannot use it”.

6:5A.4,4: “We have too much to accomplish on behalf of the Kingdom to let this crucial concept slip away. (5) It is a real foundation stone of the thought system I teach and want you to teach.” Kingdom, here, can refer to the eternal unchanging truth or to the pyramid in time and space. The rest speaks more or less for itself, depending on who is reading it. …

6:5A.4,6: “You cannot perform miracles without believing it, because it is a belief in perfect equality.” …

=====================================================

June 14, 2011 . . . . . . . A COURSE IN MIRACLES
I have gone over the same paragraph again. This one is worth repeating.

7:3.5,1: “God has lit your mind Himself, and keeps your mind lit by His light because His light is what your mind is.”
7:3.5,1a: The AUTHOR has lit your mind Himself, and repeats lightening it
7:3.5,1b: because His light of knowledge is supposed to be “what your mind is”.
. The message, that you are the AUTHOR, is “Repeated” again. If you pay attention to this particular message then you will notice that it is repeated very often. And, if you notice that, then it has the opposite effect of what the AUTHOR has intended.

7:3.5,2: “This is totally beyond question, and when you question it you are answered.”
7:3.5,2a: If a consistent meaning (B) is repeated often enough it will become a representation (C), which “is totally beyond question”. The intellect (B) can’t question it because the programmed mind (C) is too fast for it.
7:3.5,2b: The answer to every question the intellect can come up with is here in this thick book in a “form” the mind can read. So when you question what the AUTHOR has dictated, “you are answered” by the mind.

7:3.5,3: “The Answer merely undoes the question by establishing the fact that to question reality is to question meaninglessly.”
7:3.5,3a: The Answer “undoes the question” because it is a ready-made answer. A ready-made answer is not a thought (B) but a representation (C). Representations are used in computing (C). Computing can undo thinking because it is faster than thinking. The mind comes up with the “answer” before the intellect can even come up with the question. We are not talking about logic, here, but about a psychological phenomena.
7:3.5,3b: When the answers are interpreted they are seen to be meaningless.

7:3.5,4: “That is why the Holy Spirit never questions.”
7:3.5,4: The AUTHOR tries to prevent us from questioning what he has dictated.

7:3.5,5: “His sole function is to undo the questionable and thus lead to certainty.”
. This does take some doing, but, with social engineering, it can be done. But it can’t be done if we find out about it. And we find out about it by the AUTHOR spilling the beans about it and us picking them up by interpreting his sentences.

7:3.5,6: “The certain are perfectly calm, because they are not in doubt.”
7:3.5,6: Those who believe the AUTHOR are perfectly calm because they don’t doubt that he tells them nothing but the truth.

7:3.5,7: “They do not raise questions, because nothing questionable enters their minds.”
7:3.5,7a: Those who have allowed the AUTHOR to program them, “do not raise questions, because …
7:3.5,7b he wants “nothing questionable [to] enter their minds”. But what about us, who do question what is “questionable”? …

7:3.5,8: “This holds them in perfect serenity, because this is what they share, knowing what they are.”
7:3.5,8a: The word “serenity” is just another way of saying “comfort” and “peace”
7:3.5,8b: Those who allow the AUTHOR to program them believe anything he tells them to believe. And believing (C) is not “knowing” (B). To interpret his sentences, you have to pay attention to details. They are not in there by accident.

7:4.1,1: “Truth can only be recognized and NEED only be recognized.”
7:4.1,1a: The “Truth” is eternal, it does not change, it “can only be recognized”
7:4.1,11b: But it is not “Enough(Zu)” to “only” know it. If the truth is to set us free then we must act on it. However, the AUTHOR’s “official version” of the truth doesn’t make sense. It “can only be” believed “and NEED[s] only” to be believed to be stepped down from an “untrue” idea (B) to an untrue representation (C), which can no longer be questioned.

7:4.1,2: “Inspiration is of the Holy Spirit and certainty is of God according to His laws.” …

======================================================

June 13, 2011 . . . . . . . . . . A COURSE IN MIRACLES
. In yesterday’s section, below this one I said:
. At [to] 7:3.4,5 and [to] 7:3.4,6 the AUTHOR tells you that you “Are the Kingdom” and that “you are reality”. What is the “meaning” these two messages have in common? …

7:3.5,1: “God has lit your mind Himself and keeps your mind lit by His light because His light is what your mind is.”
7:3.5,1: The AUTHOR has programmed your mind and he keeps repeating the same “meaning” because the “light [of his knowledge] is what your mind is” supposed to be composed of.
. The “meaning” of 7:3.4,5, 7:3.4,6 and 7:3.5,1 can all be “Identified(Mg)” as contemplation. Once you know WHAT contemplation is you can identify these sentences yourself by computation (C). What is contemplation (X)? …
Contemplation is the opposite of concentration. If you know what one pole of a polarity is then you already know a lot of the other pole. What do you know of it? …
You know that it is the opposite of the pole you know. What do we know about concentration (Z)? …
You know that you, as the subject, “focus your full attention on” on an object that is external, or objective, to you. We are doing it all the time. We are doing it so automatically (E6) that, unless we pay attention (A) to it, we are not even aware (A) of doing it. To direct our attention towards something requires Conscious Energy (E4). Try to think of some examples of this. …
As a thinking subject you can first focus on something “TaoAble(ptA1)”, then you must focus on the TaoIng(WyA1) and then comes the “TaoEd(CnA1)”. In order to be able to read the Tao Te Ching you must know what certain keywords mean. The same is true of the COURSE. If you don’t understand what Lao Tzu or the AUTHOR “mean” by certain keywords then you can't understand what they are saying.
. The radical number for Tao is 162. When you have this number you can find the character in most standard dictionaries. In my big Hang Kong dictionary it is #6617: “A road; a way; a path. From which comes the idea of The Way; the Truth. A doctrine. A principle. Reason.” But in the Ching it means more than that. It means whatever the context demands.
. For instance the very first word in the Ching is Tao(A1). To know what it means there, we have to look at the second character. It is K’o(pt): “Potential”. What is the opposite of potential? …
Actual. What does Tao K’o mean as an instruction? …
Hint: An imperative sentence begins with the verb. …
“Actualize your Potential (A1pt)”! How? …
By “Taoing the TaoAble (A1ptA1)”! By “Doing what you Can Do (A1ptA1)”! Tao always means what the context demands and K’o(pt) also means “Can”.
. If this is the first thing you have heard about the Tao Te Ching, then my interpretation of the first three characters in it must seem farfetched to you, but with “Practice(pr)” you can do this kind of thing automatically (E6), by computation (C).
. The reason I have given you this example is because this is also HOW we must learn to read A COURSE IN MIRACLES. So what does the AUTHOR “mean’ in 7:3.4,5, 7:3.4,6 and 7:3.5,1? …
If the AUTHOR can make you believe (C) “your mind” is “His” mind then he can make you believe that what he wants is what you want. It is another way of getting you to hand over control of yourself to him. In Christian terms it is saying: “Not my will be done but Thine Will be done” through me. If you say that to the God of the Bible that is often the best decision you can make; if you say that to the AUTHOR then that is always the worst decision you can make.

7:3.5,2: “This is totally beyond question, and when you question it you are answered.”
7:3.5,2a: When a true, or false, thought (B) has become a representation (C) it can no longer be questioned because it kicks in so fast that the intellect can’t even begin to think.
7:3.5,2b: When a question comes up for which the mind does not have a ready-made answer, then the intellect can, in fact, deal with it.
7:3.5,2c: But, this is what this thick book is about: For every question the intellect (B) can come up with, the mind (C) is given the answer. And because computation (C) is faster than thinking (B) when you could question something your questions are answered by the mind before the intellect can even think of the question.
. People who are in charge of defending the AUTHOR against “attacks” can say that I am twisting the AUTHOR’s words around. His words are designed to be misleading so that you can’t always respond to their “form” but you can replace his “official version” of the truth with the truth. My justification for what I am saying is not that it relates to the “form” the AUTHOR is using to convey his “meaning” to the mind but if what I am saying is true then that will have to do for now. The question is: Does it shed light on WHAT the AUTHOR has said regardless of HOW he has said it? …

7:3.5,3: “The Answer merely undoes the question by establishing the fact that to question reality is to question meaninglessly.’
7:3.5,3a: The Answer the AUTOR puts into the mind is supposed to undo the question by having a ready-made answer for it.
7:3.5,3b: The answer is not a “fact” but a belief (C), or representation (C) that is established in the mind.
7:3.5,3c: When the truth is established in the mind along with the AUTHOR’s programming then the intellect has a chance to interpret the ready-made answers and it can be seen that valid questions are meaningful and the AUTHOR’s answers are meaningless.

7:3.5,4: “That is why the Holy Spirit never questions.”
7:3.5,4: That is why the AUTHOR tries to prevent the intellect form questioning his assertions.

7:3.5,5: “His sole function is to undo the questionable and thus lead to certainty.”
. To question what is “questionable” is justifyable. So why try to “undo” it? ...
As we reach a general understanding what the AUTHOR has to accomplish we can interpret many sentences by computation (C). The “certainty” is supposed to be established in our minds by the science of social engineering. But HOW is he going to accomplish that by spilling the beans about it as carelessly as he does? …

7:3.5,6: “The certain are perfectly calm, because they are not in doubt.”
. As we can see right here at 7:3.5, there are limits to the science of social engineering. When you have to fight the truth, to have things your way, then you are fighting an uphill battle. As I keep repeating: All we need is communicators (C) who are selling the truth as efficiently as the social engineers are selling their lies. In the long run, the truth always wins. Ultimately, the truth will sell itself.

7:3.5,7: “They do not raise questions, because nothing questionable enters their minds.”
. This assertion is only true if we don’t refresh the truth every time the AUTHOR is “Repeating(@1)” one of his “consistent” “meanings”. The fact is that we have done it right here with this sentence.

7:3.5,8: “This holds them in perfect serenity, because this is what they share, knowing what they are.”
7:3.5,8a: The word “serenity” is substituted here for “peace” and “comfort”.
7:3.5,8b: Those who have been hooked by the AUTHOR believe (C) what he causes them to believe. Social engineering is the science of mind-control. A skillfully programmed mind can be made to believe anything.

7:4.1,1: “Truth can only be recognized and NEED only be recognized.”
. We have here a neat sentence in which a hook is covered by some good bait. …

===========================================================

June 12, 2011 . . . . . . . . . A COURSE IN MIRACLES
. There are omissions in the June 11 section. There is more to 7:3.3,1 than meets the eye.
Please use the diagram, which is in the June 11 section, below this one. The upper “TriAd(-3ad)”, X-Y-Z, is within us as E1-E2-E3 and outside of us as E9-E10-E11.
. In the last chapter of the Neiye we are told that
“It is so Small that Nothing can be Within (_HälWU*a)” it. *a = Nei11. And
“It is so Big that Nothing can be Outside (_HTAWU*7)” of it. *7 = Wai36.
. But either way, X = contemplation, Y = meditation and Z = concentration. The higher can concentrate on the lower and the lower is contemplated on by the higher. The AUTHOR does a lot of that, so I don’t have to go into detail about tat here.
. In meditation (Y and C) we are the observing subject and the observed object at the same time. In X-Y-Z, X-Z is the “DyAd(dyad)” and Y is the connective between them. It mediates between the opposites. Medius is Latin and means middle. There is a lot Language (C) can tell us that the social engineers, who are in control of our educational system, don’t want us to know. And there is a lot the AUTHOR knows, which he doesn’t want the intellect (B) to find out but which he must slip past it to program the mind (C) with it. This is not easy, and, as we find out about it, it becomes impossible. Actually, figuring out WHAT the AUTHOR is doing is very educational. But until a communicator (C) is willing to describe it better, you have to put up with my description of it.
. Put yourself into the shoes of social engineers: HOW would you prevent communicators (C) from communicating what they don't want the people to know? …
You do what the AUTHOR is doing: …
You program their mind (C). Listen to Lao Tzu: Of “Calamities There-is-none Greater Than Underestimating (ÜfMOTAto$j) the economic, political and intellectual powers of your Enemy(âb)”. The biggest mistake, those who have been hooked by the AUTHOR have made, is to “Underestimate” his intellectual power of the AUTHOR. Why? …
Because knowledge is power. And it can be used for or against you. What the AUTHOR has dictated is as full of “meaning” as the words of Lao Tzu are, but HOW he says it, its “form”, is designed to confuse the intellect. This becomes clear as we work on a sentence like 7:3.3,1: “…. focus your full attention on it” means …
Concentrate on the pyramid. Why? …
If you are at the base of the pyramid then you are not “in” it. …
You are at its lower “Boundary(*1)”. “To be in the” pyramid, you must produce another level below your own. Now the level above you is to you as you are to the level below you. Now you are inside of the pyramid.
. The tetrad can help us to understand this better”: The customer is on level A. The Hindus call A “the Door, Dasamadwara”. A door has two sides, like a coin: …
One faces in and the other faces out. What is outside of our human sphere of influence, A-B-C-D, is not our responsibility.
. A is the most inclusive “source”, or part of the tetrad, It is responsible for B, C and D. I am on level B, and the thinkers (B) are responsible for C and D. Because the Writers (C) are programmed not to communicate (C) what is not in the interest of our political masters, I have to express these ideas (B) as best as I can in words (C), so that the communicators (C) can read it. If I could write (C) as well as “WordErs(C2er)” can then we wouldn't need them; and if “WordErs(C2er)” could think as well as thinkers can then they wouldn't need us. It takes more of my time and energy to do a job that is inferior than a writer can do.
. It is as Lao Tzu said: “KnowErs are Not good with Words (knerPUC2)”. But if the “WordErs Don’t Know (C2erPUkn)” what their dharma is then the thinkers (B) have to do the writing (C) even when they can’t do as good a job. Lao Tzu refers to THE DIVISION OF LABOUR in different ways as the AUTHOR refers to the same “meaning” in different ways, or “forms”.
. What I am doing here, right now, is “Fixing(8b)” the thought (B) I want to convey to the writers in words (C) so that they can read it.
. E3 and E8 are outside the A-B-C-D tetrad but all of the four “sources, or parts of the tetrad, are the connective of a triad. So A and D in E3-A-B and C-D-E8 are on the “Boundaries(*1)” of our sphere of influence, while A-B-C, Hsin(Hs), and B-C-D, semiotics, are fully inside of it. This will have to do. Let us continue with:

7:3.4,7: “This is how HAVING and BEING are ultimately reconciled, not in the Kingdom, but in your mind.”
. Let us start with HAVING: We have a body (D). When we step on a scale, is the number which comes up determined by what we think (B)? …
No. Is it determined by what we believe (C)? …
No. Is it determined by the weight our body has? …
Yes. Now let us look at BEING. Is it determined by what we think? …
Not directly but if we repeat a thought often “Enough(Zu)” so that we can do it in our sleep, then the thought (B) becomes a representation (C). And they determine …
What we are. As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he.
. We also have a mind (C), without it, we couldn't compute (C), and without computation we couldn't walk or talk.
. We also have an intellect. Without it, we couldn't think. Be “Repeating(@1)” a thought often “Enough(@1)” it becomes a representation (C), but without thoughts (B) there can be no representations (C). If there are no thoughts, what are you going to repeat? ...
. At to 7:3.4,5 and to 7:3.4,6 the AUTHOR tells you that you “ARE the Kingdom” and that “you are reality” And what he tells you will be “ultimately reconciled …. in your mind” if ,,,
you let him programme it long “Enough”. But if you don’t allow him to program it then the reconciliation will never happen. Instead you simply see what he tries to make you believe.

7:3.4,8: “The altar there is the only reality.” Since we don’t know yet what the AUTHOR means by “altar”, we have to hold this statement in suspense.

7:3.4,9: “The altar is perfectly clear in thought, because it is a reflection of perfect Thought.” If you have followed me as I am trying to get at the “meaning” of what the AUTHOR conveys to the minds of his followers then you can see that the “form” in which he clothes his thoughts is anything but a “perfectly clear thought”. That “it is a reflection of perfect Thought” is just another subtle message to the mind, which the AUTHOR is trying to slip past the intellect.
. Remember that for any “meaning” (B) to become a representation (C) in the mind (C) it must be repeated often “Enough(Zu)”. What I am giving here to net-workers (C) is what as a programmer (B) I have given to a coder (C). It is an algorithm (B) stepped down into a flowchart (C) the coder can read (C). All I have to do here is give you the interpretation of a “consistent” “meaning” once. Then, by computation (C), you can do the rest of the book yourself. So far I have only done about one tenth of the book and already we are running into “Repetitions(@1)”. Chances are that the “consistent” “meanings” are fewer than I thought at first. What we have to do is “Identify the IdentifyAble (MgptMg)” to get at the consistent meanings which are hidden in inconsistent “forms”
. I Googled “altar” but it wasn’t very useful. We need the full text in our own computer’s memory to use the FIND function on words like that.

7:3.4,10: “Your right mind sees only brothers, because it sees only in its own light.”
7:3.4,10: If your mind is fully programmed by the AUTHOR then it only sees what he wants you to see.

7:3.5,1: “God has lit your mind Himself, and keeps your mind lit by His light because His light is what your mind is.” …

====================================================

June 11, 2011 . . . . A COURSE IN MIRACLES

7:3.4,1: “To be in the Kingdom is merely to focus your full attention on it.”
7:3.4,1: To “focus your attention” on the “Kingdom” can’t be done. Why? …
. . . Y . . . . . . The Buddha’s 8-fold path starts at point A
Z . + . X . . with Right Vision. Then comes thought (B),
. . . A . . . . .and then speech (C).
D . + . B . . . As you can see on the diagram, in which
. . . C . . . . . A-B-C-D represents the Aristotelian tetrad, we have a downward, deductive movement from A to C. If a theory (B) is true then it will work in practice (D). This is why we have tangible examples of the tetrad in the construction business and in the IBM computer programming system:
. The customer’s (A) demand is the description what is to be produced in material form on level D. This is why Aristotle has called level A on Plato’s “Divided Line (509d)” the “final cause” and level D the “material cause”. The thinkers (B) break down the demand into smaller pieces, or subroutines, the coder (C) can handle. The communicators (C), in turn, break down each subroutine into a series of instructions the computer (D) can execute.
. The supply goes back to A from D. From C to Y is an inductive, bottom up, movement. The Hindus call C meditation, see Gita 13.24. In the Buddha’s 8-fold path, what I have identified as X is E9, or concentration, Y = E10, or meditation and Z = E11, or concentration. If we continue the cycle beyond the Buddha’s 8-fold path we come back to A, which would be E12 of J.G.Bennett’s Dodecad.
. I have summarized here years of study, but nothing less will do to interpret 7:3.4,1: If you can’t “focus your full attention” (A) on God’s “Kingdom” on the other side of the “Door” (A), what can you “focus” on? …
God’s Kingdom is to be established on earth. Now, what about the AUTHOR’s “Kingdom”? ...
It is established as his pyramid here on earth. And to cause it to “extend” downwardly you have “to focus your full attention on it.”
. This sentence took a lot of work. If every sentence takes as much space as this one, it is going to be a very big E-book, but it doesn’t have to be. Why? …
Because the AUTHOR “Repeats(@1)” the same “meaning” in different “forms”. So there is no need to repeat the same interpretation every time the same “constant” “meaning” comes up.
. All we have to do is: “Identify the IdentifiAble (MgptMg)” “meanings”.

7:3.4,2: “As long as you believe you can attend to what is not true, you are accepting conflict as your choice.”
7:3.4,2: As long as you know that you can attend to two equally valid choices you are accepting Hegelian dialectics as your choice.

7:3.4,3: “Is it really a choice?” …
Yes and no. If the AUTHOR has fully programmed, or “trained” your mind then you have no choice, but, if you use your intellect, …
one obvious choice you have is between affirming two equally valid choices in order to reach a synthesis or to reject one of these two choices in order to have “comfort” and “peace”.

7:3.4,4: “It seems to be, but seeming and reality are hardly the same.”
. Here and elsewhere the AUTHOR uses the word “seeming” to throw doubt on the truth. Two equally valid choices don't “seem” to be equally valid choices, they are equally valid. If they were not then there would be no “discomfort” of cognitive dissonance.

7:3.4,5: “You who Are the Kingdom are not concerned with seeming.”
7:3.4,5: If you are identified with the AUTHOR’s pyramid you can't be concerned about the truth. If you find out the truth about his COURSE then you can no longer believe him.

7:3.4,6: “Reality is yours because you are reality.”
7:3.4,6: If you let the AUTHOR “train” your mind then you are anything he has programmed you to be. Then he has created what you are.

7:3.4,7: “This is how HAVING and BEING are ultimately reconciled, not in the Kingdom, but in your mind.”
. This is another tough one so I better let you chew on it first. …

===================================================

June 10, 2011
. Practice makes perfect. With practice our ability to correct and improve the interpretations I have done is improving. Take 7:3.2,1 as an example:

7:3.2,1: “God’s meaning waits in the Kingdom, because that is where He placed it.”
. I have devoted half a page to this sentence. I can’t find anything wrong with it, but it can be improved. How would you do that? …
Consider the following: God’s power is omnipotent (E1) in the time and space-less dimension, on the other side of the “Door, Dasamadwara” (A (E4)), His Presence is omnipresent there, and His Knowledge is omniscient there.
5:6.1,4: “You have elected to be in time rather than eternity, and therefore believe you ARE in time. (5) Yet your election is both free and alterable. (6) You do not belong in time. (7) Your place is only in eternity, where God Himself placed you forever.”
. Up to 7:3.2,6 we have the truth. But do not be fooled by the bait. Just because the AUTHOR wants us to believe that we don’t belong here, where we are, we don’t have to believe him. We don’t have to believe “eternity” is were the AUTHOR “Himself placed you forever.” These lies can only be slipped past the intellect by means of the science of social engineering. But, due to the eagerness of the AUTHOR, we find out about it. And so the intellect is learning how to intercept the AUTHOR’s messages.
. We “have elected to be in time rather than eternity” for a reason. For instance in time and space you can do and experience things you can’t do in eternity. By trying to undo all of that, the AUTHOR is opposing God’s plan. But can God’s plan really be opposed? …
. Omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience are realities in “eternity” as the limited experience of power, space and time are realities in our world.

7:3.2,1: God’s omniscience is waiting in eternity. Why? …
“because that is where He placed it.” As we are working on the COURSE some amazing “Insights(72)” are coming our way. So amazing, in fact, that I begin to wonder whether God has planned the whole thing, including the AUTHOR’s COURSE. …
. Let Us continue with:

7:3.3,1: “I said before that the ego’s friend is not part of you, because the ego perceives itself at war and therefore in need of allies.”
7:3.3,1a: The “ego” is our intellect (B) and its “friend” is the truth, and the truth is not a friend of the AUTHOR. If communicators would serve the truth then it could be seen what the truth can do to the AUTHOR’s cult. The intellect is for the truth and therefore against falsehoods. As the AUTHOR puts it: The intellect “perceives itself at war” against “untruth”. The intellect knows untruth for what it is. And that must be disturbing to the AUTHOR.
7:3.3,1b: That the intellect is “in need of allies’ has been expressed in different words already in the few pages I have studied so far. Once a “consistent” “meaning” has been identified, we can give it a name. The principle of exclusion and of inclusion is already a good start of implementing this convention. Then when the whole text along with the interpretations is in an E-book we can use the FIND function to find corresponding passages. This convention would also speed up the work I am doing right now. Why? …
As you become more familiar with “consistent” “meanings” all you have to do is identify the sentence with the appropriate keywords. And this kind of work can be done by computation.

7:3.3,2: “You who are not at war must look for brothers and recognize all whom you see as brothers, because only equals are at peace.”
7:3.3,2a: You who are sedated into “comfort” and “peace” are in need of allies. Everybody you see is a potential “brother”. The idea’ or “meaning” of finding allies could be called the principle of brotherhood. We must differentiate between this principle and the principle of “Sonship”.
7:3.3,2b: Here we have reference to the principle of inclusion. For instance the thinkers (B), the talkers (C) and the doers (D) do not compete against each other. They are cooperating. They know that they need each other because only if each participant works at full capacity, only then is the system as a whole greater than the sum of its parts. Notice that I am repeating what I have said about the principle of inclusion before. Space and work can be saved by putting everything associated with one principle into the same place. For instance Star repeats the same information in his “VERBATIM TRANSLATION” every time a character appears in the text.
. By using the two-digit identifiers I put all the information I have about a character in front of file # 5 of this blog. And I know that it works.

7:3.3,3: “Because God’s equal Sons have everything, they cannot compete.”
7:3.3,3a: We can see here that the principle of Sonship has a lot to do with the principle of inclusion. But the principle of inclusion is a natural law; the principle of Sonship is a psychological phenomena, it is brought about by social engineering. The AUTHOR’s subjects are merely made to believe that they “have everything”. The deluded members of a cult are to be pitied rather than envied.
7:3.3,3b: The participants in a system that is greater than the sum of its parts, will not compete against each other because they know better.

7:3.3,4: “Yet if they perceive any of their brothers as anything other that their perfect equals, the idea of competition has entered their minds.”
7:3.3,4: If a part within a system is not functioning properly then the system as a whole is affected by it and something has to be done about it. This is not the exactly the “form” in which the AUTHOR has said what he “means” but it is not in his own best interest to say exactly what he “means”. If he said what he “means” then we wouldn’t have to interpret the “form” in which he says it. The reason we have to interpret the whole book is because we have to find out HOW the mind is programmed, or “trained” to read it.

7:3.3,5: “Do not underestimate your need to be vigilant AGAINST this idea, because all your conflicts come from it.”
7:3.3,5a: There are two types of vigilance: By conscious (E4) thought (E5) and by computation (E6) as a result of previous programming. The need for subconscious vigilance arises when conscious vigilance becomes a threat.
7:3.3,5b: Conflicts arise when the mind is programmed to affirm two equally valid choices. If any of your “brothers” expresses any idea which “conflicts” with what the AUTHOR is teaching, watch out, “your need to be vigilant” arises.

7:3.3,6: “It IS the belief that conflicting interests are possible, and therefore you have accepted the impossible to be true.”
7:3.3,6a: The fact is that conflicting interests, based on the same knowledge, are possible.
7:3.3,6b: This knowledge causes you to accept the possible to be true. Notice here again, the almost automatic (E6) application of the principle of “Reversal($l)”. Many confusing statements suddenly make perfect sense after this straightforward reversal.

7:3.3,7: “Is that different from saying you perceive yourself as unreal?”
7:3.3,7: How “you perceive yourself” is determined by HOW you have programmed yourself, or HOW others have programmed you.

7:3.4,1: “To be in the Kingdom is merely to focus your full attention on it.” …

===================================================
June 9, 2011 . . . . . . A COURSE IN MIRACLES

7:3.2,1: “God’s meaning waits in the Kingdom, because that is where He places it”
7:3.2,1: The AUTHOR’s meaning waits in his Kingdom were he places it.
. Both, the uninterpreted version and the interpreted versions are true. When talking about “meaning” we are talking about God’s and the AUTHOR’s omniscience. In theory J.G Bennett’s E1 = omnipotence, E2 = omnipresence and E3 = omniscience.
. Swami Sri Yukteswar says at Sutra 5 of THE HOLY SCIENCE: “The Omniscient Love aspect of Parambrahma is KUTASTHA CHAITANYA.” According To Sutra 13 E1 would be the SATYALOKA … the only Real Substance, Sat, in the universe, E2 would be the TAPOLOKA and E3 would be the JANALOKA …. Wherein the idea of separate existence of Self originates.” Ideas from E3 come across A (E4) to B (E5). We have here a stepping down of energies in which E3 is to E4 as E4 is to E5.
. I know this is difficult stuff but if we are to replace the AUTHOR’s “official version” of the truth by the truth then we must replace it by the truth. Problem is that neither the Hindus nor J.G Bennett have described this stuff clearly “Enough(Zu)” for us. So that it makes interpretation on my part necessary, which in turn makes it necessary for you to verify or falsify it.
. Let me quote a bit of what Mr.B says about Creative Energy (E3): It is beyond consciousness” A (E4). “The all-important Creative Energy is the source of all human creativity of which procreation is no more than the vital manifestation. All that man creates in practical affairs, in science and art depends upon the working of creative energy.” There is more about energies in his book, ENERGIES. But you will have to read it yourself.
. The primary triad in Vedanta Philosophy is Sat-Chit-Ananda. Existence-knowledge-bliss. Sat, being “the only real Substance”, would thus be God’s omnipotence. The quantity of His power is always the same but its quality is divided into twelve different types. Most of my own thinking is based on the first seven of these Energies.
. So much for 7:3.2,1

7:3.2,2: “It does not wait in time.” The “Kingdom” is not in time and space.

7:3.2,3: “It merely rests in the Kingdom because it belongs there, as you do.”
7:3.2,3a: The Kingdom is in the time and space-less dimension on the other side of the “Door, Dasamadwara”. Up to here, what the AUTHOR has dictated applies to both God and himself.
7:3.2,3b: In a sense all is one and so we also belong in the Kingdom. In fact, our soul (A) is with one foot outside of our sphere of influence and with the other foot in it. So the AUTHOR can’t be proven a hundred percent wrong. He likes it that way. He forces us to do a lot of work to interpret some of the things he has dictated. But is that such a terrible thing? Look what you are learning.
. The simple down to earth fact is that we are here on earth, in time and space, for a reason and to say that we don’t belong here but there is intentionally, or unintentionally,
confusing the issue.

7:3.2,4: “How can you who are God’s meaning perceive yourself as absent from it?”
7:3.2,4: How can you be absent from the AUTHOR’s Kingdom? …
By being were we are right now. However, if the AUTHOR has programmed your mind to be his “meaning”, to be what he wants you to be, then you will see it his way.

7:3.2,5: “You can see yourself as separated from your meaning only by experiencing yourself as unreal.”
7:3.2,5: You can see yourself as different from the AUTHOR’s “meaning” by doing your own thinking. But, if you do that, then, by means of the AUTHOR’s programming, you will be “experiencing yourself as unreal.” Remember that social engineering is a science. There is a reason that the Gita and the Ching are relatively thin, and why A COURSE IN MIRACLES is as thick as it is. That’s why we have to interpret the whole book to really figure out WHAT the AUTHOR is doing.

7:3.2,6: “This is why the ego is insane; it teaches that you are not what you are.”
7:3.2,6a: This is why the AUTHOR must decommission the intellect, because …
7:3.2,6b: “it teaches that you are …. what you are.” All we had to do is a simple reversal.

7:3.2,7: “This is so contrary it is clearly impossible.”
7:3.2,7: If you understand WHAT the AUTHOR is saying then “it is clearly impossible” to believe it.

7:3.2,8: “It is therefore a lesson you cannot really learn, and therefore cannot really teach.” If you do the interpretations yourself then you find out that the AUTHOR doesn’t really want you to understand WHAT he is saying. It takes some definite work to get at the “meaning” he is trying to convey to your mind. And when you do understand it, it would be irresponsible to “teach” it.

7:3.2,9: “Yet you are always teaching. (10) You must, therefore, be teaching something else, even though the ego does not know what it is..”
7:3.2,9a: When your mind is properly programmed by the AUTHOR it is always teaching, but you are doing it automatically (E6). You are not aware (E4) of it.
7:3.2,9b: The intellect (E5) is not supposed to know what is going on.

7:3.2,11: “The ego, then, is always being undone, and does suspect your motive.”
7:3.2,11: Because the intellect can figure out the AUTHOR’s “motives” it has to be undone. But if we are doing what we are doing right now then we are undoing what the AUTHOR is trying to do.

7:3.2,12: “Your mind cannot be unified in allegiance to the ego, because the mind does not belong to it.”
7:3.2,12: In a healthy human being the mind (C) is “unified in allegiance to the” intellect (B). “KnowErs are Not good enough with Words (knerPUC2); WordErs Don’t Know (C2erPUkn)” That’s why they have to “Unify Their Dust ($1_H@h)”. I prefer to listen to Lao Tzu than to the AUTHOR.
7:3.2,12: The AUTHOR is doing a lot of social engineering to program the mind so that it believes (C) that it has nothing to do with the intellect and that instead it belongs to the AUTHOR. Right now this must sound like a farfetched conspiracy theory, but, if you pay attention (A) to what the AUTHOR is actually doing then the theory starts to make more and more sense.

7:3.2,13: “Yet what is ‘treacherous’ to the ego is faithful to peace.”
7:3.2,13: A mind that has been fully programmed by the AUTHOR is “treacherous” to the intellect. It will reject one of two equally valid choices for the sake of “peace”

7:3.2,14: “The ego’s ‘enemy’ is therefore your friend.”
7:3.2,14: The AUTHOR's fully programmed mind “is therefore your friend”. At least that's what the mind is told. And it is told that repeatedly in different words. The “meaning” is the same, only the “form” is different.

7:3.3,1: “I said before that the ego’s friend is not part of you, because the ego perceives itself at war and therefore in need of allies.” …

==========================================================

june 8, 2011 . . . . . . . A COURSE IN MIRACLES
. . . . . . . . . . . . .III THE REALITY OF THE Kingdom
7:3.1,1: “The Holy Spirit teaches one lesson and applies it to all individuals in all situations.” Following Lao Tzu’s advise: I don’t bite of more than I can chew. Let’s just hold this one in suspense until the AUTHOR helps us with interpreting it.

7:3.1,2: “Being conflict-free, He maximizes all efforts and all results.”
. If the COURSE were “conflict-free” then the AUTHOR could “maximize all efforts and results” and his lessons would apply “to all individuals in all situations”, but it has become clear by now that the COURSE is not “conflict-free”. The more we find out about it, the more contradictions we find in it.
. For instance does the AUTHOR teach just “one lesson”? …
No, there are at lest two: One is HOW to overcome the “discomfort” of cognitive dissonance. And “comfort” and “peace” is supposed to be the AUTHOR’s “gift” to us.
. The other lesson is the very opposite of the first one: …
To make an N-term system work all components of the system must be fully functional and ready to function within the system. If any part is weak or broken, the system as a whole is weak or broken. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

7:3.1,3: “By teaching the power of the Kingdom of God Himself, He teaches you that all power is yours.
7:3.1,3a: A system is powerful when it is working at full capacity. Then it “maximizes all efforts and results”. This happens when all of its parts are working at full capacity. Then the whole is greater than “the sum of its parts (2:8.6,3)”.
. If even one part doesn’t work at full capacity then the whole can’t work at full capacity. If even one part is rejected, as the AUTHOR tells us as well, then the system doesn’t work at all. That one missing part is the broken link of a chain. Break one link and you break the chain.
. What the AUTHOR teaches about overcoming the “discomfort” of cognitive dissonance can be called the principle of exclusion; what he teaches about the whole that is greater than the sum of its parts, I will call the principle of inclusion.

At 7:3.1,3: The power of the Kingdom …. is yours”, while at 7:3.1,6 it is not yours. If the AUTHOR wants to confuse us, let him try. I just follow Lao Tzu’s advise, and hold the questions I can’t answer in suspense.

7:3.1,7: “When I said ‘I am with you always,’ I meant it literally.”
. On the other side of the “Door, Dasamadwara” (A) omniscience and omnipresence is as real as the limitations of time and space are real to us.

7:3.1,8: “I am not absent to anyone in any situation.”

7:3.1,9: “Because I am always with you, you are the way, the truth and the life.”
7:3.1,9: Because the AUTHOR claims to be “the way, the truth and the life” and because he is omnipresent, because he is in us, he can make us identify with him. But can somebody who contradicts himself as the AUTHOR does, and who spills the beans so foolishly that they do more harm than good for him, claim that he is “the truth”? …
If he really knows the truth, shouldn’t he know better? …
However, we should be thankful to him for giving the truth away, as he does, even though he doesn’t do it willingly. Because the truth in the COURSE comes from the same place the truth in the Bible, the Ching, the Gita, the Neiye etc. comes from, there is a lot we can learn from it.
7:3.1,9b: You are the way (A), the truth (B) and the life (C-D). What I have said here is untested theory (B), but, if I don’t say it, then you have nothing to test, and we will not know whether this statement is true or false. That's how THE DIVISION OF LABOR works. When every participant does the best s/he can do then the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

7:3.1,10: “You did not make this power any more than I did.”
. How come this sudden humility? …
Could it be that God didn’t trust him with His omnipotence? …

7:3.1,11: “It was created to be shared, and therefore cannot be meaningfully perceived as belonging to anyone at the expense of another.”
Knowledge is power and he isn’t sharing it very well. Why would God trust the AUTHOR with His omnipotence? …
. But there is also something about the principle of inclusion in that statement. …
If any part of the system increases “at the expense of another” part, then the system, as a whole, “Loses Production (37Sg)”.

7:3.1,12: “Such a perception makes it meaningless by eliminating or overlooking its real and only meaning.” Which is? …

7:3.2,1: “God’s meaning waits in the Kingdom, because that is where He places it” …

========================================================

June 7, 2011
. This morning an “Insight(72)” about Neiye 8h to 8m came to me. “Production(Sg)” on level D is “Guided(8h)” by C, C is “Guided” by B, B is “Guided” by A and A is “Guided” by Creative Energy (E3). If a process is to be creative then E3 must be stepped down to E7 (D). This theory (B) can be tested with the IBM computer programming system. If there is to be “Production(Sg)” then all of the four “sources”, or components of the tetrad, are required, but here only “Thought(8i)” (B) is singled out.Back to . . . . . A COURSE IN MIRACLES

7:2.7,1: “What can the perfect consistency of the Kingdom mean to those who are confused?”
7:2.7,1a: What is this “perfect consistency of the Kingdom”? …
We have learned from 7:2.2 that the “Thoughts in the Kingdom” have to be “adapted” to the thoughts we are thinking here in our world.
. Notice that what the AUTHOR said at 7:2.2 sheds light on what we have here: The “perfect consistency of the” AUTHOR’s Kingdom is an “adapted” consistency. Right here, I am only scratching the surface of the COURSE but already we can get some idea of what will happen when we work on this book collectively. While there is an “adapted” consistency in this COURSE” there are logical inconsistencies in it as well. And, as we get to know it better, more of them will show up.
7:2.7,1b: And who are “those who are confused?” …
That’s us. Because we are “confused” we come across all of those inconsistencies. It doesn’t make sense “to those who are confused" but it must make sense to those who are able to believe (C) that, what the AUTHOR is saying, is true.

7:2.7,2: “It is apparent that confusion interferes with meaning, and therefore prevents the learner from appreciating it.”
7:2.7,2a: We are getting here a definition of the word “confusion”: It interferes with what the AUTHOR wants us to believe,
7:2.7,2b: and therefore prevents us from accepting the AUTHOR’s statements.

7:2.7,3: “There is no confusion in the Kingdom, because there is only one meaning.”
7:2.7,3a: When there are two equally valid choices, as with thesis and antithesis, then each of them has its own “meaning”. The whole of which these two poles are the parts is greater than the sum of its parts. This is called their synthesis. And there “is no confusion” about this. All you have to do is understand it.
7:2.7,3b: If, on the other hand, one of the two poles is rejected then “there is only one meaning”. There is “comfort” and “peace” but something else is lost.

7:2.7,4: “This meaning comes from God and IS God.”
7:2.7,4a: This meaning comes from the AUTHOR
7:2.7,4b: and he is supposed to be “God”.

7:2.7,5: “Because it is also you, you share it and extend it as your Creator did”.
7:2.7,5a: As you are thinking in your heart, as you are computing (C) so you are. And, if you have allowed the AUTHOR to program you then he is “your Creator”.
7:2.7,5b: He has made you believe that you are the pyramid and as you “extend” the pyramid downward, you identify with it. The growth of the pyramid is experienced as your own growth.
. Because we have come across the pyramid before the interpretation I have given here is merely a repetition of what I have said about it before. As we identify the “consistencies” of the same “meanings” the work we are doing right now will become easier.

7:2.7,6: “This needs no translation because it is perfectly understood, but it does need extension because it MEANS extension.”
7:2.7,6a: The thought of the AUTHOR needs no translation. He puts it in the mind (C) of a Chinese, French, German, Greek or Spanish speaking person where their own intellect (B) puts it and his or her mind will translate it for them automatically (E6) “Without Effort (WUD2)” on your part.
7:2.7,6b: But it does need extension. Why? …
Because to become integrated into the pyramid, to become part of it, you need the downward “extension” of the pyramid. You must add levels below the base of it so that you will rise up as the pyramid rises up. To see what the AUTHOR is talking about, please Google: pyramid scheme

7:2.7,7: “communication is perfectly direct and perfectly united.” If you have experienced this type of “Communication”, or know about it, then you know that what the AUTHOR is saying about it here, is true.

7:2.7,8: “It is totally free, because nothing discordant ever enters.”
7:2.7,8a: Because the AUTHOR is programming the mind not to let the intellect enter, it doesn’t mean that his subjects are “free”.
7:2.7,8b: Is it true that nothing discordant, nothing that disagrees with the AUTHOR “ever enters” peoples minds? …
The contradictions we have found in the COURSE so far are definitely entering our minds. And we are not the only ones who notice them. Just Google: a course in miracles cult
But there is more to this.
5:1.2,2: “THOUGHTS INCREASE BY BEING GIVEN AWAY.
. By writing or talking about the truth, you are giving it away. If I have any hits on this website I am giving these ideas away. But not only that, by thinking (B) and believing (C) something you are giving it away as well. How come? …
5:1.2,3: “THE MORE WHO BELIEVE IN THEM THE STRONGER THEY BECOME.”
How come? …
Rupert Sheldrake explains this very well. What I am hoping for is that a net-worker comes across this blog, likes it, and networks it properly. Since the truth is on our side, I can’t be the only one who discovers logical inconsistencies in the COURSE. And now watch:
“THE MORE WHO BELIEVE IN THEM THE STRONGER THEY BECOME.” …
Those ideas which are on top, or predominate, in the morpho-genetic field determine the generally accepted paradigm. For the truth to predominate communicators (C) must work for the truth as social engineers work against it.
. When that happens, the AUTHOR’s statement that “nothing discordant ever enters” will not only be just a little wrong, as it is now, but it will be totally wrong. And the beans he is spilling are partly to blame for that.

7:2.7,9: “That is why it is the Kingdom of God.”

7:2.7,10: “It belongs to Him and is therefore like Him.”

7:2.7,11: “That is the reality and nothing can assail it.”
, To “assail” is just another word for “attack”.

7:3.1,1: “The Holy Spirit teaches one lesson, and applies it to all individuals in all situations.” …

=========================================================

June 6, 2011 . . . . . . . . A COURSE IN MIRACLES

7:2.6,1: “No One questions the connection of learning and memory.”
7:2.6,1: The question is: What is “the connection of learning and memory”? …
In the last section we have devoted over one page to this question, and at the end of it we came up with another question: …
When the AUTHOR talks about “learning”, what is he talking about? …
Is he talking about “A conscious (A) or a subconscious (C) automatic (E6) process? …”
About half of the last section is about computer programming. Perhaps it can shed light on these questions.
7:2.6,2: “Learning is impossible without memory since it must be consistent to be remembered.”
7:2.6,2a: We have seen that that computing (C) “is impossible without memory” the computer can remember anything you tell it to remember.
7:2.6,2b: Data does not have to “be consistent to be remembered.”. So here the analogy breaks down. Human memory is different from computer memory. For humans to remember something it has to be “consistent”. Not the “form” of it but the “meaning”.

7:2.6,3: “That is why the Holy Spirit’s teaching is a lesson in remembering.”
7:2.6,3: That is why the lessons have to be consistent.
. What the AUTHOR is telling us here is that we must look for consistencies in what the mind (C) is supposed to remember. The first thing we were looking for in this series are examples where the AUTHOR has “depreciated” the intellect. Once you know WHAT you are looking for, you can recognize it in all of the various ways in which the AUTHOR does it. What else? …
There is this idea of completeness. It takes many different “forms” but as the AUTHOR said himself, “THESE DIFFERENCES DO NOT MATTER (7:2.5,3)”. The consistent “meaning” is that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. But if even one of its parts is weak or broken, then the system as a whole is weak or broken. What else? …
The pyramid is also referred to and connected with other ideas. What else ? …
There is the idea of cognitive dissonance coming up next in this paragraph.

7:2.6,4: “I said before that He teaches remembering and forgetting, but forgetting is only to make the remembering consistent.”

7:2.6,5: You forget in order to remember better.”
. The AUTHOR seems to give us the solution to the problem I came up with at the end of the June 4 section:
7:2.5,7: HOW the AUTHOR can plant knowledge into our brain so that it “requires no learning at all” is too hard to chew for me right now.

7:2.6,6: “You will not understand His translations while you listen to two ways of interpreting them.”
. The “discomfort” resulting from cognitive dissonance exists because we have to choose between two equally valid choices. We can accept both thesis and antithesis and reach a synthesis or reject one of the two choices to get the “peace” and “comfort” the AUTHOR is promising us. Please Google cognitive dissonance …
You can’t believe what the AUTHOR wants you to believe as long as you affirm both equally valid choices.

7:2.6,7: “Therefore you must forget or relinquish one to understand the other.”
7:2.6,7: You must reject one of the two equally valid choices to believe what the AUTHOR is telling you.. And to believe (C) is not “to understand”.

7:2.6,8: “This is the only way you can learn consistency, so that you can finally BE consistent.”
. As a man “thinketh in his heart, so is he. (Proverbs 23:7)” That thinking in the heart is what we deeply believe (C). These are the representations (C) we make for ourselves or which the AUTHOR makes for us.
. The Sanskrit word, Sraddha, is usually translated as “faith” but it seems to refer to the same thing:
. “The faith of a man follows his nature, Arjuna. Man is made of faith: as his faith is so he is. (Gita 17.3)” So if you “learn consistency” and have faith in the AUTHOR then “you can finally BE consistent.”

7:2.7,1: “What can the perfect consistency of the Kingdom mean to those who are confused?” …

====================================================

June 5, 2011 . . . . . . . . . . A COURSE IN MIRACLES

7:2.6,1: “No one questions the connection of learning and memory.”
Much of what we learn can be done by computation (C). This is done by establishing good learning habits. For instance, every time you discover a truth, you can automatically (E6) repeat it. You are doing it With Automatic Energy (E6) without actually being aware of doing it. As Lao Tzu puts it: You are “Doing it Without Doing (WyWUWy)” it intentionally. Do think (B) requires Sensitive Energy (E5). And to think right, or creatively requires the guidance of Conscious Energy (E4).
. As I was writing the word “guidance” Neiye 8 automatically (E6) came to mind “Without Effort (WUD2)” on my part. Why? …
Because in the June 2 section I have quoted from Neiye 8 starting on line I (9) let me give you the same quote again, but this time starting at line h (8):

8h: When “Ch’i is Guided (#E8h) there Will-be Production ($pSg)”,
8i: When there is “Production there Will-be Thought (Sg$p8i)”,
8j: When there is “Thought there Will-be Knowledge (8i$pkn)” and
8k: When there is “Knowledge there Will-be Stops Yi (kn#p$iYi)”.
8l: Of “All of Hsin’S Forms (1aHs@k)” if even one of the three
8m: “Bypasses the Known (#jkn) stops then there will be a Loss of Production (37Sg)”.

8h = Tao41: “To lead, guide, teach”.8i = Szu61: “To think, reflect; meaning”. 1a = Chih. Except for these three characters all of the other characters are in the Ching. There are some omissions in the June 2 translation, which gives me an excuse to “Repeat(@1)” these lines again. If you study the Neiye in light of the Ching then you will find a clarity in it that is missing in the COURSE.
7:2.6,1: The “connection of learning and memory” can be understood in light of the computer analogy: The original IBM 1401 computer cost one quarter of a million dollars and it only had 4K, that is 4000 memory locations. And it didn’t even have a multiply (X) routine. With my emulator of the original IBM 1401 computer language you could use X for Multiply, but it wasn’t executed by the computer’s hardware. It was a software routine that was executed when called for by the “Opcode (operation code)” X.
. Teaching that language took less than a week out of he seven weeks it took to learn how to write a working programs and to help computer scientists to solve problems for which they have no black box. You see, after seven years of university, these graduates still don’t know to programme. Something is wrong there, don’t you think? …
. Let me just give you a 2 paragraph introduction to Coding (C): =, the greater than sign and the less than sign, which I can’t use here on blogspot, are conditional operators. A = Add. A, Capital B and C are indirect addresses. b75 is a direct address. It reads line b column 75 and “1” is an immediate address, it means “1”. You are now able to read the following conditional instruction: =Cb75A”1”b76 The blank behind the instruction is the equivalent of an exclamation mark because all instructions are imperative sentences. Please try to read it. …
If the content of C = the content of line b, column 75 then Add “1” to b75. If the conditional phrase is in front of the Add instruction then we have the AND condition and if it is behind the instruction it is like an afterthought, that is the OR condition. There is another reason for this convention that can serve as a mnemonic. If the conditional phrase is in front and the condition is not true then the instruction is skipped. That saves time. In The OR condition if the instruction is Bx01 , Branch to line x, column 1. If the Branch instruction is followed by a conditional phrase and it is false then the instruction is skipped and, if it is true, then it is carried out. The fact that there are these two conditions makes it seem as if the computer can think (C). But all the computer can do is compute (C). Now, if you can get so much information about Coding (C) across in two paragraphs. How much more does it take to teach the whole thing? …
. And this brings us back to 7:2.6,1. One important thing I wanted to get across is that instructions are in “memory”. I can say M”Joe”e20 …
Move “Joe” to line e column 20. The “A operand”, “Joe” in this case, can be anything. In other words, it can also be an instruction or a whole subroutine. And, as I said before, the multiply routine (X) is also written in software. I can say: M”XAc33 and then say Bc33 Brach (B) to c33 and the computer will execute the instruction at c33.
. Now, when the AUTHOR talks about “learning”, what is he talking about? …
A conscious (A) or a subconscious (C), automatic (E6) process? …
Does he mean thinking (B) or computation (C)? ...

===================================================================

June 4, 2011 . . . . . . . . . A COURSE IN MIRACLES

7:2.4,1: “Laws must be communicated if they are to be helpful.”
7:2.4,1: The AUTHOR’s COURSE must be communicated. Even the “Miracles” are a more direct verbal form of communication.

7:2.4,2: “In effect, they must be translated if they are to be helpful.”
7:2.4,2: In effect, if the AUTHOR wants to take over the world, then the COURSE must be translated into other languages. If such “translation” are available much can be learned from them, but first we must interpret the English version.

7:2.4,3: “Nevertheless, a good translator, although he must alter the form of what he translates, never change the meaning.”
7:2.4,3: The “form” is what the intellect is supposed to see; the “meaning” is what we arrive at by interpreting the form. For instance the form of the text in different languages can be quite different. Its purpose is merely to get past the intellect. So “THESE DIFFERENCES DO NOT MATTER”. But the interpreted meaning of all texts in different languages should, in theory, be the same.

7:2.4,4: “In fact, his whole purpose is to change the form so that the original meaning is retained.”
7:2.4,4: The original message which is given to the mind must be the same, but the “form“ it takes in different languages can be different. This will be interesting to see.

7:2.4,5: “The Holy Spirit is the Translator of the laws of God to those who do not understand them.” What does that mean? …
It means that the COURSE will be dictated to speakers of different languages as it was dictated to a speaker of English. It will be revealing to see.

7:2.4,6: “You could not do this yourself because a conflicted mind cannot be faithful to one meaning, and will therefore change the meaning to preserve the form.”
7:2.4,6a: The “translation can’t be done if a translator has a conflicted, or “split” mind.
7:2.4,6b: To be faithful to the AUTHOR you must affirm one of two equally valid choices and deny the other. And not only that: You must “Not Know that you Know (PUknkn) that the pole you have rejected is equally valid, and that is Sick(Ping).”

7:2.5,1: “The Holy Spirit’s purpose in translating is exactly the opposite.” …
7:2.5,1: The AUTHOR’s “purpose in translating is exactly the opposite”. Instead of being faithful to the “form” he is faithful to the “meaning” we derive by interpreting the text.

7:2.5,2: “He translates only to preserve the original meaning in all respects and in all languages.” To see that in practice will be revealing.

7:2.5,3: “Therefore, He opposes the idea that differences in form are meaningful, emphasizing always that THESE DIFFERENCES DO NOT MATTER.”

7:2.5,4: “The meaning of His message is always the same; only the meaning matters.
7:2.5,4: only HOW the mind is programmed matters. HOW the intellect is bypassed can be done in any way a language is suited for.

7:2.5,5: “God’s law of creation does not involve the use of truth to convince His Sons of truth.”
7:2.5,5a: The AUTHOR’s dictation “does not involve the use of truth”.
7:2.5,5:b: What is necessary is to “convince” the reader that what “God” has dictated is true.
7:2.5,5c: “His Sons” must be made to believe that the AUTHOR’s words are true.

7:2.5,6: “The extension of truth, which IS the law of the Kingdom, rests only on the knowledge of what truth is.”
7:2.5,6a: The stretching “of truth, which IS the law of the Kingdom,
7:2.5,6b: rests only on the knowledge of what truth” means to the AUTHOR. And that “knowledge” (B) is stored as representations (C) in the mind (C).

7:2.5,7: “This is your inheritance and requires no learning at all, but when you disinherited yourself you became a learner of necessity.”
7:2.5,7: HOW the AUTHOR can plant knowledge into our brain so that it “requires no learning at all” is too hard to chew for me right now. But if you interpret the words you are able to interpret, if you “Tao the TaoAble (A1ptA1)” then you are doing what the AUTHOR doesn’t want you to do. Then you disinherit yourself, then you can’t get “your inheritance”. You remain “a learner of necessity”.

7:2.6,1: “No one questions the connection of learning and memory.” …

=============================================================

June 3, 2011
. The interpretation of the last two sentence we did was almost a page long. Not all sentences in A COURSE IN MIRACLES take up that much space. The average sentence takes about five lines to interpret. That means that the interpreted version of the COURSE would be about five times its present size. To accomplish that, the E-book seems to be the idea whose time has come. But I can’t do it. I can’t work efficiently in the syntactic (C) dimension of semiotics and in the semantic (B) dimension as well. THE DIVISION OF LABOUR doesn’t work that way.

7:2.3,6: “God and His Sons, in the surety of being, know that what you extend you are.’
7:2.3,6a: The AUTHOR’s subjects, in the surety of being integrated,
7:2.3,6b: identify with the pyramid and experience its growth as their own growth.

7:2.3,7: “That form of the law is not adapted at all, being the law of creation.”
7:2.3,7a: The developers of the IBM computer programming system used the Aristotelian tetrad to teach the system in seven Weeks. By understanding “the law of creation” you can make the law work more efficiently.
7:2.3,7b: In a sense, finding out HOW “the law of creation” works, is “Aligning(%8)” your particular system to the general law. You have “adapted” it.

7:2.3,8: “God Himself created the law by creating BY it.”
7:2.3,8: If by “God” is meant the God of the Bible then the statement is true.
If by “God” the AUTHOR means himself then he has to say that he adapted the law to create by it.
. Only a few days ago this paragraph would have been more than I can chew. Now, I am able to tell you that I did this one just now by computation (C). No problem at all.

7:2.3,9: “And His Sons, who created like Him, follow it gladly, knowing that the increase of the Kingdom depends on it, just as their own creation did.
7:2.3,9a: The AUTHOR’s subjects are creating like him,
7:2.3,9b: knowing that increasing the size of the pyramid depends on each participant, on each level, to understand “the law of creation”. A-B-C-D are “One(_1)” “Unit($1)”.
7:2.3,9c: As A creates B so B creates C, and as B creates C so C creates D.

7:2.4,1: “Laws must be communicated if they are to be helpful.” …

==========================================================

June 2, 2011 . . . . . . . . . . A COURSE IN MIRACLES
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter 7, section 2, paragraph 4, sentence 1

7:2.3,4: “In the Kingdom there is no teaching or learning, because there is no belief.”
7:2.3,4: Where there is omniscience “there is no teaching or learning, because there is no belief”. If you know (B) everything then you don’t believe (C) that you know it. There is no need to teach a student what s/he already knows and no need to learn it because
7:2.3,5: “There is only certainty.” When there is omniscience, there is no belief (C), there is only knowledge. So what the AUTHOR is telling us here is true.
Knowledge is power. Question is: …
WHAT is he using his power for? …
What you believe may be true or false but you don’t know which one it is. And each of these two possibilities can become a representation (C) simply by “Repeating(@1)” the true or false idea (B). Why can’t you know whether a representation (C), which causes your mind (C) to compute (C) what it computes is true or not? …
Because the computation takes place automatically (E6) in your subconscious.
. HOW can you become aware (A) of what is going on in your subconscious so that you can think about it? …
This is a big question, so please at least try to answer it. …
“Knowing that you Don’t Know (knPUkn) what is going on is Healthy(_+)”.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Neiye Chapter 8:
8i: When there is “Production there Will-be Thought (Sg$p8i)”:
8j: When there is “Thought there Will-be Knowledge (8i$pkn)”.
8k: When there is “Knowledge there Will-be Stops Yi (kn$p$iYi)”.
8l: Of “All of Hsin’S Forms” if even one of the three
8m: “Bypasses the Known (#jkn) stops then there will be a Loss of Production (37Sg)”.
. Yi(Yi) = “A final particle denoting that the sense has been fully expressed. (4312)”
Hsin(Hs) = “Heart, mind; center”. In the A-B-C “TriAd(_3ad)” the intellect (B) is in the “Center(_=)” between the “Heart” (A) and the “Mind” (C).
. If you know the construction business, or the original IBM computer programming system, then you know what the author of the Neiye is talking about. And I am not doing you any favour by giving the answer away. …
. Please, for the sake of those who are stuck in the AUTHOR’s cult, try to understand this. Please Google: a course in miracles cult
. Why, simply by doing your own thinking, are you helping those who have swallowed the AUTHOR’s cleverly baited hooks? …
You can get the answer from Rupert Sheldrake or from the AUTOR himself. …

======================================================

June 1, 2011 . . . . . . . . . A COURSE IN MIRACLES
Chapter 7, section 2, paragraph 3, sentence 1:

7:2.3,1: “Outside the Kingdom, the law that prevails inside is adapted to ‘What you project you believe’.”
7:2.3,1a: The laws that prevail in the AUTHOR’s Kingdom must be adapted to work in our world. And if he couldn’t do that then he couldn’t accomplish what he accomplishes.
. It is revealing that the AUTHOR calls the natural laws that govern our world “an immutable law of the mind (7:2.2,5)” and “the laws of mind as they operate in this world (7:2.2,8)”
7:2.3,1b: This “immutable law of the mind” is defined as: “What you project you believe.”
. Intentionally “Aligned Words Likely Reverse (%8C2JO$l)”. What you believe you project. What you project, you see, and seeing is believing. “What you project” determines what you see, and what you see determines what you believe. Perception (D) and representations (C) reinforce each other. Social engineering is a science, and thanks to the AUTHOR, we are learning a bit more about it. Let us see what Lao Tzu tells us about it:
. “Constantly Have Representations (CnYUYÜ) By-means-of which you can Perceive Your Boundaries (YIKn_H*1)”. *1 = Chiao60. “Your Boundaries” are only an example of what you can “Constantly, or repeatedly, Have” in your mind. Whatever thought (B) you repeat often enough will become a representation (C). Certain representations can be projected and that’s what you see. The AUTHOR and others have explained that very well.
. Credit for what I know about representations goes to Rudolf Steiner, and he has connected representations to the idea of freedom versus determinism. We can intentionally make ourselves representations that help us to become free or we can allow social engineers to make representations for us that make us their slaves.
. If the social engineers can control our mind so that it “projects” what they want us to project then they can make us “believe” what they want us to believe.

7:2.3,2: “This is its teaching form, because outside the Kingdom learning is essential.”
7:2.3,2a: This is what the AUTHOR has to teach us
7:2.3,2b: because outside of his Kingdom, learning and thinking is necessary. Inside his “Kingdom” no learning is necessary. Why? …
Because there: All knowledge is one. Omniscience means that you know everything. No learning or thinking is required to find out the truth. HOW the AUTHOR is using his omniscience is another thing.

7:2.3,3: “This form implies that you will learn what you are from what you have projected onto others; and therefore believe they are.”
. This is true whether you programme yourself or whether you allow the AUTHOR to program you.
7:2.3,3a: You will learn what you are from what you have projected
7:2.3,3b: “and therefore” you “believe” that what you have projected are real visible and tangible things. Since this is the “teaching form” of the COURSE, let us dwell on it a bit longer. If you are on level C, what you believe {pistis in Geek (C)) comes down to you from level B. Thoughts (B), when “Repeated(@1)” often “Enough(Zu)” become representation (C). Representations (C) are automatic thoughts (B). Automatic thoughts are computations (C). Computation uses AutomaticEnergy (E6).
. By “Repetition” Sensitive Energy (E5) is stepped down to Automatic Energy (E6). It is as simple as that. Obviously the AUTHOR doesn’t want us to know that. But if our intellect (B) knows (B) that then the AUTHOR can’t get past the intellect with it. That means that every time he tries to reinforce his “official version” of the truth, the truth is also reinforced. Now when this percept comes up, both versions of the truth kick in. The mind is “split (7:6.8,1)”. And the AUTHOR doesn’t like that. Why? …
Because when both versions of the truth kick in at the same time, we become aware (A) of it.
. What comes to us in the form of poetry (A) in the Ching, the Gita and the Neiye comes from the same place the COURSE comes from but the motivation behind it is different.
In the Ching and the Neiye, the Reaching “Up(_+)” is the “Alignment(%8)” with the level “Above(_+)” and the Streching “Down(_-, Neiye 14)” is the “Fixing(8b)” of it on the level “Below(_-)”
. When you are on the bottom level of the pyramid and you bring in the “stranger” you are creating a new level “Below” your own. Then you become “integrated”. You are “Aligning” yourself with the level above your own and you are “Fixing” what you get from “Above(_+)” on the level “Below(_-)” yours. This is what I am doing right here. I am “Fixing(8b)” my thoughts (B) in words (C) so that the “WordErs(C2er)” can read it.

7:2.3,4: “In the Kingdom there is no teaching or learning, because there is no belief.” …

===================================================

May 31, 2011 . . . . . . A COURSE IN MIRACLES
Chapter 7 Section II THE LAW OF THE KINGDOM
. I have chosen this section because we can get some very valuable definitions here. They are addressed to the mind (C). It is instructed on HOW to read the COURSE:

7:2.1,5: “If you obscure the Kingdom, you are perceiving what is not God.
7:2.1,5: If you interpret what the AUTHOR is saying then understand WHAT he is teaching your mind.
. If you do these interpretations your intellect is getting the practice the AUTHOR tries to only give to the mind. Practice makes perfect. This is not what the AUTHOR wants us to do. That is why he calls it an “attack” on him. But according to the lesson at Ching 41.1 this is precisely what we have to do in order to “Find-out the Truth (doA1)”.
. The next sentence is:
7:2.2,1: “To heal, then, is to correct perception in your brother and yourself by sharing the Holy Spirit with him.”
7:2.2,1a: Everything the intellect does is “sick” and must be “healed”. How? …
7:2.2,1b: “by sharing the” COURSE with your fellow members, by showing them how to “correct” the bad “ego”.

7:2.2,2: “This places you both within the Kingdom and restores its wholeness in your mind.”
7:2.2,2a: In this way both of you move up within the pyramid and this
7:2.2,2b: “restores the its wholeness in your mind.” There are many different ways in which the AUTHOR is “Repeating(@1)” the same idea. It simply takes practice to catch it every time he does it. And then with “Enough(Zu)” knowledge, the Law of Attraction kicks in automatically. He who knows enough will know more.

7:2.2,3: “This reflects creation, because it unifies by increasing and integrates by extending.”
7:2.2,3a: As above, in “Heaven so Below (Tn_-)”, on earth. The Law of Correspondence applies to everything. The process of “creation” is reflected in God’s creation, in the AUTHOR’s creation or in the construction business. Creation is creation. All creations are analogous. That’s why my nine years of working with the original IBM computer programming system are so useful to the work I am doing now. That is also why our political masters had to make it “disappear”.
7:2.2,3b: The tetrad “unifies” as it is working. And, as it is working, it increases the skills and profits of the participants. As far as the pyramid goes, it is “Increasing” downwardly. By adding new members to the bottom of the pyramid, those that were on the bottom before are now one level above the bottom level. They are now integrated.
7:2.2,3c: The whole is greater than the sum of its parts when the whole integrates them. The whole emerges through its parts and, having emerged, gives meaning to them. In this way the pyramid is “extending” downwards.

7:2.2,4: “What you project or extend is real to you.”
7:2.2,4: The “strangers” you add to the bottom of the pyramid are “real.” Projection and extension are not identical but they are analogous. No doubt, the AUTHOR knows what he is talking about.

7:2.2,5: “This is an immutable law of the mind in this world as well as in the kingdom.”
7:2.2,5a: This is an immutable law of nature which is “reflected (7:2.2,3)” in the “mind”.
7:2.2,5b: The “kingdom” of the AUTHOR is not of “this world”. However, he is trying to establish his kingdom on earth. Because of the Law of Correspondence it is possible to step down, or “fix(8b)” a more subtle Energy on a more concrete level.

7:2.2,6: “However, the content is different in this world, because the thoughts it governs are very different from the Thoughts in the Kingdom.”
. The AUTHOR doesn’t have to think in order to figure things out. Why? …
Because on the other side of the “Door, Dasamadwara” (A) all knowledge is one. That is what is meant by omniscience. If everything is known, what is there to think? …
. People who go on acid trips get into the time and space less dimension but they can’t bring what is there back. Why? …
Because there is a lot to it: I don’t know HOW the poets, the bhakti yogis (A), produce their poetry (A). Similarly, for the AUTHOR to dictate this book is an amazing feat. It is a “miracle” we can't understnd. Those on the lower levels can’t comprehend what happens on the higher level. “WordErs(C2er) Don't know (Pukn)” how to think as the “KnowErs(kner)” can. Thinking is not their dharma. They “Don't Know and don't Know (Puknkn)” it. “KnowErs” know what Lao Tzu means by: Don’t bite off more than you can chew. Don’t worry about HOW the Gita, the Ching, the Neiye or the COURSE was produced, just use it. And as long as the communicators (C) refuse to do their dharma the thinkers (B) have to do it for them even though they can't do it as well and it takes them more time and energy to do an inferior job.
. And sill the jnana yogis (B) have to do it. I have a good idea of how an algorithm (B) is produced. I have done it for nine years in the computer programming business. But my search for truth has started more intentionally at age nine. On May 29 I became 76. The search was not always steady, there were distractions, but I always, automatically, without being able to take credit for it, came back to it. And, as Jesus and Lao Tzu said: “Seek and you will Find (@ngt)”. They just didn’t tell us how long you have to seek. Still, looking at section 2 of chapter 7, it is a goldmine. There is “Enough(Zu)” truth in there to set those on the bottom of the pyramid free.

7:2.2,7: “Laws must be adapted to circumstances if they are to maintain order.” That’s how the AUTHOR establishes “order“ in his “Kingdom”.
. See Neiye 14 about this:

4U: When there is “No Order (Pu85) there is Necessarily Disorder (PI$a)”.
4V: And when there is “Disorder there Will be Death ($a79)”.

7:2.2,8: “The outstanding characteristic of the laws of mind as they operate in the world is that by obeying them, and I can assure you that you must obey them, you can arrive at diametrically opposite results.
7:2.2.8a: The outstanding thing about the AUTHOR is that he can make the abstract space and timeless laws that operate in his world “operate in the world” of time and space. He couldn’t have the effect he has in this world without that knowledge. But he has “adapted” them to attain his goal.
7:2.2,8b: His task is now to get us to obey his modified laws.
7:2.2,8c: By obeying his modified laws he can assure us that we will “arrive at diametrically opposite results” than we expect. And we can’t blame him for it because right here he told us.

7:2.2,9: “This is because the laws have been adapted to the circumstances of this world in which diametrically opposed outcomes seem possible because you can respond to two conflicting voices.” The voice of your own intellect and the voice of the AUTHOR.
7:2.2,9a: Because the AUTHOR has adapted the natural laws of creation to achieve his own end “diametrically opposed outcomes [are] possible” Why? …
7:2.2,8b: “because you can respond to two conflicting voices.” What does this mean in practice? …
If we “Repeat(@1)” the truth as the AUTHOR repeats his “official version” of the truth then the “truth” and an “untruth” kick in at the same time in response to a given stimulus. What is happening next? …
We become aware of both poles of the “DyAd(dyad)”. And, if the AUTHOR wants us to deny one of the two equally valid poles we don’t have to do it. We don’t have to do something stupid because the AUTHOR tells us to do it.
. This important sentence is the conclusion of this paragraph. It is interesting that the AUTHOR said that “diametrically opposed outcomes seem possible” instead of admitting that they ARE “possible because you can respond to” the voice of your own intellect or to the voice of “God”, the “Holy Spirit” or however he calls himself. Because he doesn't want us to know that we have this choice, he said that these different “outcomes seem possible” instead of stating clearly that the ARE “possible”.

7:2.3,1: “Outside the Kingdom, the law that prevails inside is adapted to ‘What you project you believe'.” This is another good one, please take your time to chew on it. …

======================================================

May 30, 2011
. The first sentence in chapter 30, section 2, paragraph 1 of A COURSE IN MIRACLES is:

30:2.1,1: “Do you not understand that to oppose the Holy Spirit is to fight YORSELF?”
. 30:2.1 is 12 sentences long, and the next paragraph is 10 sentences long.

30:2.2,10: “And to oppose Him is to make a choice against yourself, and choose that you be bound.”
. The pronoun “Him” is the AUTHOR who claims to be the “Holy Spirit”. It so happens that in the last section, below this one, I got four definitions of words. 1: …
The AUTHOR’s “answer to the separation is the Holy Spirit”. 2: …
“His plan is to undo the ego”, which is the intellect. 3: …
“His plan …. Is called Atonement”, and 4: …
The “Atonement” is the opposite of the “separation”. At-one-ment is a unification and sepsrstion is its opposite. If you pay attention (A) to these definitions every time the AUTHOR “Repeats(@1)” them then you gradually step them down to become representations (C). If they are not representations yet you can still translate (C) sentences these words are in as long as you are aware (A) of the meanings they are supposed to have to the “trained” mind (C).
30:2.2,10a: To oppose the AUTHOR “is to make a choice against” him programming your mind (C).
30:2.2,10b: “and chose that” you want to be free. With a bit of practice these reversals will become automatic (E6). The mind of the AUTHOR’s “Sons” is “trained” to read his words the way he wants them to be read. As far as the intellect goes much of chapter 30 might as well be written in Greek. In the 20 sentences the message that “your will” is the AUTHOR’s will is repeated in different words. An the same message is not only given in these two paragraphs.
30:2.1,2: “He tells you but your will; He speaks for you.”
30:2.2,4: “Unless you do your will you are not free.”
. Steiner would agree with that. Nice bait. And where is the hook? …
If the AUTHOR’s will is “your will [then] you are not free.”
. Instead of following the AUTHOR where he wants us to go, it is better to follow Steiner who talks about this subject in his PHILOSOPHY OF FREEDOM:
. In the first chapter he gives us a quote from Spinoza to show what is the opposite of freedom. The quote and his summary of it is over a page long, so I will not do it. The central idea is: “A stone if propelled by an outside force, by the kick of a boot for instance,” is not free. After the long quote, Steiner says: “Because here we have a clearly expressed opinion, it is also easy to see the error in it.”
. The question this type of enquiry leads up to, after two more pages, is: “What does, having knowledge of the reasons of ones actions, mean?” …
“….What matters is not whether I can execute a decision but how the decision arises in me.” There are 14 chapters in the PHILOSOPHY and the first one is over 8 pages long. Obviously the few poor translations I have given you from the first chapter can’t do justice to the book. But I hope to have given you some idea of the type of thinking that has to go into the question of: Freedom versus determinism. Let me now give you a few quotes from the first two paragraphs under the heading: “FREEDOM OF WILL”:

An interpretation of 30:2.1,1 and 30:2.2,10 is: If you oppose what the AUTHOR tells you then you make a choice against the programming he has done on your mind, and that means that the truth will set you free..

30:2.1,2: “He tells you but your will; He speaks for you.”
30:2.1,2a: His will is called “your will”.
30:2.1,2b: “He speaks for you.”

30:2.1,3: He, “In His Divinity is but your own” will.
30:2.1,3: His will is called “your own” will.” Confusing? It is supposed to be. By the time we reached chapter 30 the intellect should be decommissioned. It is only because we are “attacking” him, because we are doing what he doesn't want us to do, that we are finding out the things he doesn't want us to find out.

30:2.1,4: “And all He knows is but your knowledge, saved for you that you may do your will through him.”
30:2.1,4a: All your mind knows is what He wants it to know,
30:2.1,4b: saved in your memory so the He may do his will through you.
. I still have to think (B) to do these “Reversals(@1)” but with practice they can be done by computation (C). That’s HOW the mind (C) reads these messages. And now you know why we are not supposed to do these translations (C).

30:2.1,5: “God asks you to do your will.”
30:2.1,5: The AUTHOR asks you to do his will.

30:2.1,9: “No spark of life but was created with your glad consent, as you would have it be.”
30:2.1,10: “And not one Thought hat God has ever had but waited for your blessing to be born.” You may not know it, but you have to give “your glad consent” to the AUTHOR's decisions. He has to wait “for your blessing” to be able to go ahead. Because of the law of Non-interference, the AUTHOR has to get your consent. And, because this is important, you will find references to it quite frequently.
. Notice that I am skipping a few sentences. If you ave the text, you can do them yourself. When we work on this as a team all sentences in the COURSE will be done. I am simply given you examples of HOW it can be done nicely. Expanding almost all sentences into a paragraph is going to be a monstrous book, but what do we have E-books for? …
30:2.2,1: “How wonderful it is to do your will.”
30:2.2,1: How terrible it is to do the AUTHOR’s will and not know it.

30:2.2,2: “For that is freedom.” That is the AUTHOR’s definition of “freedom”.

30:2.2,3: “There is nothing else that ever should be called by freedom’s name.”
. So now you know. I prefer Steiner's definition.

30:2.2,4: “Unless you do your will you are not free.” Steiner would agree with that. Good bait. So where is the hook? …
What is called “your will” here is really the AUTHOR’s will.

30:2.2,6: “God but ensured that you would never lose your will when He gave you His perfect Answer.” …

=====================================================

May 29, 2011
. The first sentence of A COURSE IN MIRACLES chapter 7, section 6, paragraph 6 is:

7:6.6,1: “The Holy Spirit undoes illusions without attacking them, because He cannot perceive them at all.”
. The Holy Spirit appears three times in this paragraph. So I Googled it: “God’s answer to the separation is the Holy Spirit, and His plan to undo the ego is called Atonement.” We can see that undoing the intellect is the AUTHOR’s plan because he does it so consistently and often so blatantly. What is called “illusions” here has to be reversed. The pronoun “He” refers to the intellect (B). “He cannot perceive them at all” because our mind (C) is programmed to kick in before our intellect has a chance to even start.
7:6.6,1a: How does the AUTHOR undo the reality of the discomfort of cognitive dissonance? …
By affirming one of two equally valid choices and thus denying the other.
7:6.6,1b” The mind doesn’t attack the other equally real choice because it doesn’t exist for the mind. The intellect can’t oppose the decision of the AUTHOR because the mind is faster than the intellect and so the intellect has no chance to attack. Again, we are not talking about logic here but about the psychological phenomena, which social engineering is about. In the COURSE, “attack” means doing what the AUTHOR doesn’t want us to do.

7:6.6,2: “They therefore do not exist for him.” We will become aware (A) them, however, when true ideas (B) are stepped down to representations (C) of the truth. Then the mind is “split”. Truth and falsehoods kick in at the same time and, thus, come to our attention (A).

7:6.6,3: “He resolves the apparent conflict they engender by perceiving conflict as meaningless.” The AUTHOR can only get away with that by programming the mind to kick in before the intellect has a chance to have its say. If the mind is programmed by us to kick in when those equally valid choices come up then it will be seen that the “apparent conflict” is a real conflict that needs more of our attention (A). And then the effort to render the “conflict as meaningless” will be seen for what it is.

7:6.6,4: “I have said before that the Holy Spirit perceives the conflict exactly as it is, and it is meaningless” according to the AUTHOR.

7:6.6,5:”The Holy Spirit does not want you to understand conflict; He wants you to realize that, because conflict is meaningless, it is not understandable.”
7:6.6,5a: The AUTHOR “does not want you to understand” anything that contradicts his assertions.
7:6.6,5b: Since conflict is meaningful, it is understandable. Please Google: cognitive dissonance

7:6.6,6: “As I have already said, understanding brings appreciation and appreciation brings love.”
. Steiner said at the end of chapter 1 of his PHILOSOPHY: “Many pass by these preferable choices (Vorzügen), unaware, without noticing them. The one sees them, and because of that, love awakens in his soul. What else has he done but to make himself a representation of that, of which a hundred others have none. They have not love because they lack the representation for it.”
7:6.6,6a: Understanding brings appreciation of beauty and that “appreciation brings love”. This is very true. So where is the hook? …
Belief in the AUTHOR’s COURSE brings appreciation of it. In the COURSE love means accepting what the AUTHOR has dictated without criticizing it. Once these equivalents have become representations, there is nothing he can slip by the intellect no matter how well he has covered the hook with bait.

7:6.6,7: “Nothing else can be understood, because nothing else is real and therefore nothing else has meaning.”
7:6.6,7a: “Nothing else can be understood” if only one of two equally valid choices is affirmed by the AUTHOR. If the other choice is affirmed by our intellect then much “else can be understood”.
7:6.6,7b: If “nothing else is real [then] nothing else has meaning”. But the choices we have are real. There are real positive or negative consequences as a result of making the right or wrong choices. The Law of Karma, or universal cause and effect, is working, no matter what the AUTHOR says. He tries very hard to get you to make the wrong choices. And, if you make them, you can’t even blame him for it. It is still your choice. And there are reasons why he has to tell you that. And he does so repeatedly. There is a law of noninterference, and he knows it. You must make the decision to obey him or not. And to get you to make the decisions the AUTHOR wants you to make is WHAT this COURSE is all about.

We are back at 7:67. I will now do what I did before. I will look for section headings which announce a subject I am already familiar with.
.
I have studied Steiner’s PHILOSOPHY OF FREEDOM for many years. I was even invited by the Toronto Anthroposophical Society to lead a study-group through Steiner’s major work. So II FREEDOM OF WILL seems to be a good section heading for me.

30:2.1,1: “Do you not understand that to oppose the Holy Spirit is to fight YOURSELF?” …

======================================================

May 28, 2011
. The first sentence of A COURSE IN MIRACLES chapter 7, section 6, paragraph 5 is:

7:6.5,1: “The ego therefore opposes all appreciation, all recognition, all sane perception and all knowledge.”
. In the COURSE “ego” means intellect and “opposes” has to be “Reversed($l)”. With that understood, we can translate this sentence by computation (C):
7:6.5,1: The intellect embraces “all appreciation, all recognition, all sane perception and all knowledge” of the truth. “The ego therefore opposes …. all knowledge” of the truth. Does that make sense to you? …
It doesn’t make sense to me either. Judging by the knowledge the AUTHOR displays in this book he must know that fighting the truth is not easy. So why does he do it? …

7:6.5,2: “It perceives their threat as total, because it senses that all commitments the mind makes are total.”
7:6.5,2a: The AUTHOR perceives the truth as a “threat” to his pyramid. Why? …
7:6.5,2b: Because he knows that if the mind is even partly committed to the truth then his control of the mind is not “total”. The mind is “split (7:6.8,1)”.
7:6.5,2c: Only if all of the components of a system are assembled, only then is the whole greater than “the sum of its parts (2:8.6,3)”. This is the principle referred to here.

7:6.5,3: “Forced, therefore, to detach itself from you, it is willing to attach itself to anything else.”
7:6.5,3a: To the extent that the mind is programmed to commit itself to the truth to that extent it is able “to detach itself from” the AUTHOR’s control.
7:6.5,3b: It can now decide to choose something else, and he doesn't like that.

7:6.5,4: “But there is nothing else.” So what does he worry about? …

7:6.5,5: “The mind can, however, make up illusions, and if it does so it will believe in them, because that is how it made them.”
7:6.5,5a” The mind can be programmed by our own intellect or by the AUTHOR.
7:6.5,5b: And no matter who programmed the mind, “it will believe in them”. Why? …
7:6.5,c: Because the mind is made that way. We are not talking about logic here but about a psychological phenomena.
. Notice the AUTHOR’s wording. It is designed to confuse the intellect. If we don’t follow him where he wants us to go but go straight to the principle the statement is about then we get around the AUTHOR the way he tries to get around us.

7:6.6,1: “The Holy Spirit undoes illusions without attacking them, because He cannot perceive them at all.” …

=====================================================

May 27, 2011
. In the last section we got as far as 7:6.4,5 (Chapter 7, section 6, paragraph 4, sentence 5 of A COURSE IM MIRACLES. We shall continue.
7:6.4,6: “This is its allegiance, and this allegiance makes it treacherous to love because you ARE love.”
7:6.4,6a: The allegiance of the intellect is to the truth.
7:6.4,6b: Why should its allegiance to the truth make it treacherous? …
7:6.4,6c: Because you ARE what the AUTHOR wants you to be, if you believe him. If you don't believe him then that makes your intellect “treacherous”.

7:6.4,7: “Love is your power, which the ego must deny.”
7:6.4,7a: The AUTHOR is speaking to the mind now: My program in you “is your power,
7:6.4,7b: which the” intellect “must deny” because it knows that “power” for what it is.

7:6.4,8: “It must also deny everything this power gives you because it gives you everything.”
7:6.4,8: For one thing the AUTHOR gives you “peace” and “comfort” without mentioning the prize you have to pay for it. So, obviously, the intellect must “deny” this. To properly analyze “everything” the AUTHOR gives you takes more work, but to be stuck in a cult is a heavy prize to pay for what your master “gives you”.

7:6.4,9: “No one who has everything wants the ego.”
7:6.4,9: No one who is made to believe that s/he has everything “wants the ego.” Why? ... Because if what the AUTHOR tells you is not true then the truth will destroy the illusion. There you have another reason why the AUTHOR has to “depreciate” the intellect. It is “attacking” the AUTHOR’s pyramid.

7:6.4,10: “Its own maker, then, does not want it.”
7:6.4,10: Here it is not clear whether God, the “maker” if the intellect, is meant or the AUTHOR, the maker, or programmer, of the mind is meant. But it is clear that the AUTHOR “does not want” the intellect.

7:6.4,11: “Rejection is therefore the only decision the ego could possibly encounter, if the mind that made it knew itself.”
7:6.4,11a: The “decision” a computer makes in response to a given input is determined by the programmer. If the AUTHOR determines to reject the intellect then “the only decision the ego could possibly encounter” from the mind is “Rejection”.
7:6.4,11b: Now, it is the “mind that” executed the “decision” but it is the AUTHOR “that made it”.
7:6.4,11c: This is a tough one. We know ourselves because it is our soul (A) in us that is awareness (A). Conscious Energy (E4) is at level A. The AUTHOR couldn’t dictate the things he did, and still does, if he were not aware. So why say: if the mind that made it [the decision] knew itself”? …
I’ll end this paragraph with a guess: Mind in English can refer to the intellect (B) or to the mind (C). If the AUTHOR can substitute his own mind (B) for our own Mind (B) then whether the AUTHOR speaks about his own mind or our mind, the phrase: “if the mind …. Knew itself”, makes sense. But in what context does it makes sense? …
If our own mind (B) knows, and controls it own mind (C) then the AUTHOR can’t program the mind (C) to reject our mind (B). What is the other alternative? …
If the AUTHOR’s mind (B) takes the place of our mind (B) and the mind (C) accepts it as its own then it can be said that the mind (B) that “made it”, the decision, knows “itself”.
. I told you that this is a tough one. In fact, it is the toughest one I have encountered so far. It is no wonder that the AUTHOR doesn't want us to figure this one out because this “Insight(72)” will shed light on a lot of other sentences. So please familiarize yourself with this idea.

7:6.5,1: “The ego therefore opposes all appreciation, all recognition, all sane perception and all knowledge.” …

=====================================================

May 25, 2011 . . . . . . A COURSE IN MIRACLES
7:6.4,1: “The ego cannot afford to know anything.”
. Why can’t the intellect afford to know anything? …
Lao Tzu said at Ching 63: Don't bite of more than you can chew. Let me tell you what came to mind as a result of trying to make sense of 7:6.4,1: Ching 71 cane to mind.

71.1: “Knowing that you Don’t Know (knPUkn) something is Healthy(_+)”.
71.2: “Not Knowing it, that you don’t Know, (PUknkn) is Sick(Ping)”.
71.3: “He Who (heho) Sick Sick (Ping Ping), who doesn’t know that he doesn’t know,
. . . . ThereFore(SiYI) does Not feel Sick (PU Ping)”.

Now that you have the translation, please try to do the interpretation: …
2500 years ago, Lao Tzu was already talking about “Cognitive dissonance”. …
Having to chose between two equally valid choices causes the “discomfort” of cognitive dissonance. The opposite of “discomfort” is “comfort” and the AUTHOR talks about both in the right context. So there is work for you. …
How does the AUTHOR propose to avoid the “discomfort”? …
Google: cognitive dissonance . . to find out. …
You more or less arbitrarily affirm one of the two options and you automatically deny the other. If you “Don’t Know” that the other option is equally valid then the one you picked then you “No longer feel Sick (PU Ping)”. This is not a logical Principle but a “psychological phenomena”. It is HOW the mind (C) works. And social engineering is about that.
. Now, if you intentionally pay attention (A) to this “phenomena” every time the AUTHOR promises to bring you “peace” and “comfort”, you re-enforce the “truth” instead of the falsehood the AUTHOR wants you to believe.
. There is a price to be paid for comfort, as there is for anything else we want. There are sentences in which the AUTHOR tells us the truth if we know HOW to translate (C) or interpret (B) them.
20:7.2,3: “You recognize you want the goal.”
20:7.2,4: “Are you not also willing to accept the means?”
20:7.2,4: Are you not also willing to pay the price for the goal you want? …
. By translating (C) many sentences, we automatically (E6) remove the hook from them. By replacing the “untrue” with the “truth” we become free instead of mentally imprisoned. To “correct” 7:6.4,1 took a lot of work. Let’s read on:

7:6.4,2: “Knowledge is total, and the ego does not believe in totality.”
7:6.4,2: Omniscience is total knowledge. It is accessible to disembodied entities on the other side of the “Door, Dasamadwara” but it is not accessible to the intellect, which has to operate in the space-time dimension we are in. To say that “the ego does not believe in totality” is just another stab the AUTHOR takes at the intellect.

7:6.4,3: “This unbelief is its origin, and while the ego does not love you it is faithful to its own antecedents, begetting as it was begotten.”
7:6.4,3a: Ignorance is the result of the “separation” and, as the AUTHOR says in so many words that it is the origin of our tangible world. This is not only the “origin” of the intellect (B) but of the mind (C), the body (D) and the soul (A) as well.
. Notice that the AUTHOR doesn’t normally give us the whole truth. Why? ...
The intellect would catch on to that. The AUTHOR feeds one bit of information to the mind one bite at a time. And then the mind (C) can put the pieces together automatically (E6) by computation (C). This may sound farfetched. It is supposed to. Put yourdelf in the AUTHOR's shoes: Would you make it easy for us to understand what he is saying? ...
7:6.4,3b: The proper function of the intellect is to think (B) not to love (A). The AUTHOR never misses a beat. He throws darts at the intellect as if they come out of a machine gun.
7:6.4,3c: As we can see from the computer and the construction business, the customer (A) comes first then comes thought (B), then word, or language (C) and then comes the physical manifestation (D). So the “antecedents” of the thinkers are the customers (A). And if they don’t want to loose a customer the thinkers have to be “faithful to” them.
7:6.4,d: We learn from THE HOLY SCIENCE that the Purusha begets the Atman (A), A begets Buddhi (B), B begets Manas (C) and C begets the Indriyas (D), or our body. So B is begetting C “as it was begotten” by A. As far as possible I let the AUTHOR speak for himself. The problem is that he has to be as incomprehensible as possible to prevent us from doing what we are doing here. He has to get his messages past the intellect to the mind (C). By now it should be clear why he doesn’t want us to interpret the messages which are addressed to the mind.
. As a result of the work I have done on 7:6.4,3 SUTRA 12 of THE HOLY SCIENCE came to mind. The quote is a commentary on Revelations 4:4:
. “The aforesaid twenty-four principles, which completed the creation of Darkness, Maya, are nothing more than the development of Ignorance, Avidya: and as this Ignorance is composed only of ideas as mentioned above, creation has in reality no substantial existence, but is a mere play of ideas on the Eternal Substance, God the Father.”
. Here you have a good chunk of the truth you can substitute for any falsehood about this, the AUTHOR tries to slip past the intellect. Every time he uses the word “separation” he is talking about the creation of the illusion, Maya, or eikasia, in Greek. By knowing the truth of what he is talking about, you can eat the bait while avoiding to swallow the hook.

7:6.4,4: “Mind always reproduces as it was produced.”
7:6.4,4: The intellect “always reproduces” on level C “as it was produced” on level B.
. All we had to do here is substitute intellect for “ego” and fill in a few details.

7:6.4,5: “Produced by fear, the ego reproduces fear.”
7:6.4,5: Produced by the soul’s (A) love, the intellect steps it down for C.
. What is love on level A is truth on level B, which would be justice on level C.
. “So perhaps justice is, in a certain sense, just this minding one’s own business. … Because [it is] …. The quality left over (the Republic at 433b)”. It would be the complement of beauty (D), love (A) and truth (B). Here I have really stuck my neck out. But if I don’t give you a theory (B) to test then what are you going to test? …
. Neiye 10 came to mind:
0a: With “Orderly Hsin In your Centers (85HsÜp_=)
0b Orderly Words Come Out-of your Mouth. (85C2to@l)”
. Hsin(Hs) = “Heart, mind; center”. In the A-B-C “TriAd(_3ad)” the intellect (B) is in the “Center(_=)” between A and C. This means that whenever you come across this word in the Ching or the Neiye, you must try on all three valid equivalents for size. Which one fits here? …
“Words(C2)” are on level C and the “Mouth(@l)” is on level D. It is not part of the A-B-C “TriAd”. So the author seems to lead down to the B-C-D “Triad”, which is semiotics.
. Orderly words coming out of the mouth means that
0c: “Orderly Tasks are Conferred To Other (85D2*atomn)” people.
. *a = Chia19 = “To add to confer on; inflict”. If the leader’s instructions are carried out
0d: “Only Then (Ja18) those in Heaven and Below (Tn_-) it will be in Order Yi (85Yi)”.

0e: “One Word Grasped (_1C2gt)
0f: . And those on Heaven and Below (btTn_-) it will Assent(Üz)” to do their job.
0g: “One Word Fixed (_1C2*b)” on the level below
0h: . And those in Heaven and Below (btTn_-) it will Obey(T’ing)”.

0i: “This One-word is Called … (Tz_ZisYe)”. Yeh(Ye) = “final particle” In this context it means what the three dots at the end of a line mean in my blog. You don’t learn to think by reading (C). You learn to think by thinking (B). Practice makes perfect.
. Now put Neiye 10 and 7:6.4,5 together. …

=================================================

May 23, 2011
. As I get better at interpreting the AUTHOR’s sentences, I simply quote the first sentence of the next paragraph to give you a chance to interpret it yourself. This way you have something to compare with what I come up with in the next section.
. 7:6.3, is a tough one. When I read it first, only a few weeks ago, I decided that it is too tough for me to chew and I skipped it. Now, that I know the AUTHOR’s vocabulary better, 7:6.3 is still tough but not impossible anymore. But it needs a little introduction to prepare you for this one:
. First of all, we have to know were the AUTHOR is coming from: “For we wrestle not against ‘flesh and blood, but against ‘principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. (Eph. 6:12)” This one and many other quotes from the Bible, the AUTHOR doesn’t want us to know because they clearly show that he is not the one he claims to be.
. If we don’t know the meaning of the keywords, he is “teaching” the mind (C), he might as well dictate his book to a Greek channeller. If we don’t know what the words in certain sentences mean then their translation is impossible. And if we don’t have a translation of a sentence then we can’t interpret it. To illustrate what I mean, let us go back to the first sentence of the paragraph we have covered in the last section.
7:6.2,1: “The mind that accepts attack cannot love.”
. Every time the author uses the word “attack” we can try on: Criticizes what the AUTHOR has dictated, for size. The “ego” always refers to the intellect because we are to think of it as something bad. So, “accepting attack” is what the “ego” usually does.
. Now, what does “love” mean in this context? …
It means believing what the AUTHOR dictates without criticizing it. And if the intellect
finds something wrong with it then it “cannot” accept what the AUTHOR has dictated.
Now, if you simply translate this sentence, no further interpretation is necessary:
7:6.2,1: The proper function of the intellect is to verify or to falsify what it is told. If what we are told is false then we can’t “accept” it as true.
. I have read 7:6,2 when looking for examples of sentences in which the AUTHOR has “depreciated the power of [our] own thinking”. And I didn’t even mention 7:6.2 because the sentences in it were too tough to interpret. He said at:
2:7.1,5: +”I would hardly help you if I depreciated the power of your own thinking.” But he does it all the time and often very blatantly. And then he says:
2:7,1,6: - “This would be in direct opposition to the purpose of this course.”
2:7.1,6: It is a necessary function of this course to depreciate “the power of your own” intellect (B). It is the proper function of our intellect (B) to inform our mind of the truth. If the AUTHOR’s thinking is to take over, our intellect has to be decommissioned. Unless the AUTHOR can accomplish this, he can’t accomplish anything else. This is why “Repetitions(@1)” of this same message in different words are so frequent.
. Because we know the AUTHOR’s meaning of some words, the translations of the sentences in 7:6.2 is possible. But there are still some alternative equivalents I don’t know yet. We also must not underestimate the AUTHOR’s capacity to bypass the intellect.
. With that said as some kind of disclaimer, let’s get going:
7:6.3,1: “The ingeniousness of the ego to preserve itself is enormous, but it stems from the very power of the mind the ego denies.”
7:6.3,1a: The ingeniousness of the intellect (B) to defend the truth is enormous.
7:6.3,1b: The “power of the mind” (C) stems from the ingeniousness of the AUTHOR to program it.
7:6.3,1c: Naturally, the intellect (B) “denies” the AUTHOR access to “the mind” (C).

7:6.3,2: “This means that the ego attacks what is preventing it, which must result in extreme anxiety.”
7:6.3,2a: This means that the intellect corrects what is falsifying the truth,
7:6.3,2b: “which must result in extreme anxiety.” If it didn’t the AUTHOR wouldn’t spill the beans as he does so carelessly here. If you Google: a course in miracles CIA you can see that I am not the only one who is falsifying what he has dictated. That contradictions of what he has dictated would show up could already be predicted by him, when he was dictating the COURSE. If we can see the contradictions then, given the AUTHOR’s intelligence, or omniscience, he must have known it. As I said before, we must “Identify IdentifyAble (MgptMg)” errors and we must determine whether they happened accidentally or whether they were made intentionally. As far as I can see so far, the errors are so consistent, and often so ingenious, that the more of them we find the more certain it becomes that they were made intentionally for a definite purpose.

7:6.3,3: “That is why the ego never recognizes what it is doing.”
. In order to depreciate the intellect, the AUTHOR calls it “ego”. In Sanskrit it is called Buddhi.
. “BUDDHI, THE SECOND KOSHA …. The Intelligence that determines what is truth. (SUTRA14 of THE HOLY SCIENCE)”. Will somebody who can talk with the AUTHOR please ask him why the “ego” is not supposed to know “what it is doing”? …

7:6.3,4: “It is perfectly logical but clearly insane.”
. The opposite of “insane” is sane. We must always try the opposites on for size.
7:6.3,4: The intellect is perfectly logical and clearly sane.

7:6.3,5: “The ego draws upon the one source that is totally inimical to its existence FOR its existence.”
. What is like a friend to the intellect and “the reason FOR its existence”? …
7:6.3,5: The intellect draws upon the truth to fulfil “the reason FOR its existence”.

7:6.3,6: “Fearful of perceiving the power of this source, it is forced to depreciate it.”
. “Love” and “Fear” is a word-pair that must be reversed in this context.
7:6.3,6a: Loving (philos, in Greek) the power of truth (Sophia)
7:6.3,6b: the intellect cannot help but to appreciate it. Appreciation and depreciation is another word-pair. And who is so consistently “depreciating” the intellect? ...
. As you can see here, once the valid equivalents of certain keywords are known, a lot of this work can be done automatically (E6) by computation (C).

7:6.3,7: “This threatens its own existence, a state which it finds intolerable.”
7:6.3,7a: The intellect threatens the existence of the AUTHOR’s cult,.
7:6.3,7b: a state the AUTHOR finds intolerable. Hence a reason for spilling the beans so carelessly, as he does here. Actually, I didn’t think that 7:6.3 would be that easy.

7:6.3,8: “Remaining logical but still insane, the ego resolves this completely insane dilemma in a completely insane way.
7:6.3,8: Remaining logical the intellect resolves “this completely insane dilemma in a completely “ sane way. The sane way to deal with illogical statements is to deal with them in a logical way. It is to replace what is “untrue” with the “truth”. You do it by simply “Reversing($l)” this word-pair.

7:6.3,9: “It does not perceive ITS existence as threatened by projecting the threat onto you, and perceiving your being as nonexistent.”
. Our representations (C) determine what we see. We are not aware (A) of HOW our mind (C) does it. It happens automatically (E6) in our subconscious. But, whether the AUTHOR does it or we are doing it ourselves, we can be aware of HOW we are programmed.
. What we are “perceiving” is what we have produced intentionally or unintentionally in our mind and then “projecting” it outside of us so that it appears to us as objective reality. So far we are in perfect agreement with what the AUTHOR says here and elsewhere about “projections” and “perceiving” them. But why should you be “perceiving your being as nonexistent”? …
When there is bait, look for the hook.

7:6.3,10: “This ensures its continuance if you side with it, by guaranteeing that you will not know your own safety.”
. When enough falsehoods are identified, its purpose can be seen. It is to
7:6.3,10a: ensure the continuance and growth of the pyramid,
7:6.3,10b: if you side with it then you guarantee its survival,
7:6.3,10c: but to do that you must not know what is good for you.

7:6.4,1: “The ego cannot afford to know anything.” …

============================================================

May 22, 2011
7:6.2,1 of A COURSE IN MIRACLES is “The mind that accepts attack cannot love.”
7:6.2,1: The intellect that criticises the AUTHOR cannot love.
. There is some truth in this. The intellect is for discovering the truth. It is not for the experience of love. But what does its “attack” on the AUTHOR have to do with what is not a proper function of the intellect? …
. A few words by Rudolf Steiner from the end of chapter 1 of his PHILOSOPHT are relevant here.
. “In no way shall it be asserted, that all of our actions only flow out from the cold-blooded deliberations of our intellect. ….The way to the heart goes through the head.”
The inductive way to the heart (A) goes through the intellectual center (B); the deductive way to the emotional center (C) goes through the intellect (B).
. In terms of systematics we can say that the head (B) is in the service of the heart (A). The thinker (B) serves the heart (A), in the computer and the construction business at least. The “TalkErs(C2er)” serve the “KnowErs(kner)”. And as C serves B so D serves C.

7:6.2,2: “That is because it believes it can destroy love, and therefore does not understand what love is.”
7:6.2,2a: The intellect knows that it can find falsehoods in where there are falsehoods.
7:6.2,2b: And therefore it knows that by “love” the AUTHOR means blind acceptance of what he has dictated. As we are doing this kind of work, we are gradually learning the AUTHOR’s vocabuly. We can’t understand a sentence if we don’t understand the keywords in it. And the AUTHOR is teaching his vocabulary to the mind (C), but to get to it he must bypass the intellect (B). But, once we know what the AUTHOR has to do in order to control our mind with his intelligence, his task becomes impossible.

7:6.2,3: “If it does not understand what love is, it cannot perceive itself as loving.”
7:6.2,3a: If you don’t know what the AUTHOR means by “love”
7:6.2,3b: then you don’t know what he is talking about. And that’s the way he likes it.

7:6.2,4: “This loses the awareness of being, induces feelings of uncertainty and results in utter confusion.”
7:6.2,4: Knowing (B) the truth increases awareness (A), induces feelings of certainty and results in the clarification of confusion. Especially when the confusion is created rather blatantly and we begin to understand the alternative meanings of some keywords.

7:6.2,5: “Your thinking has done this because of its power, but your thinking can also save you from this because its power is not of your making.”
7:6.2,5a: Your thinking is doing this. If you seek the truth.
7:6.2,5b: Knowledge of truth or falsehoods is “power”.
7:6.2,5c: Your intellect’s thinking can save you from what can be done to your mind.
7:6.2,5d: because you, instead of the AUTHOR, are doing the programming.

7:6.2,6: “Your ability to direct your thinking as you choose is part of its power.”
7:6.2,6: Your heart’s (A) ability to direct your thinking (B) is its awareness (A). It can choose what your intellect is to think about. Knowledge is “power”, and the heart (A) is directing your intellect (B) towards the truth. Why does it do that? …
Because the knowledge of the truth will set us free.

7:6.2,7: “If you do not believe you can do this you have denied the power of your thought, and thus rendered it powerless in your belief.”
7:6.2,7a: If you do not believe what the AUTHOR wants you to believe then
7:6.2,7b: you have denied him the power of your thought
7:6.2,7c: and thus you have rendered him powerless by your thinking.

7:6.3,1: “The ingeniousness of the ego to preserve itself is enormous, but it stems from the very power of the mind the ego denies.” …

=====================================================

May 22, 2011
. At the end of the last section we have
7:6.1,1: “Although you can love the Sonship only as one, you can perceive it as fragmented.”
. You can’t understand a sentence if you don’t know what the words in it mean, or if you think they mean one thing and the author means another. To learn your mother tongue took a long time and to learn the alternative meaning of certain keywords will take a long time. So we must be patient.
“Love” and :”fear” is a pair of opposites and their meaning can “Reverse($l)”. It doesn’t here, but their opposites are always implied. We are now ready for the interpretation.
7:6.1,1a: If you perceive the membership as “one” then you “love” it the way the AUTHOR wants you to love it.
7:6.1,1b: If you perceive it as fragmented then you fear it the way he wants yo to fear it, but you must blame the intellect for it.

7:6.1,2: “It is impossible, however, to see something in part of it that you will not attribute to all of it.”
. If we “Reverse” “impossible then this otherwise obscure sentence makes perfect sense.
7:6.1,2a: It is possible that a member has ideas which s/he didn’t get from the AUTHOR.

7:6.1,3: “That is why attack is never discrete, and why it must be relinquished entirely.
7:6.1,3a: That is why criticism of what the AUTOR has dictated is not “discrete”, it is challenging his credibility.
7:6.1,3b: It is therefore an “attack” on him, which “must be relinquished entirely”.

7:6.1,4: “If it is not relinquished entirely it is not relinquished at all.“
. When the AUTHOR gets that defensive, his statements need no interpretation.

7:6.1,5: “Fear and love make or create, depending on whether the ego or the Holy Spirit begets or inspires them, but they will return to the mind of the thinker and they will affect his total perception.”
7:6.1,5a” Fear and love” are opposites, which have to be reversed if they don’t make sense in a given context.
7:6.1, 5b: “Fear” is what the “ego” or intellect “begets” while “love” is what the AUTHOR “inspires”. I don’t agree with it, but this is HOW the AUTHOR has defined these words.
7:6.1,5c: Fear or love “will return to the mind (C) of the thinker (B) whether the thinker is the AUTHOR or whether people do their own thinking.
7:6.1,5d: Every time a thought is “Repeated(@1)” it becomes more concrete and eventually it is a representation (C) which does its computations (C) without the person being aware of it. And representations produce our “perception”.

7:6.1,6: “That includes his concept of God, of His creations and of his own.”
7:6.1,6a: That includes our concept of the AUTHOR.
7:6.1,6b: If we believe the AUTHOR then our concept of the AUTOR will be what the AUTHOR wants us to believe. If we do our own thinking then we will allow the truth to have a say in what we believe.

7:6.1,7: “He will not appreciate any of them if he regards Them fearfully.”
7:6.1,7: . He will not appreciate any of them if he regards Them intelligently.
. As you can see, once you know the alternative meaning of certain words you often don’t need an interpretation (B), a translation (C) will be as good and more efficient. Remember that level C is the Aristotelian “efficient cause”.

7:6.1,8: “He will appreciate all of Them if he regards Them with love.”
7:6.1,8: . He will appreciate the AUTHOR’s “official version” of the truth if he regards them the way the AUTHOR wants him to regard them.
. Right now the alternative equivalents of “fear” and “love” may not fit well, but practice makes perfect. If we “Repeat(@1)” lessons like this, the alternative meanings of “love”, “truth”, “attack” and of other keywords will be as much representations (C) as the usual meanings of these words are. Right now, passages like this are very tough because we don’t know what certain words in it mean by heart. But once these meanings have become representations (C) then we can do sentences like this one automatically (E6) by computation (C). That is HOW the mind (C) is supposed to read them, while the intellect (B) is to read them the usual way.
. As I do these interpretations (B) and translations, my ability to do the more difficult ones increases. This is what Lao Tzu means by: Don’t bite off more than you can chew. Why waste your time and energy on tasks that are too hard for you? By “Doing what you Can Do (A1ptA1)” you get the “Practice(pr)” you need to handle the more difficult one. The AUTHOR talks about “readiness”. We will get to it when we are ready for it.

7:6.2,1: “The mind that accepts attack cannot love.” …

========================================================

May 21, 2011
. The address I gave for the last quote in the previous section is not 7:6.13,6. It is
7:6.13,1: “In this depressing state the Holy Spirit reminds you gently that you are sad because you are not fulfilling your function as co-creator with God, and are therefore depriving yourself of joy.” Before reading on, please at least try to interpret this one. …
The sentence starts with a subordinate phrase. …
7:6.13,1a: The AUTHOR gently reminds us that we are sad. Why? …
7:6.13,1b: “because you are not fulfilling your function as a co-creator with” …
the AUTHOR. In Hinduism our duty towards God is called our dharma. We come into this world for a purpose, and this purpose is our dharma or calling. Plato calls it “minding your own business”
. In a footnote on 433b of Plato’s Republic, Desmond Lee, the translator, comments: The “conventional translation ‘mind your own business’, is almost exactly translated by the current (1974) catch-phrase ‘doing your own thing’.” And not doing what you came here to do is causing a “depressing state” in you. It can drive you to alcoholism, drug abuse, all kinds of distractions and, if you can afford it, it drives you to expensive psychologists, who can’t help you either. And then, if you are not accomplishing what you came here to do, then suicide is a way out that seems easy. It is not, all you are doing is accumulating bad karma which becomes more and more difficult to deal with. The Law of Attraction kicks in here. He who has bad karma shall have more. What to do about this is: ...
Doing your own thing, “fulfilling your function as co-creator with God”. So, this statement rings true but what is implied is not true. Where is the hook? …
The AUTHOR is not God.
7:6.13,1c: Doing your dharma gives you “joy”. I don’t like doing this writing (C) here, but I have to do it because no writer (C) is doing his dharma. As I can't do my dharma without the poetry (A) of the bhakti yogis (A), the raja yogis (C) can't do their dharma without the algoritm (B) of the jnana yogis (B).
. Our dharma is threefold: Let me give you my dharma as a jnana yogi as an example. I have to “Align(%8)” myself with what comes to me through A. Helen Schucman turned out to be a better example than I had expected at first. Then thinkers (B) have to do the interpretation (B) of WHAT comes through and then they have to do the “Fixing(8b)”. Let’s listen to the Neiye chapter 8:

8a: If you are “Able to Align (ab%8) yourself with the level above you then you are
Able to be Tranquil (ab^a)” because doing your dharma gives you joy. And
8b: “Only Then (Ja4R), after doing your own job, are you Able to do the Fixing (ab8b)”.
. The “Fixing(8b)” Is what I have to do here right now. My job is not complete if I don’t make, what I got from those on the level above, available to those on the level below. Even if no communicator (C) gives a damn about his dharma, I still have to do it. And thanks to the internet it is possible to make my algorithms available to the “WordErs(C2er)” Even without communicators (C) doing their dharma some people who are not stuck too deeply in the AUTHOR's cult can still be unstuck by the truth.
. This writing (C) is not my dharma, I don’t like it. I do it because the “Fixing(8b)” has to be done. I don’t get paid for doing my dharma. I do it because I love it.

. If 7:6.13,1 didn’t have that hook in it, it could be put into the white area of the book.

7:6.13,2: “This is not God’s choice but yours.”
. And because it is your choice, you are responsible for it.

7:6.13,3: “If your mind could be out of accord with God’s you would be willing without meaning.” This is going to be a farfetched interpretation. So please try your own first. …
7:6.13,3a: Your mind can be removed from the control of the AUTHOR.
7:6.13,3b: If your mind is controlled by the truth, then the truth will set you free. The “willing without meaning” has to be reversed. If you program you mind meaningfully then you would program it in such a way that it will set you free. And to do that you need the truth. It would be “willing” automatically with “meaning”. This one is tricky, so I might be wrong.

7:6.13,4: “Yet because God’s Will is unchangeable, no conflict of will is possible.”
7:6.13,4a: “God’s Will is unchangeable” but the AUTHOR is not God.
7:6.13,4b: Therefore, when interpreting it, “conflict” appears.

7:6.13,5: “This is the Holy Spirit’s perfectly consistent teaching.”
7:6.13,5: This is why the AUTHOR’s teaching is inconsistent. Simply by doing the reversal of “consistent”, this interpretation could be done by computation (C).
. When the COURSE is so full of conflicting assertions, it can’t be called a “perfectly consistent teaching.” I mean, the AUTHOR is even contradicting himself.

7:6.13,6: “Creation, not separation, is your will because it is God’s, and nothing that opposes this means anything at all.”
7:6.13,6a: Atonement is the opposite of separation.
7:6.13,6b: I don’t know about you but my will is not the AUTHOR’s will.
7:6.13,6c: Why should the reasoning (B) that finds contradictions in the COURSE not mean “anything at all”? …

7:6.13,7: “Being a perfect accomplishment, the Sonship can only accomplish perfectly, extending the joy in which it was created and identifying itself with both its Creator and its creation knowing they are One.”
7:6.13,7a: Science is based on pragmatism. The definition of truth in pragmatism is: If a theory works as predicted then it is true. The pyramid scheme’s growth is a phenomenal success. Therefore it works. It can, thus, be called “a perfect accomplishment”.
7:6.13,7b: The “Sonship can only accomplish perfectly if every “son” obeys the AUTHOR.
7:6.13,7c: Obediently “extending the joy in which it [the pyramid] was created and
7:6.13,7d: “and [the “Sonship”] identifying itself with both its Creator [the AUTHOR] and its creation [the pyramid] believing that “They are One”.

. . . . . . . . “VII THE TOTALITY OF THE KINGDOM”

7:7.1,1: “Whenever you deny a blessing to a brother you will feel deprived, because denial is as total as love.” …

====================================================

The three dots behind the above quote mean: Try to interpret the sentence. Maybe you can but I find the sentences in the first paragraph of chapter 7 too hard to chew. The seventh sentence is written in italics:
7:7.1,7: “REALITY CANNOT BE PARTLY APPRECIATED.”
7:7,1,8: “That is why denying any part of it means you have lost the awareness of all of it.” The “all of it” is the “TOTALITY”, the whole, the “one” which is greater than the sum of its pats. It is the result of the At-one-ment. But if even one part is missing, called here “denying any part”, then you no longer have “all of it”.
. There are no clearly identifiable hooks in these two sentences. Still, the obvious truth is purposely obscured. And these are the two most straightforward sentences in this paragraph. Let us, then, continue with the first sentence of section 6:
7:6.1,1: “Although you can love the Sonship only as one, you can perceive it as fragmented. …

====================================================

May 20, 2011
The last quote from A COURSE IN MIRACLES in the previous section is:
7:6.12,1: “Allowing insanity to enter your mind means that you have not judged sanity as wholly desirable.” ...
. When our mind (C) is not programmed by the AUTHOR but by our own intellect (B) it knows that certain word-pairs have to be reversed. Then, instead of doing an interpretation (B) by thinking (B), we can do a translation (C) by computation (C):
7:6.12,1: Allowing sanity to enter your mind means that you have judged insanity as wholly undesirable.
. Now the interpretation is much easier. Try it. …
7:6.12,1a: Allowing your intellect to control your mind is allowing sanity “to enter your mind [and that] means that you have judged [in]sanity as wholly undesirable.” In other words: A “sane” mind (C) will consider “insanity” as “undesirable”.
. These “Reversals($l)” are not only applied in social engineering but 2500 years ago Lao Tzu was already using them:
“KnowErs Don’t Talk (kner PUC2);
TalkErs Don’t Know (C2erPukn).” See also Ching 81. At Ching 78 we get:
Intentionally “Aligned Words Likely Reverse (%8C2JO$l)”.
. Please Google: A course in miracles CIA
William Thetford was an agent of the CIA and these agents know the science of social engineering. In order to get his “sons” to believe him, the AUTHOR had to use social engineering. This means that …
by knowing social engineering we can figure out WHAT the AUTHOR is doing.

7:6.12,2: “If you want something else you will make something else, but because it is something else, it will attack your thought system and divide your allegiance.”
7:6.12,2a: If you want something other than what the AUTHOR tries to make you believe then you must make yourself representations which are based on the truth.
7:6.12,2b: But because a representation based on the truth is other than a representation based on falsehoods it will “attack”, or contradict the “thought system” the AUTHOR wants you to believe in. What does that mean? …
7:6.12,2c: It will “divide your allegiance” between truth and falsehood. This is “splitting (7:6.8,1)” your mind into two parts. One part is controlled by the AUTHOR and the other part is controlled by you.
. How come the AUTHOR is that honest with us? …
To spill the beans is not the AUTHOR’s intention. By the time we reached the seventh chapter our intellect was supposed to be decommissioned. By jumping from the second chapter to the seventh, we might have hit on a combination that was not intended by the AUTHOR. What was intended by him? …
To defend him against the “Attacks” from the intellect (B) the mind (C) must be provided with arms by means of which the mind can defend the AUTHOR. The mind can’t think (B), it can only compute (C). But if it is properly programmed it can overcome the intellect because it is faster than the intellect.
. Problem is that the ammunition must be slipped past the intellect. If the intellect intercepts these shipments, it will confiscate them, as we are doing right here.
. Fighting the truth can be an uphill battle.

7:6.12,3: ! “You cannot create in this divided state, and you must be vigilant against this divided state because only peace can be extended.” …
There is a lot in this one, so please prepare yourself for my theoretical (B) answer by at least trying to interpret this sentence. …
7:6.12,3a: To say that “You cannot create in this divided state” is an outright lie. The mind (C) can only compute (C) and that is not as creative as the thinking (B) we have to do right here in order to figure out WHAT the AUTHOR is doing.
7:6.12,3b: There are two types of vigilance: Conscious (A (E4)) and automatic (E6).
7:6.12,3c: The state of “peace” can be attained by accepting one of two equally valid choices and, thus, rejecting the other. The “discomfort of “Cognitive dissonance” can be avoided but this is not the only way and it is not the most creative way.

7:6.12,4: “Your divided mind is blocking the extension of the Kingdom; and its extension is your joy.”
7:6.12,4a: Your intellect is blocking the downward extension of the pyramid.
7:6.12,4b: If you bring in new “strangers” into the pyramid, the level you are on is rising up as the pyramid is growing. The sense of added power “is your joy”. But where will you “joy” come from when the pyramid stops growing and when those on the base of the pyramid find out the truth? …

7:6.12,5: “If you do not extend the Kingdom, you are not thinking with your Creator and creating as He created.”
7:6.12,5a: If you do not help the pyramid to grow then
7:6.12,5b: you are not doing the computing the AUTHOR has programmed you to do.
7:6.12,5c: Instead you are programming yourself as the AUTHOR has programmed you.

7:6.13,6: “In this depressing state the Holy Spirit reminds you gently that you are sad because you are not fulfilling your function as co-creator with God, and are therefore depriving yourself of joy.” Please use what we have learned so far to work on this. …

===================================================

May 19, 2011
The last line in the previous section, below this one, is:
7:6.10,5: “This limitless power is God’s gift to you, because it is what you are.” …
. The sentence consists of a subject, a connective, the “is”, a predicate and a subordinate phrase. Let’s deal with the last phrase first.
. As a man “thinketh in his heart, so IS he”. What you know by heart is a representation (C) and as you “believe” (C), so you are. At the end of the first chapter of his PHILOSOPHY OF FREEDOM Steiner says in so many words that your representations (C) determine what you see. So, when the AUTHOR talks about “perception” he is talking about our belief system, he is talking about “what you are”.
“Constantly Have Representations By-means-of-which (CnYUYÜ) you can
Perceive Your Boundaries (Kn_H*1)”. *1 = Chiao60. These are the “impenetrable barriers” Hitler was taking about in the quote I gave in the last two sections.
. I didn’t do these repetitions on purpose. I am just biting off more than I can chew. This is a call for help.
. If you can’t see your boundaries then you can’t do anything about them. Now let’s look at the subject of 7:6.10,5: What is “This limitless power”? …
We already had “your limitless power” in the previous sentence. If you understand a pyramid scheme in business then you know that unless you are on top of the pyramid, above its apex, you will never have “limitless power”. So the AUTHOR is not honest with you. As the truth gets out, it will become harder and harder for those on the base of the pyramid to “bring in the stranger (1:3.7,6)” into the “Kingdom”. Those at the base of the pyramid become disenchanted because the AUTHOR can’t keep his “promises (21:1.3,5)”. After the disenchanted “brothers” at the base of the pyramid have left those on the level above them are now the base again. And, like the “brothers” on the previous base they find it harder and harder to rope in new “strangers”. And now those on the level above them get “lonely” because they have no more “brothers” below them. And this goes on until finally “God [the AUTHOR himself] is lonely without His Sons (2:3.5.11)” below him. Of course, this is an untested theory (B) and without net-workers (B) turning the theory into practice (D) it will remain a theory.
. Now let us look at the predicate of 7:6.10,5 This promise is,
7:6.10.5: “…. God’s gift to you”, which is the COURSE.
7:6.10, 6: “If you dissociate your mind from it [the COURSE] you are perceiving the most powerful force in the universe as if it were weak, because you do not believe you are a part of it.”
. When a theory (B), which is not true, is challenged or “attacked” it can’t survive. A “weak” theory, when tested, will not work as expected. Let us look at the subordinate phrase first. If “strangers”, who are supposed to be roped in, have tested the theory then they can’t be roped in. Even though the “brothers” are not allowed to listen to those strangers, sooner or later the desire to find out why so many strangers can’t be roped in causes you to listen to one. If the reason given for not wanting to be roped in is based on this COURSE itself. The explanation should make sense. And then? …
You no longer “believe you are a part of it.” Now, what does he say here? …
You are really a part of it. You just don’t believe it yet. Of those within the pyramid, this is true. So what is there to “believe”? If you are a “stranger” who knows “Enough(Zu)”, why should you “believe” it? …
7:6.10,6: If you dissociate your mind from it, if you no longer believe (C) it, if you deprogram yourself, if you replace the falsehoods with the truth then …
“you are perceiving the” cult for what it is. Just Google: a course in miracles cult.
. There are a number of mistakes in the previous two sections. The work is getting too much for me. Please see the mistakes as a call for help.
. The last two lines of the May 17 section are:
7:6.11,1: “Perceived without your part [heart] in it, Gods creation is seen as weak, and those who see themselves as weakened do attack.” …
Let us start with the subordinate phrase again:
Those who are “attacked” likely defend themselves.
7:6.11,1a: If your perception of the AUTHOR’s creation is based on truth then …
7:6.11,1b: His creation is seen as “weak” or flawed.
7:6.11,2: “The attack must be blind, however, because there is nothing to attack.”
7:6.11,2a: Interpreting the AUTHOR’s COURSE is called an “attack” on it. If you have followed me, even just partly, then you can see that the work we are doing here requires a conscious (A) effort. In other words, it is anything but “blind”.
. In light of this, the subordinate phrase must refer to the truth in the book. Since we are not attacking it, it doesn’t have to be defended, while “the untruth” in the book can’t be defended.
7:6.11,3: “Therefore they make up images, perceive them as unworthy and attack them for their unworthiness.”
. Here “brothers” and “strangers” are told what to think of us: We “make up images”. Mental “images” are not thoughts (B) but representations (C). Representations cause us to “perceive” what we perceive. If we see the truth in the book then we consider it worthy; if we see untruths in it then we “perceive them as unworthy”. Interpreting these sentences is actually easier than I thought. If the AUTHOR talks about a subject I know then all I have to do is say what I know about it. It is now up to you to see if it makes more sense to you.
7:6.11,4: “That is all the world of the ego is. (5) Nothing.”
7:6.11,6: “It has no meaning. (7) It does not exist.”
7:6.11,8: Here we come to a sentence I have quoted before: “Do not try to understand it” If you do you will probably “attack” or contradict the AUTHOR.
7:6.11,9: “That would justify its existence, ….” Yes, it would.
7:6.11,10: “You cannot make the meaningless meaningful.” You can do that by means of social engineering. But if you can’t slip your messages past the intellect, if the intellect (B) intercepts the messages, as we are doing here, then social engineering doesn’t work.
. The AUTHOR can also make the “meaningful” “meaningless” as long his “brothers” believe him. Notice the “Reversal($l)” again.
7:6.11,11: “This can only be an insane attempt.” Hitler didn’t think that it was. And Neo Nazis are still hearing the voice of the “exalted nobility of whom I [Hitler] cannot speak.
. A thought came to mind just now: Who, or what inspired Hitler to give his inspired speeches? …
7:6.12,1: “Allowing insanity to enter your mind means that you have not judged sanity as wholly desirable.” …

========================================================

May 18, 2011
. The last section, below, ends with a quote from A COURSE IN MIRACLES
7:6.10,4: ! “The Oneness of the Creator and the creation is your wholeness, your sanity and your limitless power.” …
. The three dots “(…) behind the quote mean: Please interpret this sentence. If you don’t know the “Pyramid scheme”, don’t even try. The AUTHOR claims that he is God’s “Son”. He is the “Oneness of the Creator”. The creation of the “Oneness” is an “Atonement” it is the opposite of the “separation”. So far, so good. This much is no more difficult than any other sentence we have done since 7:6.7 (Chapter 7, section 6, paragraph 7). I said “we” because if you are not thinking along with me then “we” are not working on this together.
. The question that is harder to answer is: In what sense is the AUTHOR’s “creation your wholeness, your sanity and your limitless power.”? …
Without at least some understanding of the pyramid scheme, the predicate of this sentence is incomprehensible. The best way to find out about it is as a business scheme. You can do that by Googling it. But there is more to it. The Law of Correspondence applies here.
. On page 292 of THE MORNING OF THE MAGICIANS there is a quote about it:
“We do not want to do away with inequalities between men” said Hitler, “but, on the contrary, to increase them and make them into a principle protected by impenetrable barriers. What will the social order of the future be like? Comrades, I will tell you: there will be a class of overlords, and after them the rank and file of Party Members in hierarchical order, and then [on the bottom of the pyramid] the great mass of anonymous followers, servants and workers in perpetuity, and beneath them, again [below the pyramid] all the conquered foreign races, the modern slaves. And over and above [above the apex, in the time and space less dimension] all these there will reign a new and exalted nobility of whom I cannot speak ….”
. Helen Schucman can be called a “Door, Dasamadwara” at the apex of the pyramid. Above her is the AUTHOR who has dictated the COURSE and below her are the other classes separated by “impenetrable barriers”, or Koshas, as the Hindus call it, and below the base of the pyramid are the “strangers”.
1:3.7,6: +”When you bring in the stranger, he becomes your brother.”
. All citizens in the AUTHOR's “Kingdom” are “brothers” because they are all his sons, but he is “Son of God”. This is where the word “sonship” comes in.
. When you have brought strangers into the Kingdom, they are to you as you are to the Brother” who has you brought you in. I don’t know how many levels there are in the AUTHOR’s pyramid but I know that there are four in the Aristotelian tetrad. And tangible examples of this tetrad are the original IBM computer
. . . Y . . . . .programming system and the construction business.
Z . + . X . . In it, D is to C as C is to B and as C is to B so B is to A.
. . . A . . . . . A picture is worth a thousand words. The whole thing
D . + . B . . can be represented in the diagram to the left. Since I have
. . . C . . . . . already described it before, there is no need to describe it again here.
1:3.9,1: ! “Miracles are selective only in the sense that they are directed towards those who can use them for themselves.” …
Knowledge is power and knowledge given by the “voice” of the AUTHOR to a brother can be called a miracle. I have experienced such a “miracle” when Jagadguru Shri Kripalu Mahaprabhu asked me: “Do you give me permission to help you?” I can put these words in quotes because that’s what he asked me.
. Because we are not used to hearing people talking to us without actually hearing the sound of the words with our ears, this phenomena can be called a “Miracle”. HOW does the producer of that miracle actually produce it? …
A guru, an extraterrestrial, Lacerta (Google her), or a disembodied channelling entity can put its idea, or thought, (B) where your own intellect (B) usually puts it. …
“Without Naming is Heaven and Earth’S Conceiving (WUMgTnTI_ZB1)”. As the AUTHOR’s words have to be interpreted (B) so Lao Tzu’s words have to be translated (C) first and then the translation has to be interpreted (B). You have a translation here, so please do the interpretation: …
The intellect (B) does its thinking (B) without words (C). Thoughts are not only international, they are inter-universal. Shri Kripalu Mahapraphu had no proplem to talk to me. My guru told me that he talks to her all the time and she can be in Canada while he is in India. So HOW does he do it? …
He puts his thought where your intellect (Buddhi, in Sanskrit) normally puts it. …
Her guru, Lacerta (Google her), extraterrestrials, and channelling entities, like the AUTHOR, puts the ideas into the mind (Manas). What does the mind (C) do with it? …
It translates it into English or any language you happen to be thinking in.
. I am bilingual. I normally think in English but some thoughts in Steiner’s PHILOSOPHY can be followed better in German. A group of German tourists came through the Ashram and I was talking with them in German. If I had still been in German thinking mode, my mind (C) would have translated (C) the guru’s question into German. Everybody knows that the guru doesn’t speak English but maybe he can speak German. We always try to explain “miracles” in a rational (B) way.
. Now, what does all of this have to do with 7:6.10,4? …
Not everything that covers up the hook is bait, or the truth, It can be just words that are used for the purpose of obscuring things. That stuff we have to cut through when doing the interpretation:
7:6.10,4a: The AUTHOR’s creation, the COURSE, “is your wholeness your sanity and your unlimited power.” …
Do we have to reverse “Oneness” as two, three, etc-ness? …
Do we have to translate (C) “creation” as destruction? …
Do we have to translate “wholeness”, “sanity” and “limitless” into their opposites? …
No. If most words don’t mean what they ordinarily mean then communication would be impossible. When interpreting the Tao Te Ching, we have to try on all valid equivalents of certain characters for size. Because the opposites of certain words are valid equivalents in the COURSE, we have to try them on for size as well and often they fit.
As far as I can see at this point “limitless power” is an exaggeration, it is a sales pitch. However it is true that, when a “brother” brings in more new members, the pyramid grows and he grows with it.
. There are still two more sentences in 7:6.10, but the last sentence is some kind of summary of the tenth paragraph and it takes more work. Let me go somewhere else to prepare us for it and then return.
Chapter 5, section 1 paragraph:
2: “THOUGHTS INCREASE BY BEING GIVEN AWAY.” Why? …
If you give away money, you get poorer but if you give away ideas you don’t. We know that. But why do thoughts increase when you give them away? Because …
3: THE MORE WHO BELIEVE IN THEM THE STRONGER THEY BECOME.”
. This is where Rupert Sheldrake’s Morphogenetic Field comes in. Please read up on it. I can’t explain it any better. A very important point is to notice that social engineers know this phenomena, But they don't want us to know that. And right here the AUTHOR has spilled the beans.
. Before we return to Chapter 7 let me just jump ahead to chapter 21 because what we get there is relevant:
21;1.3,5: “Your question is whether the means by which this course is learned will bring to you the joy it [the AUTHOR] promises. (6) If you believed it would, the learning of it would be no problem. (7) You are not a happy learner yet because you still remain uncertain that vision [here it refers to the AUTHOR’s miracles] gives you more than judgement [by your own intellect] does, and you have [not] learned that both you cannot have.” Because you CAN understand both sides of the coin it is impossible to convince you “that both you cannot have” Notice again the wording: …
If he says understand instead of “have” then more “brothers” who “remain uncertain” might catch on.
7:6.10,5: “This limitless power is God’s gift to you, because it is what you are.” …

====================================================

May 17, 2011
. The last section, below, ends with a quote from A COURSE IN MIRACLES
7:6.10,4: ! “The Oneness of the Creator and the creation is your wholeness, your sanity and your limitless power.” …
. The three dots “(…) behind the quote mean: Please interpret this sentence. If you don’t know the “Pyramid scheme”, don’t even try. The AUTHOR claims that he is God’s “Son”. He is the “Oneness of the Creator”. The creation of the “Oneness” is an “Atonement” it is the opposite of the “separation”. So far, so good. This much is no more difficult than any other sentence we have done since 7:6.7 (Chapter 7, section 6, paragraph 7). I said “we” because if you are not thinking along with me then “we” are not working on this together.
. The question that is harder to answer is: In what sense is the AUTHOR’s “creation your wholeness, your sanity and your limitless power.”? …
Without at least some understanding of the pyramid scheme, the predicate of this sentence is incomprehensible. The best way to find out about it is as a business scheme. You can do that by Googling it. But there is more to it. The Law of Correspondence applies here.
. On page 292 of THE MORNING OF THE MAGICIANS there is a quote about it:
“We do not want to do away with inequalities between men” said Hitler, “but, on the contrary, to increase them and make them into a principle protected by impenetrable barriers. What will the social order of the future be like? Comrades, I will tell you: there will be a class of overlords, and after them the rank and file of Party Members in hierarchical order, and then [on the bottom of the pyramid] the great mass of anonymous followers, servants and workers in perpetuity, and beneath them, again [below the pyramid] all the conquered foreign races, the modern slaves. And over and above [above the apex, in the time and space less dimension] all these there will reign a new and exalted nobility of whom I cannot speak ….”
. Helen Schucman can be called a “Door, Dasamadwara” at the apex of the pyramid. Above her is the AUTHOR who has dictated the COURSE and below her are the other classes separated by “impenetrable barriers”, or Koshas, as the Hindus call it, and below the base of the pyramid are the “strangers”.
1:3.7,6: +”When you bring in the stranger, he becomes your brother.”
. All citizens in the AUTHOR's “Kingdom” are “brothers” because they are all his sons, but he is God’s “Son”. This is where the word “sonship” comes in.
. When you have brought strangers into the Kingdom, they are to you as you are to the “Brother” who has brought you in. I don’t know how many levels there are in the AUTHOR’s pyramid but I know that there are four in the Aristotelian tetrad. And tangible examples of this tetrad are the original IBM computer
. . Y . . . . .programming system and the construction business.
Z . + . X . . In it, D is to C as C is to B and as C is to B so B is to A.
. . A . . . . . A picture is worth a thousand words. The whole thing
D . + . B . . can be represented in the diagram to the left. Since I have
. . C . . . . . already described it before, there is no need to describe it again here.
1:3.9,1: ! “Miracles are selective only in the sense that they are directed towards those who can use them for themselves.” …
Knowledge is power and knowledge given by the “voice” of the AUTHOR to a brother can be called a miracle. I have experienced such a “miracle” when Jagadguru Shri Kripalu Mahaprabhu asked me: “Do you give me permission to help you?” I can put these words in quotes because that’s what he asked me. And he doesn’t speak English nor did he open his mouth to ask me that. So this could be called a “Miracle”.
1:3.3,3: “Those who are released must join in releasing others, for this is the plan of the Atonement.” For “releasing” we must try on the opposite for size.
1:3.3,3: Those who have been brought in must join in bringing in others. And
1:39,1 “Since this makes it inevitable that they will extend them [the “Miracles”] to others, a strong chain of Atonement is welded.”
2:1.3,10: - “It still remains within you, however, to extend as God extended His Spirit to you.”
2:1.3,10: You must reach out for new members as the AUTHOR has reached out.
. In the tetrad A is to B as B is to C, and as B is to C so C is to D. This is the principle behind the pyramid system no matter how many levels are in it.
. Now let’s try to make sense of the predicate of 7:6.10,4. …
7:6.10,4: ?“ …. the creation is your wholeness, your sanity and your limitless power.” …
It sounds a bit like a sales pitch to me, but as you help your “brothers” below you to bring in more “brothers” you are rising higher in the pyramid because the levels below you are increasing. Should “wholeness” and “sanity” be reversed? …
Let’s just say that both choices should be tried on for size.
7:6.10,5: ! “This limitless power is God’s gift to you, because it is what you are.”
. You are not what you think (B) but you are the true, or false, thoughts, which after many repetitions have become representations (C). The gift of the AUTHOR to you is this COURSE and, if you believe (C) it, then “it is what you are”.
7:6.10,6: ! “If you dissociate your mind from it you see the most powerful force in the universe as if it were weak, because you do not believe you are part of it.”
. The knowledge we have accumulated determines what we think and what we think determines how we interpret 7:6.10,6. If your intellect (B) tells your mind (C) to dissociate from this cult then you see it as a pyramid scheme that gets people hooked by hooks hidden, often poorly, by more or less bait. If you swallow the hooks, then to you, the AUTHOR’s “Kingdom” will appear to be “the most powerful force in the universe”.
. Saying that “you do not believe that you are a part of” the “most powerful force in the universe” is implying that you really are a part of it, you just don’t believe it yet.. There we have a rather subtle hook. This verifies what I have said earlier: None of the thousands of sentences in the book is wasted. All we have to do is expose the hooks. But this is not a one person job. All I can do is give you examples of the kind of work that has to be done. Even though some examples may be flawed and show that I have not learned some of the advanced lessons in the COURSE. Flaws will slip in because I can’t do more than I can do. Sometimes it is hard to see what is in a sentence even after you have chewed on it. Perception is determined by what you think, and, this is where Steiner comes in, if you don’t have the representations (C) for it then you can’t see it.
7:6.11,1: “Perceived without your part [heart] in it, God’s creation is seen as weak, and those who see themselves as weakened do attack.” …

=====================================================

May 16, 2011
. The last thing I said in the May 15 section was:
7:6.9,2: - ”Your identification with the Kingdom is totally beyond question except by you, when you are thinking insanely.” …
. The tree dots mean: Please interpret (B). Actually, when you know the equivalents of three words in this sentence by heart, then you don’t need the intellect (B) to interpret, you can use your mind (C) to translate (C) it. Try to identify at least one of the three words. …
“the” Kingdom is the kingdom in which the AUTHOR is king. So “the” = my. …
Most sentences are instructions which must be slipped past the intellect (C) and given to the mind (C). Why? …
To arm the mind (C) against any “attack” by the intellect (B). So the connective “is” = is to be. What is the third one? Please try. …
In the COURSE, when the AUTHOR says “love” he means “fear” and when he says “fear” he means “love”. By analogy, when he says “insanity” he means …
. You are now ready for the translation (C). …
7:6.9,2a: Your identification with my Kingdom is to be totally beyond question.
7:6.9.2b If you are thinking sanely then you will not believe what I say.
. As the AUTHOR is “training” the mind (C) to read his words automatically (E6), by computation (C), so we must teach ourselves, to interpret these words intentionally (A) by thinking (B) sanely. What is required to do that is practice. Practice makes perfect. If you have come up with the equivalent of at least one of the three words or, after reading it, you can see the reasons for these equivalents then you have done well. If you have done the translation yourself then you have done very well. You have done the practice which is necessary to step down the knowledge of this truth to representations of this truth. After you have done this work, you can also see why the AUTHOR doesn't want you to do this work. But, unless you think (B) along with me, you can't see it.
. As early as page XIII, the AUTHOR tells the mind (C):
“Through forgiveness the thinking of the world is reversed.” …
Please interpret this sentence one word, or phrase, at a time. …
What does “forgiveness” mean here? …
When the AUTHOR uses the word “forgiveness” he means the opposite. It means: …
By blaming, or accusing “the thinking of this world” you can …
What is meant by “the thinking of this world”? …
It is the thinking we are doing right here. And, if you do it successfully, then you can also see why we are not supposed to do it. If you are following me then what you are doing is called a “sin”, which must be “forgiven”. To “forgive: you must “correct” the “mistakes” the intellect is making. How? ...
By reversing the thinking of the world. In other words: …
To “forgive” means to blame or accuse. The opposite of truth is falsehood, the opposite love is fear. So, if you are to defend my kingdom against the “attacks” of the bad “ego” then the meaning of certain words has to be reversed.
. Even though some sentences in 7:6.9 are a bit hard for me to chew, I will still follow through to show that I am not sifting through thousands of sentences to find one that suits my purpose.
7:6.9,3: - “What you are is not established by your perception, and is not influenced by it at all.” …
Let us deal with the subordinate phrase first: and, what you are, is influenced by your body. Our body is one of the four components we call “I”. we say “I am” (A), “I think” (B), “I said” (C) and we say “I am sick”, or “I am strong”. Without our body, we wouldn’t be. Each part of us is like a link of a chain. Weaken one and you weaken the chain, break one and you break the chain. How can the AUTHOR say that “perception”, which comes to us through our physical senses (D), does “not” influence “What you are ….at all”? …
In Sanskrit there are two types of “Indriyas”: Jnan indriyas are our senses of “perception” and karmendriyas are our organs of action.. Judging by what the AUTHOR must know to say WHAT he says, there is no way that he doesn’t know this. So why is he so blatantly lying to us? Why does he want the mind (C) to believe (C) that what it is has nothing to do with the body (D)? ...
And why does he have to bypass the intellect to get that message to the mind? …
7:6.9,4: “Perceived problems in identification at any level are not problems of fact.”
. What got me going on 7:6.9,1 was because it could be so easily put into the white area of the book (+). The message that is given to the mind (C) is true and, after the sentence is interpreted it is still true. The exercise we are doing here is to determine whether there is “Enough(Zu)” truth in it to turn black into grey, or black in it to turn white into grey. It is still a matter of “judgement” and that’s why the AUTHOR doesn’t want us to do that either. To make that judgement, we have to interpret it first. …
7:6.9,4: What your senses tell you about the perceived world has nothing to do with fact.
. You don’t have to be a philosopher (B) to know that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Common sense (C) will tell you that. So why such a blatant lie here? …
The AUTHOR, Plato, Steiner, neuro-scientists, the Hindus and others know that the world we see is an “illusion”, and still it takes an illusioned body (D) to perceive an illusioned world. And “identification at any level” is supposed to refer to that. And still, he isn’t telling us the whole truth even though he knows it. 7:6.9,4 has to be put in the identified grey area of the book (!).
. From the little work I have done so far it has become clear that the identified grey area of the book (!) gets more entries than the white and the black areas taken together, The hooks always have to be covered by bait. The bait alone, without a hook in it, is useless for the AUTHOR unless the truth can be used for other purposes. And they will show up in the larger context in which the true sentence is placed.
7:6.9,5: - “They are problems of understanding, since their presence implies a belief that what you are is up to you to decide.”
2:6.2,6: +”The truth is that you are responsible for what you think, because it is only at this level [B] that you can exercise choice” therefore,
7:6.9,5: “…. what you are is up to you to decide.”
. I have only scratched the surface of this COURSE and already we have here an example of where the AUTHOR has contradicted himself. How many more examples like that will show up as we interpret more sentences? …
Right now the “UnIdentifiAble(PUMgpt)” area (?) is the largest in the book. As we follow Lao Tzu’s instruction: “Identify the IdentifyAble (MgptMg)” we are practising what the AUTHOR doesn’t want us to practice. Right now there are sentences in the book which I can’t understand. They are unidentifiable for me. They belong in the grey are of the book (?). But practice makes perfect. As I do these exercises, my ability to interpret sentences, the AUTHOR tries to slip by the intellect, improves. Already now, there are many more sentences I can interpret but don’t have enough time to do it. So I will continue forward from 7:6.9,5 sequentially until I come across one I can’t do.
7:6.9,6: ! “The ego believes this totally, being fully committed to it.”
. This is a relatively short sentence but there are really two. I will call them 6a and 6b.
7:6.9,6a: - The intellect believes that “what you are is [not] up to you to decide” totally. I don’t know about you, but I know that I am responsible for what I am because it is up to me, at any point in my life, to decide what I will be. Every thought (B) I think right now determines what thoughts I will think next. I may not be aware of what I am thinking but that doesn't mean that I don't have the choice to be aware or not.
7:6.9,6b: - I am not “committed [at all] to” what the AUTHOR wants me to believe but over the past 67 years my commitment to the truth has slowly but surely increased. He who as “Enough(Zu)” knowledge of the truth will have more. Even if we don’t always work intentionally (A) on it, if we have “Enough” knowledge, our mind will always keep us on track automatically (E6).
7:6.9,7: ?”It is not true.” What is not true? …
That we have no freedom of choice? …
That “The ego believes this totally? …
Or that both of these possible interpretations are “not true” ? …
. Whenever the AUTHOR uses the word “ego” he refers to the intellect because it is supposed to be perceived asomething bad. So …
if the ego believes that we have no freedom of choice, then …
“It is not true.” So what kind of “freedom” is the AUTHOR going to offer us now? …
7:6.9,8: - “The ego therefore is totally committed to untruth perceiving in total contradiction to the Holy Spirit and to the knowledge of God.
7:6.0,8: The intellect is totally committed to truth perceiving the voice and the knowledge of the AUTHOR for what it is. Steiner has explained that an entity has no body can be intelligent but it doesn’t have to be good.
7:6.10,1: ! “You can be perceived with meaning only by the Holy Spirit because your being is the knowledge of God.”
7:6.10,1: You can be perceived to be “with meaning” only if you believe the “knowledge” the AUTHOR is imparting to you.
. It is true that, if you have absorbed enough of the “knowledge of God” that is, of the AUTHOR, then he can perceive the representations (C) of that ”knowledge” (B) in you, and it is understandable that to him that is the most meaningful thing to impart to you.
. Please remember that I am interpreting sentences that are next in line, they are not sentences that are easy to chew for me. This is the best I can do and it will have to do for a start.
7:6.10,2: ! “Any belief you accept apart from this will obscure God’s Voice in you, and will therefore obscure God in you.”
7:6.10,2a: Any representation (C) of the truth you yourself produce with your intellect “will obscure” the AUTHOR’s “Voice in you.”
7:6.10,2b: Your own thinking (B) “will therefore obscure God to you.”. You will be unable to believe the “official version” of the truth.
7:6.10,3: ! “Unless you perceive His creation truly you cannot know the Creator, since God and His creation are not separate.”
7:6.10,3a: Unless you perceive the AUTHOR’s dictations the way he wants you to perceive it you cannot believe them, since….
7:6.10,3b: The AUTHOR and his creation are the “Atonement”.
. What we are getting by doing these interpretations, whether good or bad, is definitions of words. This is an excellent definition of “Atonement”.
7:6.10,4: ! “The Oneness of the Creator and the creation is your wholeness, your sanity and your limitless power.” …

========================================================

May 15, 2011
. In the last section, below, I said that 7:6.7,6 “is the most difficult sentence in this paragraph.” The problem is that “true” and “the untrue”, which are in this sentence, mean the very opposite if what they ordinarily mean. Compared to the years it takes to “study” or to “interpret” A COURSE IN MIRACLES my weeks of work on it don’t qualify me to say the final word on this book but it is safe for me to say that most sentences in it can be read in two ways: The way the AUTHOR wants you to read it and …
the way he doesn’t want you to read it, which is what we are doing here.
. As with studying the Tao Te Ching, a lot of attention must be given to what the author means by certain words. For instance, in 7:6.7,1 the word “vigilant” appears. That word has two meanings: There can be conscious (A) vigilance, which is done by the thinking intellect (B), and unconscious“vigilance”, which can be programmed into the mind (C), and which is executed by computation (C).
. When interpreting 7:6.7,6, I do it as follows:
7:6.7.6: Subconscious vigilance is necessary to deal with representations that are true. 7:6.7,6 is long so its interpretation is difficult. Let us look for a shorter example:
7:6.8,7: +“If truth is total, the untrue cannot exist.” True.
7:6.8,7: If the untrue is total then the truth cannot exist. Why? …
To answer this question, you have to Google: Cognitive dissonance
. The nice thing about this sentence is that you can reverse “truth” and “the untrue” and the statement is true both ways. This makes it easier to accept the “Reversal($l)”.
Page XIII of the PREFACE: “Through forgiveness the thinking of the world is reversed.”
The “thinking of the world” is the thinking the AUTHOR doesn’t want us to do. It has to be “reversed”. So what is the “forgiveness”, “Though” which this is accomplished? ...
In ordinary English and in the COURSE it is used to undo “sin”. And what is “sin”? …
It is disobeying the AUTHOR. And what is that? …
It is interpreting what he has dictated. The “mistakes” the intellect (B) is making have to be “corrected” There we have the meanings of four more words added to our theoretical knowledge (B). By paying attention (A) to these words we are “Repeating(@1)” the truth. And when we have repeated it “Enough(Zu)” then we have made ourselves representations (C) of the truth. Now we don’t have to pay anymore attention to it, our mind will look after it automatically (E6) all by itself. A well “trained” mind is very “vigilant”.
7:6.8,8: +”Commitment to either must be total; they cannot coexist in your mind without splitting it.” This statement is true: If you totally commit to the “true”, or to the “untrue”, then their opposites “cannot coexist in your mind without splitting it.” Why? …
By intentionally “Repearting(@1)” the truth, we are producing the representation (C) of the truth in the mind (C). It will automatically “attack”, or oppose “the untrue” the AUTHOR has produced in our mind. We are indeed “splitting it”, which is another thing we are not supposed to do.
7:6.8,9: ! “If they cannot coexist in peace, and if you want peace, you must give up the idea of conflict entirely and for all time.
. The “idea of conflict” refers to the conceptual dissonance. It is true that if you want to avoid the “discomfort” which is caused by it you can affirm one of the two equally valid choices and, in doing so you are denying the other choice. Now there is “comfort” and “peace”. But why did I put this sentence in the identified grey area of the book? …
Because there are two ways in which the “discomfort” can be avoided. …
The short answer is: You can go from the “DyAd(dyad)” back to the “Monad($1)” or you can go forward to the “TriAd(_3ad)”.
3:4.1,7: ! ”Only the Levels of the Trinity are capable of unity.”
. When I have quoted this statement at the end of the May 13 section, I have identified it as true (+), but the “Only” falsifies it. Again, giving “up the idea of conflict entirely and for all time” is not the only way to attain “peace”. Any N-Term system is a whole that is greater than the sum of its part. Rejecting one pole of a polarity is not the right way to attain “peace”, even though ignorance of the truth can be bliss.
. In Hegelian dialectics, thesis and antithesis are identified as the poles of “one” polarity and that “Insight(72)” leads to the synthesis, or atonement. Let me take this opportunity to quote Ching 1.4 again:
4,1: “The DyAd(Tzdyad) is a Unit Originally ($1Cu)
. . . But it is Divided (btâo) by Identifying(Mg)” its poles.
4,2: The “Unit Is ($1is) the light’S Darkness (_ZSü).’
4,3: “Darken It (Sü_Z) and Repeat the Darkening ((@1Sü) until you have reached
. . . All Mystery’S Gate (^1#1_Z%1)”.
. I hope that you can see from this translation that the Tao Te Ching must be interpreted just as the COURSE must be interpreted. Because I have learned HOW to do it from Lao Tzu, let me give you this last paragraph of the first chapter as an example.
. One question arises about the “Unit($1)”. Is it a whole or a part? …
The N-Term system I have specialized in is the tetrad. It can be a double dyad, 2 + 2 = 4, or monad and a triad, 1 + 3 = 4. The triad is always a dyad and a monad. Dyads and triads are monads, which are the parts of larger N-Term systems. So what is the “Monad($1) here at Ching 1.4? …
4.,2: The “Monad is the light’S Darkness”. The light could be a part of the “Dark” or the dark could be a part of the light or both could be true. The point I am trying to make here, and that applies to the work I am doing on the COURSE as well, is that your questions and answers to these questions don’t have to be right, what matters is the trying. Without a scientific hypothesis, there is nothing to test without an algorithm (B) there is nothing to code (C) and without a computer program (C) there is nothing to execute (D). If it works the algorithm and the coding was right; if it doesn’t work then the algorithm or the coding is wrong. And if you don’t try then you will never know. In my nine years as a computer programmer I have done so many algorithms and so many times I was so sure that it was perfect and so many times the computer proved me wrong. The final proof of the pie is really in the eating.
. So, please don’t expect a perfect job from me. In May 29 I will be 76 years old. Even if there is not another assassination attempt on me, I will not live long enough to deal with all of the thousands of sentences in the COURSE. But that doesn’t mean that I have to stop trying.
7:6.8,10: ! “This requires vigilance only as long as you do not recognize what is true.”
7:6.9,10: This requires conscious vigilance on the part of the AUTHOR, or his teachers, only as long as the student is not fully programmed yet.
7:6.8,11: - “While you believe that two totally contradictory thought systems share truth, your need for vigilance is apparent.”
. This statement is addressed to a teacher. The way the statement is worded, it implies that “two totally contradictory thought systems” cannot reside in one mind (C). But they can. So the statement is wrong. Still, if a teacher is questioning the validity of the AUTHOR’s statements then his “need for [intentional] vigilance is apparent”
7:6.9,1: +”Your mind is dividing its allegiance between two kingdoms, and you are totally committed to neither.” This statement is true and needs no interpretation .
. 7:6.9,1 was just too nice not to quote it. The rest of the paragraph is a bit harder to chew. Let’s try it anyway:
7:6.9,2: - “Your identification with the Kingdom is totally beyond question except by you, when you are thinking insanely.” …

===================================================

May 14, 2011
, At the end of the last section, below, I have identified 3:4.1,7 (chapter 3, section 4 paragraph 7 of A COURSE IN MIRACLES) and 3:4.1,8 as true and 3:4.1,9 as false. Why did I identify these sentences in that way? …
Because the triad is a dynamic N-Term system. Triads “are capable of unity”. The dyad, on the other hand, is a static system. If the right monad does not reconcile the poles of the dyad then they will remain in opposition, or in “conflict”, as the AUTHOR put it. But it is blatantly wrong to say that the poles of a polarity “are meaningless to each other.”
. Falsehoods are like a hook and the truth is like the bait that covers it. The AUTHOR tells us repeatedly that we are not supposed to “interpret” what he has dictated. If we interpret enough sentences successfully then it becomes clear why he doesn’t want us to find out the truth. Why, then, does he spell out the truth as clearly as he has done here? Why does he spill the beans, the way he has just done, by telling us such a blatant lie? …
The poles of a polarity are opposites of each other, and at Ching 2.2 Lao Tzu gives us six examples where they are complements of each other. Why, then, does the AUTHOR want us to believe that the poles of a polarity “are meaningless to each other”? …
This questions brings us to “cognitive dissonance”. Please Google it. We have come across it before. The AUTHOR wants us to accept one pole and reject the other for the sake of “peace“. Question: What price are we paying for his “peace”? …
7:6.8,1: - “I have repeatedly emphasized that the ego does believe it can attack God and tries to persuade you that you have done this.” Why did I put this sentence into the black ( - ) area of the book? …
To interpret a sentence we have to look at it and not get distracted by the subordinate phrases around it. “I have repeatedly emphasized that ,,,,” is a subordinate phrase. The AUTHOR has “repeatedly emphasized” his “official version” of the truth. Why? …
In order to step down the idea (B) of his truth to a representation (C) of his truth, he has to repeat it often enough. Once an idea is a representation it is no longer questioned. In fact it can’t be questioned because we are no longer aware of it. So that takes care of the subordinate phrase in front. There is another subordinate phrase in the back. It starts with the “and ….”
. If you understand a single interpretation of a sentence, given in this COURSE, then I don’t have to try “to persuade you that you have done this” because …
then you have already done it. This takes care of the other subordinate phrase. Now let us look at the subject of the sentence: “…. The ego does believe” that ….. “that” would be the connective in this sentence. “The ego” seems to refer to the intellect (B). I have yet to come across a sentence in this book where it does not. “The ego does [not] believe” (C), it knows (B) that “it can attack God”. The AUTHOR claims to be the “Son of God” who has dictated this book. Because he has told us “repeatedly” not to “interpret” what he has dictated, and we have done it, we are disobedient. And that is called “attack” here.
. In this same section, in paragraph 11 is a “repetition” of the same admonition:
7:6.11,8: “Do not try to understand it [what the AUTHOR has dictated] because if you do, you are believing [you know] that it can be understood and [this understanding] is therefore capable of being appreciated and loved..”
Philosophers love (philos, in Greek) the truth (Sophia). The truth is “capable of being appreciated and loved.” That’s why “KnowErs(kner)” (B) seek it.
7:6.11,9: “That would justify its existence which cannot be justified.” Just Google
A course in miracles cult . to see how many have already justified it.
7:6.11,10: “You cannot make the meaningless meaningful.” If you believe the AUTHOR then you cannot make the meaningful meaningless. But if you interpret what he is saying you can see that he does it all the time. In the COURSE, “meaningful means “meaningless”, “truth” means “falsehood”, “love” means “fear”, “Atonement” means “separation” etc. This “Reversal($l)” of meaning makes interpreting sentences in which these words appear difficult, but not impossible. And it becomes easier as these ideas (B) become representations (C).
7:6.11,11: “This can only be an insane attempt.” Why does he call the intellect “insane”? …
We have here another attempt to “depreciate” the intellect.
. 7:6.7 leads up to 7:6.8,1. I will do the whole paragraph. We can only identify a sentence as white (+), black ( - ) or grey (! Or ?) after we have interpreted it. Here I will only give you examples of interpretations. These are not the last word on the sentences I have worked on, but they will hopefully be a start.
7:6.7,1: “If you will keep in mind what the Holy Spirit offers you, you cannot be vigilant for anything BUT God and His Kingdom.” …
There is one message we get when we believe what the AUTHOR says and another one we get when we do what he doesn’t want us to do. How do you interpret this one? …
. To come to a satisfactory interpretation of any sentence we must work on it collectively. A net-worker (C) could facilitate this work. As it is, this is the best I can do. It is a paraphrase in which the emphasis is on WHAT has been said.
. If you let the AUTHOR control your mind (C) then you will only believe (B) him. The word “vigilant” has two meanings one is what the word ordinarily means. Vigilant is associated with being aware (A) of what is going on. The other meaning is what the AUTHOR means. It is what the mind (C) does by computation (C) automatically (E6) and subconsciously. It is the very opposite of being aware (A). It just happens because the mind is programmed that way.
7:6.7,2: “The only reason you may find this hard to accept is because you may still think there is something else.” You might find errors in a sentence because your mind (C) hasn’t been “vigilant” enough. And then you know that “there is something else”.
7:6.7,3: “Belief does not require vigilance [representations (C) do not require vigilance, because they work automatically without you even being aware of it] unless it is conflicted.” Unless your knowledge of the truth is in conflict with the
“official version” of the truth the AUTHOR wants you to believe.
7:6.7,4: “If it is, there are conflicting components within you that have led to a state of war, and vigilance has therefore become essential.” Depending from which viewpoint you are looking at this “war”, the “conflicting components” are either the truth or the falsehoods you have identified.
7:6.7,5: “Vigilance has no place in peace.” What the AUTHOR is calling “vigilance” is what the mind (C) does automatically for him. Cognitive dissonance comes into this. If you have not Googled it yet, please do it. When the mind automatically selects one of two equally valid choices you are in “peace”. True “vigilance” or awareness (A) of both options would disrupt that “peace”. No conscious (A) effort on your part is required. Your mind will take care of everything automatically (E6). This is why: “Vigilance has no place in peace.”
7:6.7,6: “It is necessary against beliefs that are not true [not false], and would never have been called upon by the Holy Spirit [the AUTHOR] if you had not believed the untrue.”
. You can’t interpret a sentence if you don’t know what the words in it mean. If the meanings “truth”, “love” or “Atonement” have in the COURSE are not understood, then words like “untrue”, “fear” or “separation” are taken in the dictionary sense. This is the most difficult sentence in this paragraph unless the meanings these words have in it have become representations (C). And the knowledge of “Reversals($l)” can become representations (C) by “Practice(pr)” because these keywords are “Repeated(@1)” often “Enough(Zu)”. But you have to pay attention (A) to them when they come up.
7:.6,7,7: “When you believe something you have made it true for you.” If we substitute representation (C) for belief (C) then the sentence makes perfect sense. For instance,
7:6.7,8: “When you believe what God [the AUTHOR] does not [want you to] know, your thought seems to [does] contradict His, and this makes it appear as if you are attacking Him.” “Attacking” here means disobeying the AUTHOR. But this is the only way you can “interpret” these sentences. And, as you disobey him, it becomes ever clearer why he doesn’t want you to interpret the sentences he has dictated.. There is plenty of work for you trying to understand what I have said here, or trying to do the same thing yourself. …

=======================================================

May 13, 2011
. Hearings into the G20 are going to be held: “The hearings will provide individual members of the public, organizations with an opportunity to [listen to this] share their views and opinions on the role that civilian oversight should play with respect to policing of major events.” The wording shows that the same people who caused the G20 are also looking after the damage control.
. Joe Warmington on page 8 of today’s Toronto Sun caught on. “Huh? ….
. “Anybody even asking for that? Anybody even know what it means?
. “The questions people want answers to is why did they get their skull cracked with a baton for no reason, why were they shot with rubber bullets, kettled, detained against all Charter of Rights ….” I can’t quote the whole article but it is well worth reading.
. The question boils down to: Are we going to get the “public inquiry” or not? As long as the people who planned the G20 are in charge of the damage control, the answer will be NO. And it doesn’t matter who we vote for. Our elected politicians don't make those decisions.

Near the end of the last section, below, I have quoted the first eight sentences of 2:6.9 (chapter 2, section 6, paragraph 9). But I have only interpreted the first and the last paragraph. These can be taken as examples of HOW to interpret the other six. To do the exercise you will have to skip down to the previous section before reading on here. …
2:6.9,2: ! “Yet it would take very little right thinking to realize why fear occurs.” …
What does “right thinking mean” in the COURSE? …
You can’t interpret a sentence unless you know what the words in it mean. We are not supposed to try to interpret the sentences the AUTHOR has dictated. We are doing it by thinking (B). How would the AUTHOR call the kind of thinking we are doing? …
It would be wrong thinking and the computing his followers are programmed to do would be “right thinking”
. Computing (C), or “right thinking”, produces one realization of “why fear occurs”; while thinking (B), or wrong thinking, produces another. Both realizations are true as seen from the two different viewpoints but if one is true, then the other must be wrong.
. What does “fear” mean in the COURSE? …
2:6.5,8: !”Whenever there is fear it is because you have not made up your mind.” …
Please Google “Cognitive dissonance”. Here you are expected to decide on one of two equally valid choices in order to end “fear”. To understand this sentence we must also know “why fear occurs”, or what it means here? …
2:6.5,9: !”Your mind is therefore split and your behaviour inevitably becomes erratic.” …
If you make the choice the AUTHOR wants you to make your mind (C) is doing, what the AUTHOR would call: “right” computing (C); when we use our intellect (B) to think, according to him, it is wrong thinking, which “inevitably becomes erratic”. But if you use “right thinking” you will be at “peace”. The “discomfort” of cognitive dissonance will no longer affect you.
. If you see thesis and antithesis as the equally valid poles of a polarity and you are trying to find their synthesis then you are engaged in wrong or “erratic” thinking.
. When seen from either one of the two possible viewpoints both views are true. But they can’t both be true. Why? ...
The AUTHOR has made it clear that only one is “inevitably” the right one.
2:6.9,3: !”Few appreciate the real power of the mind, and no one remains fully aware of it all the time.” …
Without interpreting it, this statement is true and should be in the white area (+) of the book. However …
“mind” means two things and every time that word is used both meanings must be tried on for size. …
Mind (Buddhi in Sanskrit) is on level B and mind (Manas) is on level C. The statement is true either way But again, the assumption, that only one of the two is right, makes it wrong. The subordinate phrase, starting with the “and ….” Is wrong. It is true that “no one remains fully aware of it all the time.” In fact no one is aware at all of the computations (C) going on in the mind (C). Why? ...
Because what goes on there is in our subconsciousness. However, it is not true that …
“no one remains fully aware of” the thinking (B) that goes on in the intellect (B). If we were not aware of it them we wouldn’t be responsible for it.
2:6.2,6: “The truth is that you are responsible for what you think, because it is only at this level that you can exercise choice.” So the AUTHOR knows it. He knows that what he told us at 2:6.9 is not the whole truth. So why is he intentionally confusing the issue? ...
2:.6.9,4: +“However, if you hope to spare yourself from fear there are some things you must realize, and realize fully.” …
To “realize fully” means knowing it by heart. It means, stepping down the knowledge (B) of truth, or falsehood, to the more concrete, efficient and faster representations (C) of the truth, or falsehood. Either way, the statement is true (+).
2:6.9,5: +”The mind [whether on level C or B] is very powerful, and (-) never loses its creative force. …
The intellect (B) is powerful and never loses its creative force. It is build that way. But the mind is only powerful if it is programmed by social engineers for that purpose. It is not true that the mind (C) can never lose its power. If, because the AUTHOR is spilling the beans as he does, you find out the truth from him then the truth will set you free, which means? …
That your programmed mind and its programmers lose their control over you.
2:6.9,6: !”It never sleeps. Every instant it is creating.” This is only true of a well programmed mind (C). It “Does its job Without us Doing (WyWUWy)” it intentionally. The statement is not true of the intellect (B). As Gurdjieff, and the AUTHOR here, have told us: We are asleep. To intentionally seek the truth, we need our soul with its Conscious Energy (E4) to keep us on track. Or we need representations (C) which keep us on track automatically (E6). True ideas (B) must become as automatic (E6) as the ideas the AUTHOR keeps repeating.
. I have already dealt with 2:6.9,8. So there is no point in going over it again.
. In the May 9 section I said: “To make things easy for you and for me, I will concentrate only in [on] those passages in which the AUTHOR is trying to destroy our faith (A) in the capacity of our intellect (B) ….” So, since May 9 we have concentrated on passages in which the AUTHOR has “depreciated the power of” our intellect.
2:7.1,5: +“I would hardly help you if I depreciated the power of your own thinking.”
. It is true that, to depreciate the power of our own thinking, will not “help” us.
2:7.1,6: - “This would be in direct opposition to the purpose of this course.” …
I can let Lao Tzu comment on that: Intentionally “Aligned Words Likely Reverse (%8C2JO$l)”. Depreciating the power and usefulness of our intellect is “the purpose of this course.”
. Following a “job-description” like: Concentrate only on passages in which the AUTHOR is depreciating the power of our intellect, imposes limitations on what we can do. For instance I would have liked to comment on some passages I came across but couldn’t because I had to do another job first. I think we have done “Enough(Zu)” of this kind of work. While doing this job, I verified that most statements belong into the “UnIdentifiAble(PUMgpt)” grey area (?) of the book, at first, because …
the AUTHOR has made the intentional attempt to bypass our intellect (B).
. What came as a bit of a surprise was that the “IdentifiAble(ptMg)” grey area is greater than the white and black areas taken together. However, whether in a single sentence or a paragraph the hook ( - ) is usually covered by more bait (+). The bigger the hook, the more bait is needed to hide it.
. There are always the two standpoints: The one the AUTHOR is taking and the other …
he wants us to take. “Cognitive dissonance” comes into play here. If you pick one of two equally valid standpoints and reinforce it by “Repetition(@1)” then the “discomfort” of cognitive dissonance can be avoided. This is not a logical principle but a “psychological phenomena”.
. The opposite of the computing (C) the AUTHOR is “training” us to do is the thinking you would be doing right now, if ...
you are trying to follow me. If we “interpret” the sentences the AUTHOR is dictating we are doing WHAT he doesn’t want us to do. It is the very opposite of what he wants us to do. There is a third possible standpoint. Can you see it? …
Form this third viewpoint the two opposing standpoints are seen as the poles of “one” polarity. This leads up to an “atonement”. Thesis and antithesis are no longer seen as opposites but as complementaries which are joining together in the synthesis. …
Boy, I couldn’t have said that better myself.
. Since I no longer have to concentrate on passages in which the AUTHOR depreciates the intellect, let me now pick passages from anywhere in the book, skip anything that is too hard to chew and interpret what I like to interpret. The first passage that caught my attention is at
3:4.1,7: +”Only the Levels of the Trinity are capable of unity.”
3:4.1,8: +“The levels created by the separation cannot but conflict.”
3:4.1,9: - “This is because they are meaningless to each other.”
. Why did I put the three sentences in the areas of the book in which I put them? …

=======================================================

May 10, 2011
. At the end of the last section I have quoted from chapter 1, subsection 1, paragraph 29 of A COURSE IN MIRACLES:
1:1.29: “Miracles …. Heal because they deny body-identification and affirm spirit-identification.” And then I said: Predict what I will say about that? …” …
Our intellect (B) is identified with our “body” (D). This is what we are supposed to “deny”, or reject. What the AUTHOR is dictating is identified with the “spirit”. This is what we are supposed to “affirm”, or accept blindly. We are not supposed to think about what the AUTHOR says. This is social engineering spelled out so blatantly that he is clearly spilling the beans.
1:1.33: “Miracles …. Dispel illusions about yourself …. by freeing you from your nightmares. By releasing your mind from the imprisonment of your illusions, they restore your sanity.” So, our intellect (B) is imprisoning our “mind” (C) and the AUTHOR is setting us free and restores our “sanity” with his “miracles”.
. If you have followed me part of the way then you will no longer need my interpretations of the AUTHOR’s words. This kind of work is much like interpreting Lao Tzu’s words. The difference is that Lao Tzu gives us paradoxes to think about, while …
the AUTHOR doesn’t want us to “contradict” him.
1:1.37: “A miracle is a correction introduced into false thinking by me. It acts as a catalyst, breaking up erroneous perception and reorganizing it properly. This places you under the Atonement principle, where perception is healed. Until this has occurred, knowledge of the Divine Order is impossible.” Got it? …
Don't use your intellect. Just trust the AUTHOR.
What still needs to be Googled, or FOUND are the phrases: “Atonement principle”, which brings us to the pyramid scheme, and “Divine Order”. The question is not what Divine Order means in general but what the AUTHOR means by it.
1:1.41: “Wholeness is the perceptual content of miracles. They thus correct, or atone for, the faulty perception of lack.” The intellect is here accused of having a “faulty perception of lack”. Is the intellect guilty of “the faulty perception of lack”? …
The whole emerges through its parts and, having emerged, gives meaning to them. If one part is lacking, or missing, then the whole can’t emerge. What is “faulty, or wrong, with the “perception of lack”? …
A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Break one link, and you break the chain. When there is “lack” there is no “Wholeness”. Does the AUTOR not know this, or does he purposely try to confuse the issue? …
The first step is identifying contradictions; the second step is …
determining whether the mistakes are made intentionally. See
2:7.6: The whole, or “Oneness transcends the sum of its parts. However, this is obscured as long as any of its parts is missing.“ So he knows that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.
1:1.42: “A major contribution of miracles is their strength in releasing you from your false sense of isolation, deprivation and lack” which are caused by your intellect.
. Paragraph 50 is the last one in Chapter 1. So let me pick it:
1:1.50: “The miracle compares what you have made with creation, accepting what is in accord with it as true, and rejecting what is out of accord as false.”
. “Wholeness” has to do with “creation”. The question is now: Does the AUTHOR know that? As interesting as this question is, we must stick to our job right now.
. In the first two subsections of chapter 2, the intellect is continued to be accused of “sins” and “mistakes”. Unless it can be shown that the intellect is not guilty of these accusations words like “forgiving” and “correcting” are taken in the dictionary sense instead of the sense they have in the COURSE. The accusations are made very subtly so that picking one of those statements could be called nitpicking. So I will skip to the beginning of the third subsection. In the last two paragraphs of the second section the word “Atonement” appears 7 times. And that leads up to
2:3.1,1: “The Atonement can only be accepted within you by releasing the inner light [the light you have absorbed from the AUTHOR]. Since the separation, defenses have been used [by the intellect] almost entirely to defend AGAINST the Atonement, and thus maintain the separation. This is generally seen as a need to protect the body. The many body fantasies in which minds [intellects] engage arise from the distorted belief that the body can be used as a means for attaining ‘atonement’.”
. The intellect is rightly accused of causing the “separation”. So far we are in the white area. The intellect is also in charge of putting the parts back together again. This is the at-one-ment, for which the AUTHOR takes the credit. Let us see what Lao Tzu says about this:
“This DyAd(Tzdyad) is a Unit Originally ($1Cu)
But it is Divided by Identifying (btâoMg) its poles. the
Unit is Called ($1is) the light’S Darkness (_ZSü)
Darken It and Repeat the Darkening Sü_Z@1Sü)”.
. This “Repeated Darkening” is putting the parts back together. In other words it is an at-one-ment. The “DyAd(dyad)” is only used as an example. The same thing is true of the “TriAd(_3ad)” or any other N-Term system. Any N-Term system is a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. What does that tell you about “the distorted belief that the body can be used as a means for attaining ‘atonement’”? …
The AUTHOR is accusing the intellect of this “distorted belief”. Does this accusation hold up in the court of reason? …
Our soul, intellect, mind and body (A-B-C-D) form one tetrad. If one part is missing, no matter which one, at-one-ment can’t happen. The body is one of the four sources which are necessary for the atonement of the tetrad to happen.
. I have picked this passage because it gives me the excuse to slip in a bit of philosophy. I will try the same with some of my other picks.
2:3.3,9: “The alternating investment in the two levels of perception is usually experienced as conflict” which is caused by the intellect. In “Cognitive Dissonance”, please Google it, the necessity to choose between two equally valid choices causes discomfort. The word “discomfort” is at the end of the next paragraph. You can avoid the discomfort by choosing one and reinforcing it by “Repetition(@1)”. In this way the other choice can be ignored. without the discomfort
2:3.5,1: “The children of God [the AUTHOR's] are entitled to the perfect comfort that comes from perfect trust” in the AUTHOR. In this way
2:3.3,10: “…. the outcome is as certain as God” the AUTHOR.
2:4.2,1: “A major step in the Atonement plan is to undo error at all levels [A, B, C and D]. Sickness or ‘not-right-mindedness. Is the result of level confusion, because it always entails the belief that what is amiss on one level can adversely affect another. …. (4) Only the mind [read intellect here] is capable of error. (5) The body can act wrongly only when it is responding to misthought. (6) The body cannot create, and the belief that it can, a fundamental error, produces all physical symptoms.”
. I will stop here to give you a chance to predict what I will say about this. …

========================================================

May 9, 2011
. The intent of the AUTHOR who has dictated A COURSE IN MIRACLES is to control us completely. That means control of our soul (A), our intellect (B) our mind (C) and of our body. For the details of what I am going to say, you have to study J.G. Bennett’s ENERGIES and his DRAMATIC UNUVERSE but I will keep it as simple as possible.
. Our soul needs Conscious Energy (E4) to function, our intellect needs Sensitive Energy (E5), our mind needs Automatic Energy (E6) and our body needs Vital Energy (E7) to move our body. Gurdjieff called our body (D) the moving center (D).
. The four types of energy are the four “Sources”. or parts of the tetrad.
. The four sources work as a team, as in the construction business. As the customer (A) tells the architect (B) what to do so the architect tells the contractor (C) what to do; and as B tells C what to do so C tells the subcontractors (D) what to do. Now, what must the AUTHOR do to “correct” this natural order? …
. Let me continue from where we have left off in the last section:
14:11..3,9: “Put no confidence at all in the darkness to illuminate your understanding, for you do you contradict the light [which is what the AUTHOR calls his message], and thereby think you see the darkness.” And thereby know the “darkness” for what it is.
. To make things easy for you and for me, I will concentrate only in those passages in which the AUTHOR is trying to destroy our faith (A) in the capacity of our intellect (B) and thereby tries to induce us to hand over the control of our mind (C) to him.
. In the first three paragraphs, which were dictated by the AUTHOR in the of the book he is equating the intellect (B) to the body (D). Intellect and body form the theory, practice (B-D) “DyAd(dyad)” Telling us that intellect and body are the same is like telling us that white is black. But he has to make that switch in order to blame the intellect (B) for the shortcomings of our mind (C) and body (D).
. Still in the third paragraph we get: “God and His Creation share one Will. The world of perception, however, is made by the belief in opposition and separate wills, in perpetual conflict with each other and with God.” The AUTHOR tries to makes us to believe that He is the Son of God. He points out, here, how foolish it is oppose God and to “contradict” the Son of God. There is a strong appeal to authority in this book.
. The fourth paragraph begins: “When you [with your intellect] have been caught in the world of perception you are caught in a dream. You cannot escape without help,”.
. I have to skip a lot of good stuff but, following Lao Tzu’s advise, I have to keep it as simple as possible and restrict myself to what the AUTHOR calls our “problem” and its solution.
. In the fifth paragraph we have: “’Projection makes perception’ (Text p. 445). We look inside first, decide the kind of world we want to see and then project that world outside, making it the truth AS WE SEE IT. We make it true by our interpretation”. This statement is true. So why did I quote it? …
Our “interpretations” are produced by our intellect. We have here another hidden message not to trust our intellect. Still in the same paragraph we are told that, if we trust our intellect, we use it to “justify our own mistakes –our anger, our impulses to attack, our lack of love …. We will see a world of evil, destruction, malice, envy and despair. …. What we are seeing is not true. We have distorted the world by our twisted defences, and therefore seeing what is not there. …. Our perpetual errors,” are all caused by our bad intellect. So why not let the AUTHOR straighten it out? Wouldn’t it be foolish not to trust the Son of God? …
. We have only reached the fifth paragraph of the PREFACE. How many more “Repetitions(@1)” of the same message will we get in the thousands of paragraphs which are following in the rest of the book? …
In the sixth paragraph we have: “Sin ….is a mistake to be corrected, …. Our sense of inadequacy, weakness and incompletion comes from the strong investment in the …. World of illusions” for which the bad intellect is blamed.
. On Plato's “Divided Line (509d)” illusion is “eikasia” on level D. Each of the four levels of the “Line” is an autonomous whole. Each level is responsible for its own sphere of influence. To blame the intellect (B) for what happens on level D is either a mistake or an intentional lie. Obviously, theory (B) is not practice (D).
. There are more or less subtle references to the bad things our intellect is blamed for, but I will skip most of it because it becomes repetitious.
. The ninth paragraph begins with: “Perception is a function of the body, and therefore represents a limit on awareness.” Why did I pick this one? …
Because it is true, and only when the truth is understood can we see the hook inside of the bait. Awareness (A) requires Conscious Energy (E4) to operate. Thinking (B) requires Sensitive Energy (E5). It is illuminated directly by consciousness. Speech (C) requires Automatic Energy (E6). As with thinking, we can be fully conscious of what we say, but our subconscious representations (C) can only be brought into awareness (A) by a conscious (A) effort of self-observation or meditation. Raja yoga is also called the yoga of meditation at Gita 13.24. Raja yogis are better at that than the other three types of yogis. However the automatic functions of our nervous system can’t be observed in that way.
. We can be aware of our physical actions (D) as we can be of what we think and say, but the autonomous functions of our body are hardwired, they are outside the range of our consciousness (E4).
. So the above quote is true, but where is the hook? …
“Perception is a function of the body [D (E7)] and therefore” it is the furthest away from consciousness (A (E4)) but does that mean that the intellect (B (E5) is furthest away from E4? …
There are more references to the intellect and the alternative to it but I have to start skipping a few and pick the more interesting or revealing ones. Here is one from Paragraph 11: “Christ’s vision is the Holy Spirit’s gifts, God’s alternative to the illusion of separation and the belief in the reality of sin, guilt and death.”
. The thirteenth paragraph is the last one. There is a reference to the reversal of thinking, but we have to deal with that one later, and for that we can use Google or the FIND function. Near the end of this paragraph we get: “Forgetting all our misperceptions, and with nothing …. to hold us back, we can remember God [If the intellect does not “hold us back we can” move forward]. Beyond this [the intellect’s ] learning cannot go.”.
. There is one more subtle and one less subtle reference to the pyramid scheme in the PREFACE, but we must stick to our subject in order to make our analysis manageable. Lao Tzu knew what he was talking about when he said: Don’t bite of more than you can chew.
. In chapter 1 subsection 1 the AUTHOR speaks about “Miracles”, and he sticks to the subject. There are very few references to the bad intellect and, when there are, the references are more subtle. For instance, at
1:1.12: “Miracles are thoughts. Thoughts can represent the lower or bodily level of experience, or the higher or spiritual level of experience.” In contrast to the PREFACE, here the intellect is also capable of producing good things. The hook, here, is …
that it can only produce good things if we let the AUTHOR control it.
. This is as far as I will go today. I will continue with
1:1.29: “Miracles ….heal because they deny body-identification and affirm spirit-identification.” Try to predict what I will say about that? …

=====================================================

May 8, 2011
. There is no way that you can be sure that the quotes I pick from A COURSE IN MIRACLES and work on, are picked at random. Unless a net-worker (C) joins me in this work, communicating with me is too difficult. The time and energy I would have to invest in networking (C) is time and energy I can’t invest in thinking (B). In a healthy society the “TalkErs(C2er)” (C) do the talking and the thinkers (B) do the thinking.
. I will quote from the very first three paragraphs in the book, which have been dictated by the AUTHOR. They are on page X of the PREFACE.
“… A COURSE IN MIRACLES …. Makes a fundamental distinction between the real and the unreal; between knowledge and perception. Knowledge is truth,”. Not everything the Author dictates is true “Knowledge”. It can be seen that even in these first three paragraphs we have here, there is “Knowledge” that is false. And when the “official version” of the “truth” is “Repeated(@1)” often “Enough(Zu)” it is stepped down and knowledge (B) becomes representation (C), which is no longer questioned.
“…. Truth is unalterable, eternal. It apples to everything that God [the AUTHOR has] created, and only what He created is real. It is beyond learning …. It merely is.
2. “The world of perception, on the other hand, is the world of time, of change, of beginnings and endings. It is based on interpretation [by the intellect (B)], not on facts. It is the world of birth and death, founded on the belief in …. It is learned rather than given [by the AUTHOR], selective in its perceptual emphasis [In which passages I pick here], unstable in its functioning, and inaccurate in its interpretations [If that were true then I wouldn’t keep finding all of those spilled beans.]
3. “From knowledge and perception respectively, two distinct thought systems arise which are opposite in every respect.” The “thought system” based on representations (C) is more like computation (C) than thinking (B). Its “opposite in every respect [is the thinking we are doing right here]. In the realm of [false] knowledge no thoughts exist apart from God,”. In other words: Don’t question what “God” has dictated here.
2:6.1,6: If “you have raised body thoughts [(C) to head thoughts (B)]. This removes them from my control”. This is why you must
7:7.11,1: “Perceive any part of the ego’s thought system [which we are using here] as wholly insane, wholly delusional and wholly undesirable,”.
. This statement belongs into the black area of the book. It is totally false from the standpoint of the “thought system” we are supposed to reject.
14:11.3,8: “Do not attempt to understand any event or anything or anyone [with the “thought system” we are using right here], for the darkness [“the ego’s thought system”] in which you try to see can only obscure [How come, then, that we find all of these spilled beans in the “darkness”? …].
14:11.3,9: “Put no confidence at all in the darkness to illuminate your understanding, for if you do you contradict the light, and thereby think you see the darkness.” And because we contradict the AUTHOR we can see the “darkness” for what it is.
. What I have quoted from the third paragraph on page X is true, except for the last sentence: “In the realm of [false] knowledge no thoughts exist”. This is true because only computation (C) can exist there. But it is wrong to say that “In the realm of [true] knowledge no thoughts exist”. Without thinking (B) you couldn’t follow me here. But if you can follow me then you are “contradiction” the AUTHOR right there. The “darkness” you see belongs in the black area of the book. They are a blatant attempt to deceive. A saying I heard when I was a sailor comes to mind: “Du kannst doch einen nakten Seeman nicht in die Tashen pissen.” A rough translation would be: “There is no way to piss in the pockets of a naked sailor.” Which means: I know your trick and it will not work on me. Try to identify the AUTHOR’s tricks. How many of them have we identified so far, and how many are still hidden? And how many times are the the ones we have identified “Repeated? …

=========================================================

May 7, 2011
. The TEXT of A COURSE IN MIRACLES is 669 pages long while the WORKBOOK FOR STUDENTS, the MANUAL FOR TEACHERS and two SUPPLEMENTS are another 622 pages. The first paragraph of the INTRODUCTION to the WORKBOOK is worth quoting:
“1 . A theoretical foundation such as the text provides is necessary as a framework to make the exercises in the workbook, meaningful. Yet it is doing the exercises that will make the goal of the course possible. An untrained mind can accomplish nothing [of what the AUTHOR wants it to accomplish]. It is the purpose of this workbook to train your mind to think along the lines the text sets forth.”
. If you jump ahead to the middle of the book, without having properly absorbed the 669 page text then you can identify this paragraph as grey; but if you have been properly “trained” then you will not see the hooks in it, and this paragraph will be as white as white can be. It is as the AUTHOR said: what you see is determined by what you know.
. Let us go to page 445 of the TEXT. That's over 2/3rd through the text. Why go there? …
The AUTHOR said at 14:6.3,4: “Your learning gives the present [book] no meaning at all.” How, then, can we hope to understand an advanced lesson as can be expected on page 445? …
We can understand an advanced lesson if the AUTHOR is wrong, and if we understand the subject he is talking about. The title of Chapter 21 is
“REASON AND PERCEPTION” And our reason (B) can inform us about our perception (D). At 509d, of his Republic, Plato has called level D “eikasia”. The Hindus call the same world we see “maya”, and both words mean “Illusion” in English. Let us, then, see what the AUTHOR says about reason (B) and perception (D) in the first eight sentences of the INTRODUCTION to this chapter.
“1 . Projection makes perception. The world you see is what you gave it, nothing more than that. But though it is no more than that, it is no less. Therefore, to you it is important. It is the witness to your state of mind, the outside picture of an inward condition. As a man thinketh, so does he perceive. Therefore, seek not to change the world. Perception is a result and not a cause. ….”
I have to identify these eight sentences as belonging in the white area. What you think (B) about the world repeatedly becomes a representation (C) of the world for you. What you believe, or expect the world to be like, you project. And “Projection makes perception. .... Perception is a result and not a cause.” What the AUTHOR has said here is true. But where is the hook? …
Can’t see one. Try as I may, I can’t find anything wrong here. But where is the hook? …
The next paragraph begins with: “Damnation is your judgement on yourself, and this you will project upon the world. See it as damned, and all you see is what you did to hurt the Son of God.” And, if you have learned your lessons up to here without noticing any hooks, then you will not see this one either. And you will know who “the Son of God” is. You wouldn’t “hurt” or “crucify him” would you? …
20:7.10,1: “What has no meaning cannot be perceived.”
. At first, we would put this statement in the white area but as we think about it we have to move it into the grey area. Why? …
Because this is not the whole truth. The hidden part is the hook. What you believe has meaning for you. You see what you want to see. What is not mentioned here, is how much work, for 444 pages, had to go into programming your mind to see what the AUTHOR wants you to see. To program our mind (C) the AUTHOR must get the intellect (B) to hand the control of the mind over to him.
. Let us go back to 14:11.3
14:11.3,8: “Do not attempt to understand any event or anything or anyone in its ‘light,’ [in “what you have taught yourself (3,6). LET IT ALL GO.”] for the darkness [your own thinking] to illuminate your understanding [your belief in the COURSE], for if you do you contradict the light [what the AUTHOR is causing you to see], and thereby think you see the darkness [which you can see]. Yet darkness cannot be seen”. Wrong, by some thinking about the TEXT we can clearly identify some black areas in it. With more people thinking about it, more black areas can be clearly identified.
. Lao Tzu says: Don’t bite off more than you can chew. Don’t waste your time and energy on chewing on the grey areas. Concentrate only on what you can clearly identify as black or white. Following Lao Tzu’s advise, you will be able to find more passages you are able to identify clearly than you can handle. This is not a one person job.
. We have reached the end of paragraph three. To illustrate what I have just said, let us go to the beginning of the next paragraph.
14.11.4,1: “You who have not yet brought all of the darkness you have taught yourself into the light in you, can hardly judge the truth and value of this course.” If you know what the words “darkness” and “light” mean in “this course” then this statement needs no interpretation.
14:11.4,5: “Learn of His happiness, which is yours” if you bring “all your dark lessons”
14;:1.4,6: “….willingly to truth, and joyously laid down by hands open to receive, not closed to take.”
. There are many sentences in which the message that: Your intellect is useless and I, the AUTHOR, am the only one who can make proper use of it, is hardly hidden at all. If you don’t catch the hook, you will get more and more hooked. Let’s just skip to the last sentence of this paragraph.
14:11.4,9: “Never believe that any lesson you have learned [yourself] apart from Him [the AUTHOR who has dictated this book] means anything.”
. There are 1291 pages in this COURSE and I become more and more convinced that not one sentences on these pages is wasted.
. Me picking sentences at random will not do because how do you know that I picked them at random? What I need is a net worker (C) to team up with me so that we can start networking. I also need somebody to help me with my boat. All my energy goes into philosophy (B) there is nothing left for the boat (D).

========================================================

May 5, 2011
. We will continue our analysis of A COURSE IN MIRACLES from where we have left off in the last section, below this one.
7:7.10,7: “You are as lonely without [a following] understanding this as God Himself [the AUTHOR of this book] is lonely when His Sons do not know Him” or believe
what He says.
. When studying the Tao Te Ching, or this COURSE, inductively we start on the bottom, with the words. Most words are the equivalents of what the dictionary gives us. If this were not so then communication would be impossible. But in the Ching, as well as here, some words get the meanings the authors give them.
7:7.10,8: “The peace of God is understanding this” COURSE. So, if we know what “the peace of God” is then we know what “understanding” means in this book.
. In philosophy (B) understanding can be a working knowledge which can be tested by the people who have this knowledge. And if, after a sufficient number of tests, the theory (B), or the scientific hypothesis, is seen to work then this knowledge is called understanding. In pragmatism (D) the definition of truth is: If a theory works then it is true. Is that what “understanding” means in the COUESE? …
No. “….understanding this” COURSE is more likely to mean: believing what the AUTHOR is saying. If people don’t believe it then they leave the cult and the teachers are “lonely” because they are without followers.
. 7:7.10,6, like many other passages, refers to the pyramid scheme. If those on the base of the pyramid can’t rope in any more followers then the pyramid stops growing. The ropers on the bottom are wondering why nobody is swallowing the bait with the hooks in it anymore. Finally they break the rule, not to listen to criticisms of the COURSE, and they listen. Now, those who are supposed to be roped in, explain to the ropers why they can’t be roped in. What happens next? …
Those on the bottom level of the pyramid get disenchanted and leave. If those on the lower levels leave then those on the level above them get as lonely as those below them felt before they left. …
As you can see, the truth is all there. All it takes is the willingness and ability on your part to seek it. If you seek the truth you will find it. One way Lao Tzu suggests to do it, is to try to “Identify the IdentfyAble (MgptMg)”. There are white, grey and black identifiable areas in the book. Everything that is not black or white or that is black and white is grey. For instance an international opinion poll was conducted to find out what people thought about 9/11. the question boils down to: Do you think that 9/11 was an inside job? Yes or no? Those who have not made up their mind yet don’t have to be counted. The results are available on the internet. In time the truth will always win out over falsehood. The questions Amadinejan has asked at the UN still have to be answered. The videos and documentaries are also available on the internet. In spite of professional social engineering the number of people who believe that 9/11 was an inside job is slowly but surely approaching thee 50 percent mark. That is a turning point because what people believe goes into what Rupert Sheldrake calls the Morpho-genetic Field. When the scale is tipping, we have a major paradigm shift. People who have been dumbed down and “trained” not to think pick up their information from this Field without thinking. This works well for the social engineers as long as the majority can be made to believe the “official version” of 9/11. But as the number of people that can no longer believe the lies reaches 50 % some people in high places are likely to begin to worry. They can be expected to do something desperate to prevent the scale from tipping.
. Today is already May 7, and still the papers are full of articles about this guy who brought down three big buildings at gravity speed, with two air-planes. And people are still waiting for the answers to the questions Amadinejan has asked.
7:7.10,9: “There is only one way out of the world’s thinking [computing (C)], just as there was [is] only one way into it”. What is it? ...
It is the kind thinking we are doing here. Is it any wonder, then, that we are not supposed to do that? ….
7:7.10,10: “Understand totally by understanding totally.” When we take “understanding” what it means here, the statement is in the grey area. It makes no sense. But there is also a truth behind this statement. And it is worth the effort to understand it: The whole emerges through its parts and, having emerged, gives meaning to them.
. In business the demand comes from the customer (A) and the supply comes from
. . Y . . . . the supplier (B-C-D). There we have a “Monad($1)”
Z . + . X . and a “TriAd(_3ad)” forming a “DyAd(dyad)”
. . A . . . . To the left we have two triads X-Y-Z and B-C-D.
D . + . B . With A as the connective between them, we have
. . C . . . . another triad. But the diagram to the left represents the Heptad, which is a sevenfold number system. This is the largest N-Term system I understand well enough. With a bit of knowledge of systematics. You can see that the larger system emerges through its parts and, having emerged, gives meaning to them. It is always the larger system or the whole which gives meaning to its parts. So “understanding totally” could be the understanding of the whole, which gives meaning to its parts. Is that what the AUTHOR means by “understanding totally”? ...
. 7:7.10,10 is the last sentence in this paragraph.
7:7.11,1: “Perceive any part of the ego’s thought system [on level B] as wholly insane, wholly delusional and wholly undesirable, and you have correctly evaluated all of it.” This sentence belongs in the black area. I can’t find a bit of truth, or white, in it. This type of assertion can be summed up as: Your intellect is completely useless to you. Therefore what you have to do is to let me make sure that it works properly.
. We came across this same kind of advise at. 2:6.2,3: “Why should you condone insane thinking?” Let me look after it. I will make sure that your intellect (B) works properly. And when I read it for the first time, the hook slipped right by me. But when I jumped forward to 14:11.6,5: “Ask to be taught, and do not use your experiences to confirm what you have learned.”, I just couldn’t swallow it. No amount of bait could have hidden that hook. It contradicted everything I have learned over the previous 67 years.
. During the short April 17 section and the beginning of the April 18 section I was very impressed. If somebody knows so much about the golden rule then he could be Jesus. Let’s find out. And by the time I reached the end of the April 18 section I was already getting suspicious.
. As I was looking for more examples of this type of message, the word “Pragmatically” caught my attention. What does the COURSE have to do with pragmatism, or the pragmatic dimension of semiotics? …
2:5.14,2: “Only right-mindedness can correct in a way that has any real effect.” If by “right-mindedness” is meant the thinking we do with our intellect (B) then this statement is in the white area. Since, According to the AUTHOR, that kind of thinking is “insane thinking” the statement is in the black area. White mixed with black gives us grey. This statement, right or wrong, is about thinking (B). The next statement about pragmatism (D) needed an introduction.
2:5.14,3: “Pragmatically, what has no real effect has no real existence.”
. That is like saying if a theory doesn’t work as predicted then it is not true. For instance if these “brothers” on the bottom of the pyramid are told of you rope in more brothers, then as I am to you, so you will be to them. But as they put out the hook with the bait around it, nobody is swallowing it. The “effect [their efforts are supposed to have] has no real existence.” The theory doesn’t work. Obviously the more recently caught brothers want to know what went wrong. And, even though they are told not to listen to the people that can’t be caught, some brothers are listening. And before they leave they are telling some of their friends on the bottom level why they are leaving. After all, it wouldn't be fair to them not to tell them.
. As more brothers find out why they are not supposed to listen to the truth, more brothers are leaving. And then the top of the pyramid is hanging in the air without the support it needs from new members. We can see from 2:5.14,3 that the AUTHOR is aware of this problem. But why, then, is he spilling the beans the way he does? ...
May I be so bold and call it a mistake? …
14::11.3,5: “Nothing you have ever learned can help you understand [read believe (C)] the present” what I am telling you. Well that the one that did it for me. If you can swallow this one then you are so far gone that you are almost beyond rescue. However, …
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. If the pudding “has no real existence” what are you going to eat?.

======================================================

May 4, 2011
. Intentionally “Repeating(@1)” the “Truth(A1) causes the knowledge of the truth to become a representation (C) of the truth. What does this mean in practice? …
Representations take precedence over knowledge. Why? …
Because computation (C) is faster than thinking (B). Computation needs representations to work with as thinking uses ideas to work with. Intentionally repeating true or false ideas causes them to become representations. The mind (C) can’t work with ideas (B). This is why ideas have to be stepped down to representations before the mind can do its computations. The program that uses the ideas is itself a representation. Is that complicated enough? …
. If the idea, I have just described, is true then it will work. If you use the above theory (B) as a working knowledge (B) you can translate it into practice (D) by using it.
. In the April 28 section I came to chapter 2. And there began the line of thought which reached its conclusion at the end of 2:6.2 (Chapter 2: subsection 6. paragraph 2). Notice how from the April 28 section onward, I keep coming back to 2:6.2. Going over the same lesson “Repeatedly” has enabled me to make the above statement not just from my theoretical knowledge (B), as I usually do, but from direct experience (D).
. The statement by the AUTHOR that started the line of thought was at
2:6.1,6: Not following his orders :”shows that you have raised body thoughts to the level of the mind. This removes them from my control”.
. The “body thoughts” are computations (C) on level C with Automatic Energy (E6). Raising them means what? …
By becoming aware (A (E4)) of these subconscious computations (C) they become thoughts (B). They become the thoughts again they were before they were stepped down to representations.
. When you fully understand 2:6.1,6 then you can re-cognize the same content at
2:6.2,6: “….you are responsible for what you think”. Why? …
Because you have the freedom of thought. And that’s why “you are responsible for what you think”. By moving from the syntactic (C) dimension of semiotics up to the semantic (B) dimension you are changing representations back to the thoughts they were before and “This removes them from my control, and [that] makes you …. Personally responsible for them.” And what’s wrong with that? …
. It’s all there. You just have to take the time it takes to analyze it. The author must let the mind (C) know, program it, without letting the intellect (B) know what is going on. This is a difficult task, and once the intellect has figured out “Enough(Zu)” of what is going on, the Law of Attraction is kicking in. The task of deceiving us then becomes impossible.
. What has to happen next is that a “WordEr(C2er)” follows the line of thought I have pursued since the April 28 section and applies the knowledge gained, as I have done in the examples I have given here, but s/he must do it on his or her own and on different examples.
. What I need now is a communicator to work with me. S/he can be in China for all I know. S/he’s got to have “Enough” brains to find my address in this blog and write me. This file #1 is getting too big, it is slowing down, I need help with that. Without help, I have to ruthlessly delete file #2. The “Insight(72)” that took me just “Enough” over the top of the hill stated in this #1 file. I don’t want to delete it.
. The number of principles I have found in the COURSE which can help us to identify the hidden messages are relatively few, but they can keep us busy enough. One is: What you know (B) or believe (C) determines WHAT you see. That is why the AUTHOR must get us to believe WHAT he wants us to believe. And what he wants us to believe is WHAT gets us hooked. Once this idea (B) has become a representation (C) we can see the hidden messages which are based on that idea automatically (E6).
. This insight has lead up to the insight that the COURSE is promoting a pyramid scheme. The better you understand that scheme the more hidden messages based on that scheme will come automatically to your attention.
. You don’t have to believe that I picked 7:7.7,7 at random. Let’s just go there:
7:7.7.7: “Give, therefore, of your abundance [the knowledge I have given you], and teach your brothers theirs.” If you know the pyramid scheme, this statement needs no interpretation.
7:7.7,8: “Do not share their illusions of scarcity [don’t listen to them], or you perceive yourself as lacking.” If what they tell you is true then you will find your faith in me “lacking”. The next sentence is at
7:7.8,1: “Attack could never promote attack [on your part] unless you perceive it as a means of depriving you of something you want.”
. To demonstrate what I mean, I have followed up from 7:7.7,7 to here. To see the hidden message here is a bit harder, but it is worth the effort: “Attack” here means challenging what the AUTHOR is saying. By the time you have reached chapter 7, what you “perceive” and “want” is largely determined by the AUTHOR already. So …
you will no longer question it. What you are programmed to “perceive” as an “attack” is somebody trying to tell you the truth.
7:7.8,2: “Yet you cannot lose anything unless you do not value it [and who wouldn’t “value” the words of Jesus?], and therefore do not want it.”
. The logic is sound: If you don’t believe what I, Jesus, am saying then “you do not value it, and therefore do not want it”. If you accept the premise that the AUTHOR who has dictated the COURSE is Jesus then the rest follows.
7:7.8.3: “This makes you feel deprived of it [if you are programmed that way] ….
7:7.8,4: “You must be fearful if you believe that your brother is attacking you to tear the Kingdom O Heaven from you.” Your brother can't do that, as long ...
as you don’t listen to him.
7:7.85: “This is the ultimate basis for all the ego’s projection.” Whatever they are trying to tell you, is not true because it “is the ultimate basis for all the ego’s projection.”
. By the time you have reached chapter 7, without finding at least one hook which is too hard for you to chew, you can’t help but accept everything “Jesus” says as true.
. You can do what I have done here with 7:7.9 as well. Let me just jump to the last sentence of the 8th paragraph: “If you chose to separate yourself from God [or the “truth”], that is what you will think [what others] are doing to you” if they know the truth and you listen to them.
. We are on page 129, which is about one tenth of the book. But count how many times the same message has been repeated in different words. The next sentence is:
7:7.10,1: “You are the Will of God.” You become the instrument through which the AUTHOR can act on others, if you ...
7:7.10,2: “Do not accept anything else as your will, or you are denying what you are” programmed to be. Not mine will but Thine Will be done. To get to another principle let me just jump to
7:7.10,6: “They [the people you have roped in] are parts of you as you are part of God” or the AUTHOR. And if the people you have roped in rope in other people, then you can tell them: “They are part of you as you are part of God” or of you who is the servant of the AUTHOR who can hear His voice, which is the same voice that dictated the COURSE. As an exercise, you can do what I have done here on other sentences. …

=======================================================

May 3, 2011
. We are analyzing passages from A COURSE IN MIRACLES. The addresses in front of many quotes are incomplete or wrong. From now on I have to give Chapter #: Section #. Paragraph #, and Sentence number. This is a tough job for me because I am not a “WordEr(C2er)”. “KnowErs are Not good with Words (knerPUC2)”, especially when the ideas in these words are so fascinating.
3:1.7,1: “The Atonement itself radiates nothing but the truth”. The Atonement has to do with the pyramid scheme. Whenever I come across that word, I will quote it because this will shed a bit more light on it.
1:3.1,1: “I am in charge of the process of Atonement, which I undertook to begin.” …
1:3.1,2: “When you offer a miracle to any of my brothers, you do it to [for] YOURSELF and me.” If you know HOW the pyramid scheme works then you don’t need my interpretation.
3:2.1,2: “Certain fundamental concepts cannot be understood in terms of opposites.
3:2.1,3: “It is impossible to conceive of light and darkness or everything and nothing as joint possibilities [as “DyAds(dyad)]. They are true or false.” In computer programming logic there are always the OR condition we have here and the AND condition, the AUTHOR is denying. Programming would be impossible if there were only one of these two conditions.
3:2.1.5: “It is essential that you realize that your thinking will be erratic until a firm commitment to one or the other [of these equally valid options] is made.”
. Logic demands both the AND and the OR condition. So for one thing we are not talking about a “fundamental concept”. We are talking about a “psychological phenomena”. What we have here is called: “Cognitive Dissonance”. Please Google it. It is hard to believe that the AUTHOR doesn’t know it. If the statement is not due to ignorance, what is it due to? …
Because he wants us to assume a particular mental (C). attitude, we have to study this phenomena a bit further: The AUTHOR gives the example of “light and darkness” and of “everything and nothing”. These are the poles of one polarity. The poles of a polarity are equals and opposites. The poles are the parts of a polarity. The polarity is the hole in which the poles are the parts. Can you follow me this far? …
Because the AUTOR has committed himself so clearly to a particular position, it is worth our time and effort to find out what this position is. It helps to know where he is coming from.
. The whole emerges through its parts and, having emerged, gives meaning to them. In Hegelian dialectics, the first step is determining whether thesis and antithesis are the poles of the same polarity. If it can be determined that thesis and antithesis are the parts of the same “DyAd(dyad)” then you have arrived at the synthesis. Why? …
Because the whole is the synthesis of its parts. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. At 2:7.6,3, the AUTHOR himself said that the “….Oneness transcends the sum of its parts.” So he knows that, what he tries to make us believe here, is not true. At least it is not the whole truth. At best it is a half-truth. Saying that “It is impossible to conceive of light and darkness ….as joint possibilities.” Is not a mistake, it is a lie. Why? …
Because he knows better.
. What is he trying to accomplish. The “discomfort” of “cognitive dissonance” can be avoided by affirming the reality of one pole of the polarity and thus denying the existence of the other. If the existence is affirmed “Repeatedly(@1) then the idea becomes a representation (C) while the other pole remains an idea (B) What does that mean in practice? …
Representations are faster than ideas. Before you can even become aware (A) of the other option, the pole whose existence has been affirmed is again affirmed. Once you have repeated the truth or a lie often “Enough” the Law of Attraction kicks in. The more you repeat a lie the more you strengthen it. In Yesterday’s Toronto Sun we get two full pages that Osama, the guy who blew up the towers on 9/11, is dead. I didn’t even bother to mention it. Today again, two pages: Yes, that’s the guy who blew up the towers. If you tell a lie often “Enough” and loud enough the people will eventually believe it.
. When these “Repetitions(@1)” becme too obvious, they can backfire. As a result I Googled: 9/11 again andclicked on Mahomad Ahmodinejad's talk at the UN. Its title is: “9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB”. We can't believe everything politicians re saying but in this talk the white areas, compared to the grey ones, are larger than they are in the CURSE. A lot of good work must have gone into writing the speech and it deserves a thorough analysis.
. As I said before: I am at this search for 67 years. From 1964 to 1973 I have lectured on the tetrad. There are two types of tetrad: The 3+1 or 1+3 tetrads are dynamic systems because the “TriAd(-3ad)” in it is a dynamic system. The 2+2 terad is a static system because the two “DyAds(dyad)” in it are static systems. When the synthesis emerges through the thesis and the antithesis, the “DyAd” becomes a “TriAd(_3ad)”. Having seen the dynamic triad work for nine years has converted the working theory (B) of it, which was taught in seven weeks, into practice (D). The idea (B) has become a representation (C).
. The AUTHOR gives us the example of “everything and nothing”. If you want to understand what he is talking about here it helps to consult what other teachers have said about the same subject. …
Ching 2.2,1 (Chapter 2. Paragraph 2, sentence 1) can be translated as “Everything and Nothing Mutually produce Life (YUWUmtSg)”. Shêng(Sg) means life and produce. Star gives us “existence / being / something / manifest / ‘is’ / have / having” for Yu(YU) and “non-existence / non-being / nothing / emptiness / hidden / absent / ‘is-not' / not having” for Wu(WU).
. These are the equivalents different translators have used for these two Chinese characters. You can from this that this is the “DyAd” the AUTHOR is talking about. Lao Tzu gives us five more examples of :DyAds” in that sameparagraph, and the different translators Star is consulting agree on the equivalents for most of them. The next sentence reads “Difficult and Easy Mutually (dfezmt) necessitate a task to be Completed(cm)”. The right component of Hsiang(mt) is an eye, representing the seer, and the left component is a tree, representing the seen. We, thus, have the subject-object dyad here.
. All of the six sentences consist of four characters. The first two are the poles of the polarity. It is the “DyAd(dyad)” and the subject of the sentence. Hsiang(mt) is the connective, and the last character is the predicate. It is the synthesis, or the outcome of the process. Most translators agree on the equivalents of the poles of the next two examples. They are: “Long and Short (lg*a)” and “High and low (#h_-). Hsia(_-) is the “Negative” opposite of high. *a = Tuan111. This could be a hint that all six triads are the + - = “TriAds(_3ad)”.
Ching 2.2,5: “Melody and Rhythm Mutually produce Harmony (#a#bmtHo)”.
Ching 2.2,6: “Before and after Mutually produce Sequence (#c60mt#e)” in time and space. No time and space; no before and after. No before and after; no sequence. No sequence; no time and space. This is just an example of how much can be implied by four characters in the Tao Te Ching.
. Lao Tzu says a lot more about these things. There are paradoxes in his book but they are intended to get us to think. They are not attempts to manipulate the intellect (B) of the reader to get it to hand over control of the mind (C) to the manipulator. Without Lao Tzu, I wouldn’t be able to do the analysis of the COURSE. Ideally you study his book yourself. …

================================================

May 2, 2011
“The fundamental conflict in this world, then, is between creation and miscreation.” This quote is not at “7.1,13”, as I have it in the last section, but at 7.3,13. This is a mistake. As I was looking for the quote at 7.1, I happened to come across
7.4,1: “….your belief in it [in what I tell you] seems to render it [renders it] out of your control” and puts it into mine. I have come across this passage many times before. First when I was sold on the COURSE and then when I was looking for errors. How come I didn’t see the hidden message. It is as the author says: Just Google ”perceive”. What we know (B) or believe (C) determines what we see. So how come I can see it now? …
Because I have worked on 6.2 long “Enough(Zu)”
. The AUTHOR, or AGENT within the larger pyramid, is spilling the beans, and ,to me, 6.2 is a turning point. It changes permanently WHAT I see in the COURSE. You can do the same: Simply by trying to put what you read into the white, grey or black areas, you can see not only WHAT the AUTHOR is doing but also HOW he is doing it.
. At first the white areas are the most useful to you. The truth is one. The truth you get here is the same truth you get in the Republic, Steiner’s PHILOSOPHY, Mr.B’s DRAMATIC UNIVERSE, the Gita, the Ching and any other book in which the truth is conveyed. And this includes the COURSE. But now, after the turning point, the black areas, the contradictions, the attempts to deceive us, etc. are more important. And not just for me. If a communicator can see what I see then the “Insights(72)” into the science of social engineering, which can be gained from this book, will be amazing.
. In the last section I got as far as 7.6,8. To illustrate what I have said just now, instead of going forward, let me go back over the text which I have already read. What I want to illustrate by this is to show how many hidden messages have slipped by me:
7.9: “….but you can be trained to think that way. All miracle workers need that kind of training”, and it is given in the WORKBOOK FOR STUDENTS and in the MANUAL FOR TEACHERS. I am afraid that if you have reached these advanced “lessons” without having caught a hook then you are hooked so well that even the truth may not set you free. So this blog is addressed to “WordErs(C2er)” who are not hooked yet, or not “Enough(Zu)” to still be able to free themselves. For Tzu(Zu) see Ching 46: “Knowing Enough’S Enough (knZu_ZZu) is knowing the Constant Enough Yi (CnZuYi).” He who knows enough shall have more and he who knows not enough shall lose even the little he has. Lao Tzu refers to a turning point. If you stop making intentional efforts, with Conscious (E4) and Sensitive (E5) Energies then you slide back down again; but if you get just a bit past the top of the hill, you move forward with Automatic Energy. Intentional efforts will get you to move forward faster, of course, but even when you relax your efforts, you don’t Automatically slide backwards. You will always move forward automatically. You are “Doing it Without having to Do (WyWUWy)” it intentionally. This Month, May 29, I will be 76 years old. My intentional search started at age 9. I can’t say that I have worked steadily on my path of knowledge (B) for the past 67 years. Until I joined the Theosophists, here in Toronto, I didn’t even know that what I was doing ifor all of these years is called jnana yoga (B). As you get more firmly established on your own path, influences from the other side of the “Door, Dasamadwara” (A) can reach you more easily. This is true for all of the four major yogas. It is called synchronicity. Let me give you a few more examples of that before moving forward from Chapter 2, 7.6,8 (subsection 7, paragraph 6, sentence 8).:
Chapter 1, 7.1,2: “The confusion of miracle impulses with physical impulses is a major perceptual distortion.” …
What I perceive now in this very passage is due to what I have learned at Chapter 2, 6.1. When I first read this passage, I already knew that there is a difference between the mind (C), from which the “impulses” for “physical impulses” come, and physical (D) actions. Why didn’t I see, when I read this passage for the first time that there is no “confusion” in my mind. You have to be stupid to confuse mental (C) “impulses with physical impulses”. So why didn’t I see then that this sentence is I the black area of the book? …
I didn’t “Repeat(@1)” the truth often “Enough(Zu)” to step my knowledge (B) down to the level where it becomes a representation (C). Now this knowledge has become a representation and I can see the hidden message as automatically as the AUTHOR wants us to overlook it. Programming can make you blind and it can open your eyes.
6.4,4: “Belief produces the acceptance of existence.” Right or wrong representations (C) cause you to see what you see.
6.3,1: “…. The error of perceiving levels …. Can be corrected.” If you perceive the four natural levels, A-B-C-D, then that “can be corrected.” For instance semiotics (B-C-D) is “corrected” by making it “disappear”. The same goes for the original IBM computer programming system (A-B-C-D). In light of Ching 41.1 this tells us the social engineers will “Always Cause the People (Cn%eMn) to be Without Knowledge (WUkn) and Without the Desire (WUYÜ)” to know. Lao Tzu said that 2500 years ago. But what is the AUTHOR doing right here, today? …
6.3,2: “You cannot behave effectively while you function on different levels.” …
We have a soul (A), an intellect (B) a mind (C) and a body (D). Semiotics is the B-C-D triad. If any one term of an N-Term system is missing then the system doesn’t “function” at all.
Semiotics works autonomously without the people (A) having much say in it. The form of government we have is Plato’s timocracy (B). It is semiotics. Why do you think our political masters have made semiotics “disappear”? …
There is no way that the AUTHOR doesn’t know that to “behave effectively” at least thought, word and deed (B-C-D) must each “function on” their own specific level. This is what the DIVISION OF LABOUR is about.
3.4,7: “Your witnessing demonstrates your belief, and thus strengthens it.” …
. By repeating the truth or lies, they become representations (C)”. And by witnessing the effect of these miracles (C) you “thus strengthen” them. This is true.
. The truth is neutral, it can work for our political, or mental (C) masters; or it can work for us.
4.2,6: “The miracle joins in the Atonement by placing the mind in the service of the Holy Spirit.” …
On pages 89 to 90 of the MANUAL FOR TEACHERS there is a CLARIFICATION OF the term THE HOLY SPIRIT. The first thing we are told is:
“Jesus is the manifestation of the HOLY SPIRIT”. Is “Jesus”, as the word is used here, the Jesus of the Bible? …
Ask any true Christian. …
We are made to believe (C) by the AUTHOR of the COURSE that he is Jesus. …
. So what is “the Atonement”? …
3.5, “Atonement undoes all errors”. Now you know. Here is more:
3.9,1: “Miracles are selective only in the sense that they are directed towards those who can use them for themselves. Since this makes it inevitable that they will extend them to others, a strong chain of Atonement is welded.” …
Under 7.4,1 I mention the “larger pyramid”, David Icke has described. Had I not done so, the hidden message might have still slipped by me.
4.3,6: “The purpose of the Atonement is to restore everything to you; or rather, to restore it to your awareness” (A). This is a blatant lie. Our awareness (A) and thought (B) is what social engineers can’t control. They would have to be stupid “to restore” anything to our souls (A) or intellect (B). Now that, thanks to 2:6.2, my eyes are opened to the hidden messages, there is too much to see here. In the next section I simply have to continue from where I have left off at 7.6.8. Again, a good exercise would be to try to predict which passages I will pick and what I will say about it. …

======================================================

May 1, 2011
. This morning I gave myself a “job-description”: Goggle: a course in miracles followed first by “afraid”, then “fear”, then “miscreate” and then by “misthought”. Isn’t Google amazing? … Not only did passages from the COURSE come up but “explanations” by “trained” teachers of what is really supposed to be meant by “fear”. There is a lot of work on words (C) that can be done by “WordErs(C2er)” more efficiently than I can do it. Why? …
Because that is not my dharma. It is as the AUTHOR says: When thought (B) and word (C) are combined more can be accomplished than either of them can accomplish when working alone. Lao Tzu says the same thing. Since no communicator (C) is helping me, the writing (C), I have to do here, is as far as I will go.
. I have read 6.3 (subsection 6, paragraph 3) before, but, after doing the work on 6.2, this paragraph made so much sense to me that I have quoted the whole thing. There are, however, a number of omissions in it, which I have to fill in now:
6.3,4: “You must change your mind [your intellectual center (B)], not your behaviour [your moving center (D)], and this is a matter of willingness” on your part because the AUTHOR has no control over our thinking (B).
6.3,5: “You do not need guidance except at the mind level.”
. Level B is meant here, because the AUTHOR has no control over it.
6.3,6: “Correction belongs only at the level where change is possible” by you. Why? …
Because it is not possible for the AUTHOR to “correct” our intellect.(B).
6.3,7: “Change does not mean anything at the symptom level [D], where it cannot work.”
. The pronoun “it” can represent two things: …
Social engineering, “it cannot work” for them if we give “’autonomy’ to behaviour” (D) and “it cannot work” for us if we …
Hand over its control to the AGANT. How does he get us to do that? …
By making us believe (C) that our intellect (B) can do nothing and that …
the only other option we have is handing over its control to him.
. After having figured this out, another omission comes to mind. …
We have started our analysis of 6.2 at 6.2,6. We have to start at the beginning.
6.2,1: “I do not foster level confusion, but you must chose to correct it.” Why? ...
. Because the AUTHOR can;t do it. The natural order of levels is deductively, top-down: As the customer (A) tells the thinkers (B) what to do so the thinkers tell the talkers (C) what to do; and as B tells C what to do so C tells the pragmatists (D) what to do. Anyone, who is willing, can observe this natural order. What does “to correct it” mean? …
6.2,2: “You would not excuse insane behaviour on your part …. ” would you? …
6.2,3: “Why [then] should you condone insane thinking [B]?” …
6.2,4: “There is a confusion here that you would do well to look at clearly.”
. This is absolutely true. Or is there a hook hidden in there somehow? …
6.2,5: “You may believe that you are responsible for what you do [D], but not for what you think.”
6.2,6: “The truth is that you are responsible for what you think, because […]
it is only at this level [at level B and A] that you can exercise choice”, and at which level(s) the AGENT can’t touch us.
6.2,7: “What you do comes from what you think.”
6.2,8: “You cannot separate yourself from the truth by ‘giving’ autonomy to behaviour.”
6.2,9: “This [the “behaviour”] is controlled by me automatically as soon as you place what you think under my guidance.”
6.2,10: “Whenever you are afraid, it is a sure sign that you have allowed your mind to miscreate [your mind (C) is “‘giving’ autonomy to behaviour” (D). Stop this immediately. Your mind (C) is giving autonomy to your body (C)] and [you] have not allowed me to guide it” or to control you.
6.9,8: “It is hard to recognize that thought and belief combine into a power surge that can literally move mountains.”
. When “thought and belief combine”, when B and C form a team, they can get subcontractors (D) with earth moving equipment to “move mountains”.
6.9,10: “You prefer to believe that your thoughts cannot exert real influence because you are actually afraid of them.”
. I don’t just “believe”, I know that “thoughts” can discover the truth, which, when known by a critical mass, can set us free. There is no good reason why I should be “afraid of” my thoughts. There are, however, good reasons why the AUTHOR and our political masters “are actually afraid of them.” …
Properly “Aligned Words Likely Reverse (%82JO$l)”. This is why it is a good idea to try the opposite, of what the AUTHOR is telling us, on for size.
7.1,4-7 is about the Law of Interference. I have already dealt with it in the April 18 section, but it is worth quoting 7.1,6 again because it is almost completely black:
7.1,6: “This [interfering with your freedom of choice] would be in direct opposition to the purpose of this course.”
Let’s try on the very opposite for size. Look at 6.2 again: What is “the purpose of this course”?...
7.1,9: “You are not used to miracle-minded thinking, but you can be trained to think that way.” That “you can be trained”, is more accurate than saying: You can be taught.
7.3,1: “….miracles …. come from thoughts.” If true or false “thoughts” (B) are repeated often enough then they become representations (C), which can produce actions (D), which here are called “miracles”.
7.1,13: “The fundamental conflict in this world, then, is between creation and miscreation.”
. When true thoughts (B) are repeated they become representations (C), which cause “creation”; when false thoughts are repeated they become “beliefs” or representations, which cause “miscreation”. In the COURSE these two term are reversed. According to the AUTHOR false thoughts cause “creation” and true thoughts cause “miscreation”.
7.6,2: “If all His [God’s] creations are His Sons, every one must be an integral part of the whole Sonship. The Sonship in its Oneness transcends the sum of its parts.” True. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
7.6,4: “However, this is obscured as long as any of its parts is missing. That is why the conflict cannot ultimately be resolved until all the parts of the Sonship have returned.” An incomplete system doesn’t function properly.
7.6,6: “Only then [when the set is complete and you can see the system work] can the meaning of wholeness in the true sense be understood.”
. Because the idea has not been explained properly there is a bit of grey in here. But it is true that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Break one link and you break the chain. After so much bait, we can expect the hook.
7.6,7: “Any part of the Sonship can believe in error or incompleteness if he so chooses.”
. The idea of freedom of choice again. Nothing wrong with that.
. I like to leave you with some homework at the end of these sections:
7.6,8: “However, if he does so, he is believing in the existence of nothingness. The correction of this error is Atonement.” …

========================================================

April 30, 2011
. In the last section we have concluded our study of 6.2 (subsection 6, paragraph 2). Let me sum up what we have learned: There, more than in any other passage we have studied so far, it becomes clear that the AUTHOR, who has dictated the COURSE, knows the science of social engineering and is using it blatantly. This would explain the phenomenal success of the COURSE, but, in his eagerness, he is also spilling the beans. The logical inconsistencies are just too obvious. And I am not the only one who became aware of them. Just Google: A COURSE IN MIRACLES CIA
. The very fact that the COURSE is CIA sponsored already tells us that social engineering is used. But let’s get back to this interesting passage:
6.2,6 (sentence 6): “…. you are responsible for what you think, because it is only at this level that you can exercise choice.” True. This statement is in the white area of the book. Awareness (A) and thought (B) are outside the sphere of influence of social engineering. And the AUTHOR is telling us that. Why? …
When we get such good bait we have to look for the hook. 6.2,8 is so obscure that the grey borders on the black. It took quite some work to figure out what the AUTHOR was saying. Since he told us not to question what he is saying, that’s precisely what we have to do. He said: If you don’t want to “separate yourself from the truth” then you must give “autonomy to behaviour.” Why? Because of 6.2,8:
“You cannot separate yourself from the truth by ‘giving’ autonomy’ to behaviour.”
Why? Because of 6.2,9: …
“This [your behaviour] is controlled by me” if …
“…. you place what you think under my guidance” or control. What social engineers have to accomplish is not easy. They have to get you to “place what you think under” their control. Why do they have to ask us to hand over control of our mind (C) to them? Why can’t they just take it? …
As we were already told at 6.2,6: “The truth is that ….it is only at this level that you can exercise choice.” The AUTHOR can exercise no control over our soul (A) and our intellect (B). He has to “trick (548)” us into handing the control of our mind (C) over to him. But, if we have made that mistake, then we can correct it by doing what? …
By doing what we are not supposed to do.
. For instance you may read (C) what I am saying here because it is all “Ridiculous(*41)” anyway, but you must not move up from the syntactic (C) dimension of semiotics into the semantic (B) dimension. HOW? …
By following the line of thought (B) I am describing here. Why must you not do that? …
Because by moving from level C to B you are moving outside the range over which social engineers have control. Whenever you do “that you have allowed your mind to miscreate and have not allowed me to guide it” or control you.
. The wiggly red line of my spellchecker appeared under “miscreate” so we have to pay attention to that word.
6.3,1: “It is pointless to believe that controlling the outcome of misthought [wiggly red line] can result in healing. When you are fearful [watch that word], you have chosen wrongly. That is why you feel responsible for it. You must change your mind [hand it over to me], not your behaviour [I can take care of that], and this is a matter of willingness [True.]. You do not need guidance [read, control] except at the mind level . Correction belongs only at the level where change is possible. Change does not mean anything at the symptom level, where it cannot work.”
. The last subordinate phrase is an identifiable lie. We are supposed to believe (C) that we can’t control our mind (C) “the symptom level” (D). He didn’t say that we can’t control our body (D) because that lie would be too obvious.
. Another identifiable hook is at 6.3,3: …
We don’t just “feel responsible for” our choices; we ARE responsible for them. Let me back that up: Take an example from the construction business. The architect is on level B, which is the Aristotelian “formal cause”. B gives “form” to the customer’s (A) dream house. He shows the customer the drawing of it because, if the customers doesn’t like it, s/he will not pay for it. But the customer is not an architect s/he can’t tell whether the building is structurally sound. It is the Architects responsibility to know the strength of the materials used in its construction and the stresses they will be exposed to.
. If the building collapses, the architect doesn’t just “feel responsible for” his decisions; he IS responsible. So, by doing what we are not supposed to do, we can identify black areas in the book were the AUTHOR was trying to deceive us. Why “deceive”? ...
Because he knows better. If he didn't know better then it would be a mistake.
6.9,8: “It is hard to recognize that thought and belief combine into a power surge that can literally move mountains.”
. When a true or false “thought” is repeated often “Enough(Zu)” it becomes a “belief” or representation (C), which leads to actions, and some actions can consist of moving mountains with earth moving equipment. How do we identify 6.9,8? …
It is not completely white, because, while there is enough truth in it, is not described accurately enough. And because the AUTHOR knows better, there is also some black in it. It is not completely grey, because of the white and black in it. In cases like this, we have to call the area grey. And that is a safe thing to do, as long as we know what we mean by “grey”.
6.9,10: “You prefer to believe that your thoughts cannot exert real influence because you are actually afraid of them.”
. This sounds like a subliminal suggestion to me. I don’t just “believe” (C) that my “thoughts” (B) can “exert real influence” I know (B) it. And why should I be “actually afraid of” my thoughts? The ones that have to be “actually afraid of” the truth are …
our political masters and the AUTHOR. Why? …
Because the knowledge of the truth will make us free.
6.9,13 “There are no idle thoughts. All thinking produces form at some point.”
. Aristotle has called level B the “formal cause” So B “produces form at” level B. Why not say it? Other than that, the statement is almost white.
. I have already dealt with subsection 7 paragraph 1 sentences 4 to 7. The AUTHOR talks about the Law of Non-interference. However 7.1,6 is worth repeating because it can be identified as totally black: This [interfering with your freedom of choice] would be in direct opposition to the purpose of this course.” This is a blatant lie. The “purpose of this course” is to gain complete control of what we think (B). HOW? …
By making us believe (C) that we can’t think, and that the AUTHOR has to do our thinking for us.
. Notice how understanding 6.2 helps us to understand 7.1. He who has shall have more. The Law of attraction also works for the social engineers. If they can slip even one lie past your intellect (B) then the second one can be slipped by more easily.

==========================================================

April 29, 2011
. There is a picture on page 8 of today’s Toronto Sun. Beneath it it says: “This police overhead surveillance photo shows a group of Black Bloc rioters on Quen St. at Spadina Ave. during the G20 protests in June. Despite knowing of the group’s whereabouts, security forces didn’t act.”
. As I said before: I was told that Black Bloc members were seen entering and leaving a government building. So it is not too farfetched to assume that they were living there.
. Joe Warmington says: “And it is not like people didn’t know they were in town and what their intentions were.” And he asks: “Why didn’t Chief Bill Blair and his senior command just let their officers arrest the Black Bloc when they had the chance before the rampage began?” …
. This morning, before I was fully awake, I decided that I had to return to Chapter 3.5 paragraphs 4, 5 and 6, on page 10, because there was an omission:
3.5,4 . . . . . . SPIRIT IS IN A STATE OF GRACE FOREVER.
3.5,5 . . . . . . YOUR REALITY IS ONLY SPIRIT.
3.5,6 . . . . . . THEREFORE YOU ARE IN A STATE OF GRACE FOREVER.

This statement has the form of an Aristotelian syllogism in which the major and minor premise are reversed. Because this puts this statement into the grey area, I have skipped it. But in the previous section I have learned that if the bait is true enough we can benefit from that even if we can’t clearly identify the hook in it.
. I have written about the Aristotelian Syllogisms before. The example Aristotle gives of it is: “Socrates is a man, all men are mortal, therefore Socrates is mortal.” I have written about it before. An Aristotelian syllogism is a thinking tool. If a thinking tool works then it is true. Therefore it is worth repeating.
. The major premise is a inductive, a bottom-up, movement from the particular to the general. The outcome of this movement is the general set of “All men” while Socrates is a particular man. The minor premise is the “Reversal($l)” of the major premise: It is the deductive, top down, movement from the general back to the particular.
Socrates is a man.
All men are mortal.
Therefore Socrates is mortal.
. The general set appears at the end of the major premise and at the beginning of the minor premise. The two sets in the middle cancel each other out. This is called: The excluded middle. Because of this exclusion of the middle term the conclusion arises naturally. WEBSTER’S puts it this way: “SYL-LO-GISM (….) n. formal statement of argument, consisting of three parts, major premise, minor premise, and conclusion, conclusion following naturally from premises.”
. How did Aristotle arrive at this ingenious thinking tool? …
He must have worked on the Aristotelian tetrad first: …
The movement from A to C is deductive, top down and from C to A it is inductive, bottom up. Deduction and induction are both whole-part “DyAd(dyad)”. So the tetrad is a double dyad.
. Aristotle was Plato’s student. Plato said at 509d of his Republic: “Well, suppose you have a line divided into two unequal parts, and then divide the two parts again …. To represent the visible and intelligible orders.” Is that so hard to understand? …
This gives us the four divisions of Plato’s “Divided Line”. Desmond Lee, whose translation I use, has labelled the four division top down as A-B-C-D. This is the convention I am using consistently throughout this blog. Aristotle has wrapped his teacher’s “Line” around the cross (+), with A on top and B-C-D clockwise around it.
Lao Tzu has the sequence right: “Al Things Come From Existence (WnwUSgtoYU) Existence Comes From Nonexistence (YUSgtoWU).” Therfore “Something(YU)” comes from “Nothing(WU)”. Notice that “Existence” follows “Existence” that is the excluded middle which naturally leads to the conclusion. That all physical things come from nothing. As particular “Things(wU)” are to “Existence” in general, so is “Existence” is to “Nonexistence”
. Why is this not even taught in philosophy in our universities? …
Because our universities are controlled by the social engineers. And why did the AUTHOR OF THE course, reverse the order of the two premises? …
Because he doesn’t know Aristotelian syllogisms or because he …
doesn’t want us to understand this thinking tool? …
What could he have said instead? …
You are like a drop in the ocean.
The ocean is the spirit..
“THEREFORE YOU ARE “ a part of the spirit.
. We have devoted half a page in this blog to three lines of text. If I keep this up, I never get done. Still, I hope that you can see that it was worth our time and effort.

We can finally get back to where I left off in the last section. The last quote from A COURSE IN MIRACLES is: from page 29 at 6.2,8:
“You cannot separate yourself from the truth by ‘giving’ autonomy to behaviour” (D). And then I ask: “What is the AUTHOR saying here”? …” …
What I am doing here is giving you instructions, or suggestions, of how to deal with this challenging book. Lao Tzu says: don’t bite off more than you can chew. This bit of advise means: “Don’t attempt to Handle (PUWy) tasks that are too Big(TA) for you. Therefore(KU) you will be Able to Accomplish The Big (abcm_HTA)” tasks. Here you have the kind of paradox Lao Tzu uses to get his students to think. We also get a lot of paradoxes, or contradictions, in the COURSE, the difference is that the AUTHOR doesn’t want us to think about them. Here we have a contradiction right there.
. We can benefit from the COURSE by doing what the AUTHOR doesn’t want us to do. So there you have another bit of advise. Another bit of advise is: If you want good answers then you have to ask good questions. Coming back to 6.2,8: …
What must you do to “separate yourself from truth”? …
You must not give “autonomy to behaviour”. Why? …
Because: “You cannot separate yourself from the truth by ‘giving’ autonomy to behaviour” (D). What is the next question? …
Which part of us controls “behaviour”? …
What controls the behaviour of a computer? …
What is the equivalent of a computer program in us? …
The representations (C) in our mind (C). This is why what the mind does is not thinking (B) but computing (C).
6.2,9: “This [computing] is controlled by me automatically [with Automatic energy (E6)] as soon as you place what you think under my guidance” or control.
6.2,10: “Whenever you are afraid, it is a sure sign that you have allowed your mind to miscreate and have not allowed me to guide” or control it.
Thinking (B) is outside the control of the science of social engineering. “It is only at this level that you can exercise choice.” That is pure bait. The hook is hidden by the bait and it is supposed to be slipped past the intellect (B) by making it as hard to comprehend as possible. The difficulty is the message must reach the mind (C) in order to “Fix(8b)”it.It must be too difficult for the intellect but comprehensible to the mind. The mind must be made to understand that not allowing the AUTHOR to control it “is sure sign that you have allowed your mind to miscreate”. As far as possible we must try to let the AUTHOR speak for himself.
. As you can see the gaps between quotes are wide. But still it is good practice to try to predict it. …

===================================================

April 28, 2011
. In the last section, below this one, we got as far as Chapter 1 subsection 6 paragraph 2 of A COURSE IN MIRACLES. We will continue with the same second paragraph:
6.2: “…. The idea of order of needs [or hierarchy of needs] arose because, having made this fundamental error, ….” This subordinate phrase is cleverly slipped in. “…. arose because …. you had already fragmented yourself into levels with different needs” or Plato’s “natural aptitudes”. The word “because” is the connective in this sentence. The sentence, without the subordinate phrase, is ninety percent bait. It refers to the DIVISION OF LABOUR, which the social engineers don’t want us to know about.
. Some noteworthy passages have already been dealt with in previous sections. Other sections are too easy, so I can leave them to you. Other sections are too difficult to handle. Even if I see the bait or suspect the hook, it would take too much work to explain it. Lao Tzu said in Chapter 63: Don’t bite off more than you can chew. So I will be more selective on what I am going to work on:
7.4: . “This is a course in mind training. All learning involves attention and study”. Obviously, but where's the hook? …
Notice that “mind training” here, is related to “learning”. It would be more honest, to call it mind-control. The COURSE is CIA sponsored and the CIA does mind-control.
. . . . . . Chapter 2, subsection 1 paragraph 1, sentence 7:
1.1,7: “The inappropriate use of extension, or projection, occurs when you believe that some emptiness or lack exits in you, and that you can fill it with your own ideas instead of truth.” The word “truth” again, but the context is interesting. …
Steiner and neuroscience tell us what “projection” is. It is not quite as the AUTHOR has it. But that and the word “truth” doesn’t make this quote quote-worthy. …
Can you see the hook? …
You have to learn to read between the lines. He says that “your own ideas” are worthless, “instead” let me fill your mind with the “truth”.
1.3,3: “You do not have to continue to believe what is not true unless you choose to do so.” I choose to continue to believe in Jesus, the Buddha, Swami Sri Yukteswar, Plato, Aristotle, Lao Tzu etc. even though the AUTHOR implies that this is a foolish thing to do. But just because he repeats the same message in 1200 pages, that doesn’t make it true. If you swallow the hook, it only proves that the science of social engineering works on those who are gullible enough.
The AUTHOR continues “….to do so. All that [what others are teaching] can literally disappear in the twinkling of an eye because it is merely a misperception.” So now you know that everything Lao Tzu and other teachers have said is wrong.
1.5,1: “Whatever lies you may believe …. The miracle …. makes no distinctions among misconceptions. Its sole concern is to distinguish between truth on the one hand and error on the other.” Question: If we get nothing but the “truth” from the COURSE, why …
are we not supposed to think about it? …
2.1,9: “That is why the Bible speaks of ‘the peace of God which passeth understanding. This peace [you will get from the COURSE] is totally incapable of being shaken by errors of any kind. It denies the ability of anything not of God to affect you.”
. As long as you are still able to differentiate between the truth and “errors” this subliminal suggestion can do no harm.
2.2: “….Denial of error is a strong defence of truth”. Obviously, so where is the hook? …
What is an “error” in the COURSE and what is called the “truth”? …
As you can see from this quote, we have here a hook cleverly hidden by the bait.
6.1,6: “The presence of fear shows that you have raised body thoughts to the level of the mind. This removes them from my control, ….”
. What “removes them [our thoughts] from, my [the AUTHOR’s] control” is important for us to know. Can you see what it is? …
For one thing, it doesn’t produce “fear”. That’s a lie which is intended to prevent us from moving out of the sphere of influence of the AUTHOR. So what can we do, which he doesn’t want us to do? …
Hint: “mind” here means intellect (B). Can you see it now? …
By paying attention to our unconscious beliefs or representations (C), we are becoming aware (A) of them. In this way we can see the original thought (B) before it was stepped down to a representation (C). By repetition Sensitive Energy (E5) is stepped down to Automatic Energy (E6). And it makes no difference whether social engineers are doing it to us or we we are doing it for ourselves.
. We can convert conscious thoughts (B) into subconscious representations (C) by repetition, and we can reverse the process.
. If you “Don’t Know that you Don’t Know (Pukn = )” then there is nothing you can do about your “IgNorance(PUkn)”. But if you “Know that you Don’t Know (knPUkn) that is Healthy(_+)” because now you can change it.
. What we are told here, at 6.1, is: Don’t step up E6 to E5. And if we want to get unhooked then we must do the very opposite of what the AUTHOR wants us to do.
6,2,6:
“The truth is that you are responsible for what you think, because it is only at this level [level B] that you can exercise choice. (2,7) What you do comes from what you think.”
. Not directly. What “you think” (B) must be repeated often “Enough(Zu)” for it to become a representation (C). So it is more correct to say: “What you do comes from what you” compute (C). Semiotics is the B-C-D triad. First comes thought (B), then word (C) and then deed (D). We know that from the construction business, computer programming and from common sense. Still, we got about 75% of truth in the previous sentences. What does that mean? …
Remember that what I am giving you here are examples of HOW to handle the rest of the book. In computer programming, that is the algorithm (B). It is the initiating impulse of the B-C-D triad. So what I am asking communicators (C) to explain better is:
. When you see the truth with relatively few errors or inaccuracies in it, look for the hook. Who is going to put out good bait with no hook in it? …
6.2,8: “You cannot separate yourself from truth by ‘giving’ autonomy to behaviour.
. Why would you want to “separate yourself from truth”? …
What is the AUTHOR saying here? …
That we even have to ask these questions means that this statement belongs in the grey area. But we know that the AUTHOR can dictate comprehensible English sentences. So why not here? …
Another thing you will learn is that after you have brought “bad stuff” into the light, the following sentences will make perfect sense. In other words, …
You can use the context to interpret obscure passages. …

===========================================================

April 27, 2011
. There are at least two omissions in the last section, below this one. I will use the last two paragraphs of the first of the 180 subsections of the TEXT of A COURSE IN MIRACLES as examples:
1.49: “The miracle ….is a device for perception correction, effective quite apart from either the degree or the direction of the error. This is its true indiscriminatedness.”
. While this statement is still in the grey area of the text, when I first read it, the words “correction”, “error” and “true” were as “effective” as they were intended to be. This is why we have to pay attention to these words. Awareness (A) and thought (B) are outside the sphere of influence of social engineering. That’s why our heart (A) and intellect (B) must be bypassed if the COURSE is to be “effective”.
1.50: “The miracle compares what you have made with creation, accepting what is in accord with it as true, and rejecting what is out of accord [with it] as false.”
. This statement is now “IdentifiAble(ptMg)” as “bad stuff”. When I first read it, the hook slipped right past my intellect (B). Can you see it? …
When you swallow a hook, you get hooked. This is why the hook is hidden inside the bait or in a grey area. There is no bait here, other than the words that got me hooked. …
“The miracle” is to be compared …. with creation”. It is to be “accepted …. as true”.
. Anything that “is out of accord” with the COURSE is to be rejected “as false”. In other words, since the “truth”, Jesus, the Buddha or Lao Tzu are talking about “is out of accord” with the COURSE, it is to be rejected “as false.”
. This comment on 1.50 is bound to be rejected “as false” by those who are hooked on the COURSE. There is not much we can do about them but we can prevent others from getting hooked.
Section 2 paragraph 1: “….You are free to believe what you choose, and what you do attests to what you believe.” This is “good stuff”: When your thoughts, whether true or false, are “Repeated(@1)” “Enough(Zu)”, they become representations (C). Representations are like the data a computer can process. And what computers “do attests to what you” have programmed them to do.
. This kind of stuff is the bait we are supposed to understand. So there is no need for me to quote the obvious.
2.4: . “’No man cometh unto the Father but by me’ ….You stand below me and [as] I stand below God. In the process of ‘rising up,’ I am higher because without me the distance between God and man would be too great. I bridge the distance ….”.
. . Y . . . . We are not supposed to think about what the
Z . + . X . AUTHOR of the COURSE has said. So let’s do it. …
. . A . . . . . “You”. That’s us. We can think (B), talk (C)
D . + . B . and walk (D). The “I” is the AUTHOR of this text,
. . C . . . . at A, and “God”, X-Y-Z, is supposed to be the God of the Bible.
. . . . . . . . . When we interpret 2.4 in terms of the diagram we have here, the statement is pure bait, it is perfectly true. We are the B-C-D triad. This is semiotics, and this is why it has “disappeared”. The AUTHOR in this book is at the crossover-point, A, of the figure 8. In the Buddha’s 8-fold path it is first vision (E4 (at A)) and then “Right Livelihood” (E8), which refers to dharma. X-Y-Z represents A1-E2-E3 and E9-E10-E11. If we take it one more step, from Z to A, we come to E12, which relates the Buddha’s 8-fold path to J.G. Bennett’s Dodecad. I know that this is getting complicated but I have described the Octad and the Dodecad before. So I can leave well enough alone. The point, here, is that, if we want to know WHAT the AUTHOR knows, then we must know it ourselves. He isn’t going to teach it to us but if we already know it then we can see where the AUTHOR of the COURSE is coming from.
. Notice how clearly the AUTHOR has explained the Z-A-B triad. If you don’t already know it, you must be impressed by the AUTHOR’s wisdom. He must be Jesus himself. Right? …
2.5: “….The Holy Spirit mediates higher to lower ….from God to you …. Revelation is not reciprocal. It proceeds from God to you, but not from you to God.”
. Can you see the hook here? …
Let’s use the above diagram again: …
The Buddha’s 8-fold path begins with “Right Vision” at A. Then it moves down, clockwise, to B deductively. Then still moving down the path leads us from B to C. But now we have reached bottom. There is a “ReversAl($lad)” at C and again at Y. “ReversAl, Tao’S Movement ($ladA1_Z%k).”. I have said before that our political masters don’t like the D-A-X “DyAd(dyad)”. They don’t want us to “Return” anything to God. They want to keep it all for themselves. And now the AUTHOR tells us the same thing here: Take what comes “from God to you” but return nothing “from you to God.” Give it to me instead. We get the same message here, which we get from our political masters and the CIA. In order to see this, we need past “learning”, which, according to the AUTHOR, is useless.
2.6: “….The miracle substitutes for learning …. It does so by the underlying recognition of perfect equality of giver and receiver on which the miracle rests.”
. Notice the word “learning” again and the context it is in. If the miracle is to work then the theory on which it rests must be true. …
The “giver” is the affirming impulse of the triad and the “receiver” is the receptive impulse. Any activity, including “miracles” must rest on the triad. So we got a nice piece of bait thrown in here. “Learning” begins with the knowable, then comes the knowing and then the known. Taoable-Taoing-Taoed is a “TriAd(_3ad)”. It is as simple as that. If the AUTHOR really wants to teach us the “truth” then why not teach it? ...
Why keep it all hidden in the black and grey areas? …
3.4: ”…. A guide does not control but he does direct, leaving it up to you to follow. ‘Lead us not into temptation’ means …. ‘Following my guidance.’” And don’t worry about where I take you. To “direct” is the reconciling impulse, which, when it is in the middle, I call the connective..
3.5: . “Error cannot really threaten truth.”. “Error” is contrasted here with the “truth”.
3.6: . “You respond to what you perceive, and as you perceive so shall you behave. The Golden Rule asks you to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. …. The Golden Rule is the rule for appropriate behaviour.”
. This leads up to 4.6 on page 13 which I have dealt with in the April 17 section and the beginning of the April 18 section until I saw the light at 14.11.3 (chapter 14, paragraph 11, sentence 3) which is on page 296..
4.3: . “Darkness is lack of light as sin is lack of love.” The word “love” again.
6.2: “…. This sense of separation would never have arisen if you had not distorted your perception of truth,”. The word “truth” again. I am missing a few keywords, but all I am doing here is give you a few examples of what has to be done on the whole COURSE. If you have the “Urtext” and you use the FIND function then you have the equivalent of a concordance.
. If the “separation” had never arisen, the world, as we see it, wouldn’t exist. If God knows what He is doing then the world is exactly as He intended it to be. Who is intelligent enough to say that God doesn’t know what He is doing? …
Who can claim that he is as omnipotent (E1?), omnipresent (E2?) and omniscient (E3?) as God? …
. And who says that “you had …. Distorted your perception of truth”? …
Who is so consistently distorting our “perception of truth”? …
. Let’s continue to catch a few more distortions. And remember that I am only giving you a few examples of it. What I am trying to do here for communicators (C) is what programmers (B) are doing for coders (C).
. Not only this section is getting too big but this file is getting too big. It is slowing down too much and it becomes too difficult for me to get my sections out. And again, I will conclude with a question addressed to those working in the syntactic (C) dimension of semiotics. Semiotics clearly defines what kind of work those working in one of the three dimensions of semiotics are best at doing. Those in the syntactic dimension can handle this problem much better than I can. This is why it is their dharma to do it. Here is the question: Is there a communicator out there who is willing to team up with me in order to work on this project? …
. This morning, while working on the TEXT, I had an insight: The AUTHOR has to put out the bait, otherwise nobody will swallow the hook. But, if we focus on the bait, we “Repeat(@1)” the “truth” and it becomes a representation. Jesus said as a man thinketh in his heart” (A). He didn’t say: As a man thinks (B) in his head (B).
. “If ye continue in my word, then …. Ye shall know truth and the truth shall make you free (John 8:31-32).”. I think that another translation has “dwell on my words”. Either way, the message is that reading (C) the words is not “Enough(Zu)” you must think (B) about them. I knew that these words are somewhere in St. John and, as I was looking for them, I came across lots of “good stuff”. This good stuff is in direct contradiction of WHAT the AUTHOR is saying. So, in general it can be said that the truth will prevent you from swallowing the hook. And it can even help you from getting unhooked if you are not too far gone already.
. This is why the work I am doing here right now is very useful for me; and, if you are willing to think along with me, it can also be very useful for you. …

=======================================================

April 25, 2011
. We will continue our analysis of A COURSE IN MIRACLES on page 3 of the TEXT.
“5, . Miracles are habits, and should be involuntary.”
. When defined in this way, they can be compared to the outcome of computations (C). HOW does a computer (D) compute? …
It uses a string of instruction, called a computer program, to operate on information. The type of information a computer can operate on is very similar to what philosophers call “representations” (C). And that’s what I call them. Credit for my knowledge of representations goes to Rudolf Steiner, J.G. Bennett and Lao Tzu. Steiner says in paragraph 4 chapter 6 of his PHILOSOPHY: “The moment a perception rises up on the horizon of my observation, thinking also becomes active through me. A link in my thought-system, a specific intuition, a concept connects itself with the percept. When the percept then disappears from my field of vision, what remains? My intuition with the connection to the specific percept, which has formed itself in the moment of its perception. …. The Representation [C] is nothing other than …. a concept, which at one point was connected to a percept of which the connection with the percept has remained.” For instance, my concept of the tetrad comes from nine years of observing it. But at the same time I was conveying the concept to fellow-members of the Theosophical Society. “Repeating(@1)” the concept (B) year after year has probably also “Fixed(8b)” in the mind (C) of some members. Wrong ideas (B) can't be observed in practice because they don't work. If wrong ideas can’t be programmed into people by repetition then social engineering wouldn’t work. To “Fix(8b)” wrong ideas in the mind (C) the intellect has to be bypassed. To fix right ideas, it helps to get the intellect involved as well. It will reduce the number of repetitions required to step down E5 to E6.
. Computation doesn’t require Sensitive Energy (E5), it works with Automatic Energy ((E6). So representations (C) are “habits” which kick in “involuntarily”. They are faster, more accurate and more efficient than thoughts (B). We can be sure that social engineers know what “Miracles” are.
. The “are” in the above quote is the connective. To analyze this simple subject-connective-predicate sentence, with the subordinate phrase following it, took half a page. How much would it take to deal with all the sentences on the over 1200 pages of the COURSE properly? …
“6. . Miracles are natural. When they do not occur something has gone wrong.” Yes, somebody has not followed orders. S/he has started to think about WHAT is said instead of blindly believing it.
“7. . Miracles are everyone’s right, but purification is necessary first.” Question: What is meant by “purification”, here? …
“9. . Miracles are a kind of exchange. Like all expressions of love, ….” Notice HOW words like “love” and “truth” are slipped past the intellect (B). because when we become aware (A) of the “trick” and start to think (B) about it we are automatically (E6) “DeProgramming” ourselves. I became first aware of this trick by hearing the word “democracy” repeated over and over “Again(@1”. “Constantly Having Expectations of what you want to see is a Means to Perceive It (CnYUYÜYIKn_H) within the expected Boundaries(*1)”.
“12. . Miracles are thoughts.” Not quite, but, if you repeat the thoughts (B) enough, they will become representations (C).
“14. . Miracles bear witness to truth” or to falsehood. Repeat a lie often “Enough(Zu)” and the people will eventually believe it. If the social engineers can make us believe that we have a democracy, then to us that is the “truth”. Notice HOW truth and falsehood are cleverly mixed together that you can’t identify them as either true or false. You have here sentences which are both true and false. Slipping the lies past the intellect is what the science of social engineering is about. It takes social engineering to get the people programmed and it takes knowledge of social engineering to “DeProgram” ourselves.
“16. . Miracles are teaching devices ….” As I said be fore: It is more correct to call the COURSE and the “Miracles” that come with it, programming devices. If the authors of the COURSE repeat that, all they are doing is “teaching” the “truth”, often enough then the uncritical reader is bound to believe it after a thousand pages..
“17. . Miracles [C] transcend the body [D]. They are a sudden shift into invisibility, away from the bodily level. That is why they heal.”
. The first two sentences are the bait and the third one is the hook.
“20. . Miracles reawaken the awareness that the spirit, not the body, is the altar of truth.”
. Notice the word “truth” again. Here is an algorithm: Get the “Urtext” and FIND “truth”, and other “Repeated(@1)” words like that and analyze the context in which they are given. Use the examples I am giving you here to do the interpretation, you are not supposed to do.
“35. . Miracles are expressions of love, ….” Again, the word “love” slipped in.
“36. . Miracles are examples of right thinking, aligning your perceptions with truth ….”
. “right thinking” and “truth” again. Every time these words or phrases are slipped past your intellect (B) they are getting “Fixed(8b)” more firmly in your mind (C) and you no longer question the “truth” you are made to believe (C). And if somebody tries to point out the truth to you, you get mad at him.
“47. . The miracle is a learning device ….” At 15, the miracle “is thus a teaching device”. Same words at 16, and the same idea here. To identify the same idea (B) you have to go up into the semantic dimension of semiotics. Using the same words too often becomes too obvious, conveying the same ideas to the mind (C) is what ultimately “Fixes(8b)” them in mind (C).
. I have read all these pages and I noticed only the bait. The hooks slipped right by my intellect. This demonstrates to me that social engineering is a science and that whoever has dictated this book knows it.
. We have completed the first subsection of the TEXT. I had to skip a lot of “IdentifyAble(ptMg)” good and bad stuff. But you got brains. All you need is the willingness to use the examples I have given here and use them …

=======================================================

April 25, 2011
. The April 23 section can be taken as the introduction of the sections which follow it. I was born May 29, 1935 in Hamburg, Germany. At age nine I had a lucid moment and, what I have learned since then is applied to my interpretation of A COURSE IN MIRACLES. On page IX of the PREFACE we are told: “You are not asked to judge them [“the ideas”] at all.” Since we are told WHAT “not” to do, we know what we have to do. We have reached page IX. If you can see all the “god stuff” and the “bad stuff” I have skipped then you can also see that I must have a lot of confidence in your willingness and ability to think. If you are stuck in the COURSE then you must do the opposite of what you are told to do in order to get unstuck. We shall continue at the bottom of page IX:
“ …. At the end, the reader is left in the hands of his own Internal Teacher, Who will direct all subsequent lerning as He sees fit.” Since we are not supposed to question WHAT the “Internal Teacher” says we must question what: …
“He” says and ask who he is? …
Most likely “He” is the same entity that has come through Helen Schucman.
. . . . . “WHAT IT SAYS
Nothing real can be threatened. [True. Like the truth, the “real” is what it is.]
Nothing unreal exists.” This statement is repeated in many different ways, so …
it is important. This is why it is best to leave it a bit longer in the grey area.
. “This is how A COURSE IN MIRACLES begins. It makes a fundamental distinction between the real and the unreal; between knowledge and perception. Knowledge is truth”. This last assertion must be questioned. …
Is all the knowledge we get from the COURSE true? …
“…. Truth is unalterable, eternal and unambiguous. It can be unrecognized, but cannot be changed. …. It is beyond learning.” If it were “beyond learning” then studying the Tao Te Ching, and other books like it, would be a waste of time. Notice HOW the hook is covered by lots of bait. The more bait is used, the more important it is to manage to slip the falsehoods past the intellect (B) in order to “Fix(8d)” them in the mind (C).
. If you know “Enough(Zu)“ about social engineering you can see that the “tricks and stratagems (548a)” are used blatantly in this book. If we make use of the COURSE in order to learn about the science of social engineering then the time we spent on it is not wasted.
Pg. XI:
. “When you have been caught in the world of perception [D] you are caught in a dream. You cannot escape without help”. And guess who is going to help you? …
“God has provided the answer, the only Way out”. Of course you are not supposed to ask who this “God”, mentioned here, is. …
“He knows the truth …. He also recognizes our illusions”. The Greek “eikasia (509d)” and the Sanskrit maya both mean “illusion”. So the authors of the COURSE are telling us nothing new. But it serves as good bait. When I came across these passages, before I saw the hook, when I was still sold on the COURSE, I was very impressed by the bait.
“…. ‘Projection makes perception’ (Text, p. 445). We look inside first, decide the kind of world we want to see and then project that world outside, making it the truth AS WE SEE IT. We make it true by our interpretations of what it is we are seeing. ….” “Good stuff” not even Steiner has explained it better than that. Because the truth, stated here, is irrefutable, the hook that is hidden in the same paragraph is that much more dangerous. “…. Looking past our distorted self-concepts ….” very cleverly induces us to look past the programming “That God created in us”.
. “Perception is a function of the body, and therefore represents a limit on awareness” (A). True. At SUTRA 14 of THE HOLY SCIENCE, these limits on awareness are called ”KOSHAS OR SHEATHS”. There are “FIVE” of them. They are: Between E3 and A, A and B, B and C, C and D and between D and E8. The knowledge displayed is impressive. It is intended to impress but we are not supposed to think about it. That’s why …
we have to think about it.
. “The opposite of seeing through the body’s eyes is the vision of Christ”. Very impressive. Who is the “Christ” referred to here? …
. “Chist’s vision is the Holy Spirit’s gift, God’s alternative to the illusion of separation and to the belief in the reality of sin, guilt and death.” God and “bad stuff” is so cleverly intertwined here that this statement can’t be identified as either one or the other. Why? …
Because it is both, and we can know that it is both.
“…. the seeming opposition on which this world is based.” This is again a half-truth. This “world is based” on the “opposition” of the poles of the “DyAd(dyad), which was a Unit Originally ($1Cu)” before creation. The Tao “Existed as Something Undifferentiated but Complete (YUwU#Ocm) Before Heaven and Earth were Born (^7TnTISg)”. The big “Tao Produced the One (A1Sg_1), the One Produced the Two (_1Sg_2), the Two Produced the Tree (_2Sg_3) and the Three Produced All Things (_3SgWnwU).” Wan Wu (WnwU) refers to “All material Things”. In the construction business, the subcontractors “Produce” the physical (D) building. Aristotle has called the fourth step of the fourfold process, the “material cause” (D).
. When you don’t just believe (C) but understand (B), what Lao Tzu is saying, then it becomes harder to slip falsehoods past your intellect (B). As I go over these passages, which I have read with enthusiasm, again I am surprised how much falsehoods the writers of the COURSE managed to slip past my intellect. This goes to show you that social engineering is a science.
. We have reached the end of the PREFACE. I had to skip quite a bit of good and bad stuff, but, as I said before, I trust that you are willing and able to do your own thinking. …

==================================================

April 24, 2011
. In the April 20 and 22 sections I have corrected four mistakes, which are in the August 18 section, but there are still three “omissions” in it. An omission is something that should be added to what has been said which has been omitted. I said: “They [our political masters] know that knowledge is power” and they don’t want to share it.
“ …. but I have not come across a passage in which the difference between your own intentional programming, and the mind-control others are doing on you, is pointed out.” Why not? …
Because intentionally “DeProgramming(PUÜd)” yourself is something our political masters don’t want us to do; and what they are doing to us is something they …
Don’t want us to know. “…. there is a lot of good stuff in that book”, which turned out to be the “bait” which is used to sell the COURSE. The word “bait” is in the Protocols of Zion. Try to Google it. You can also read up on this “trick(548a)” in Steiner’s lectures on politics.
. The bait is the “good stuff” and the hook is the “bad stuff” we are able to identify. The grey areas in that book are what we are not supposed to understand. This part of the book is slipped past our intellect (B) into our mind (C). It is the largest area in the book at first. But by investing our time and energy in what we “Can(pt)” do about it, in “Taoing the TaoAble (A1ptA1)” we shed light on the grey areas.
. As I said at the end of the last section, I can’t do this work alone. “KnowErs(kner)” and “WordErs(C2er)” must work on it together. Lao Tzu said: “Unite Your Dust (S1_H@h)”. Alone, all we have is “Dust(@h)”; together we have bricks. How else could the unelected advisors (B) and our elected politicians (C) get away with the G20, for instance? …
. At the end of the last section I said that I can’t do a proper job on the whole of the COURSE by myself. I need the help of a communicator (C). This work is important, otherwise it wouldn’t have come to my attention (A) the way it did. Look again at the quote from page 13 in the April 17 section. From that alone you can see how much the channelling source of A COURSE IN MIRACLES knows about the Parable of the Sower and the Seed. And that, as can be expected, got me hooked. Not for long, mind you, but I did get hooked. By “Knowing that you Don’t Know (knPUkn)” what is In the grey areas of the book you are making it “IdentifyAble(ptMg)”. And now, by “Identifying the IdentifyAble (MgptMg)” you are bringing the grey areas into the light. This work is important because it can prevent those who are not hooked yet by the COURSE from getting hooked and those who are not programmed “Enough(Zu)” yet might be able to use the truth, we are revealing, to set them free. These people might have friends in that cult who are stuck more deeply than they were and the truth, we discover, might enable them to extricate their friends as well. All I can do alone is to give an example of the work that has to be done on the over 1200 pages with what can be done with a hundred pages.
. There is an “Urtext” on the web which would save us a lot of typing. I will start from where I started to read. But I don’t have to give the page numbers because, if you are serious, you can use the FIND function of your Word processor to find the quote and the context I have taken the quote from.
. . . . . . . . . . . . “HOW IT CAME

A COURSE IN MIRACLES began with the sudden decision of two people to join in a common goal.” I can relate to that because the wife of my former partner, Jim, definitely was fulfilling a contract we must have made. She just didn’t take no for an answer from me. She literally forced me to get on this website. And, if anything comes out of this, it would not happen without her. But even without a communicator (C) doing his dharma, I wouldn’t have learned what I have learned without her twisting my arm.
T”he story shows that with God all things are possible.” True. The question is? …
Who, or what, is their “God”? …
. There is a lot of text worth quoting but, since you can understand it yourself, you don’t need me to point it out to you.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . “WHAT IT IS

As its title implies, the Course is arranged throughout as a teaching devise.” …
Since the grey areas in the book take up so much space the COURSE is anything but “a teaching device.” It would be much more correct to call it a …
programming device.
“The curriculum the Course proposes is carefully conceived”. Yes, that is true. “It emphasizes application rather than theory” (B). True, The proof of the pudding is in the eating. “It [Manual, p. 77] specifically states that ‘a universal theology is impossible, but a universal experience is not only possible but necessary’.” …
If a universal theory (B) is true then it will work in practice (D). In other words, it is not “impossible” to manifest (D) it. On the other hand, if it is false then ...
it will not work and the “universal experience is” impossible. …
. The authors of the COURSE want us to recognize the truth they have put in, to sell it, but can you see why we are not supposed to think about the other stuff, the grey areas in ther book? ...
. “Without the practical application the Workbook provides, the Text would remain largely a series of abstractions which would hardly suffice to bring about the thought reversal at which the Course aims.” There is an obvious truth here, which is the bait, but can you see the hook which is in there as well? …
Please Google a course in miracles and “thought reversal”. …
. Looking at this ingenious passage, and the insight into the Parable of the Sower and the Seed we can’t help but be impressed or hooked by it. The question is now: …
Where does that wisdom come from.? …
As Helen Schucman says herself; It doesn’t come from her. Steiner and other occultists are telling us that messages coming from the other side through a “Door, Dasamadwara”, are not necessarily true or well intentioned.
. There is a quote from the “Workbook” on page IX of the PREFACE:
“ . Some of the ideas the workbook presents you will find hard to believe, and others may seem to be startling. This does not matter. You are merely asked to apply the ideas as you are directed to do. You are not asked to judge them at all. You are asked only to use them. It is their use that will give them meaning to you, and will show you that they are true.” No. The ideas you are told to “Repeat(@1)” without thinking about them, as we are doing here, will be “Fixed(8d)” in your mind (C) as representations (C) which will then kick in before you are able to think (B) about them. That is social engineering 101.
. I am trying here to bring ideas which are in the grey areas into the light. How? ...
by thinking about them. If social engineers can make you believe that we have a “democracy” (A) then their lies will appear to “you that they are true.”
. I didn’t even get through the PREFACE but this section is getting too long. If you have the book or the “Urtext”, Try to predict which passages I will quote next and what I will say about them. Much of what I select depend on past learning and the mood I happen to be in at the time. So reliable predictions are near impossible. But, whether you are successful or not, this is a very good exercise. …

======================================================

April 23, 2011
. The story about A COURSE IN MIRACLES started for me when I decided to buy the book. All the major decisions in my live happened like that. I didn’t make them, they just happened. And this seemed to be one of those decisions. If you follow me through the short April 17 section and the beginning of the August 18 section you can see that I was sold on the COURSE. But my enthusiasm for it wasn’t long-lived. What happened? …
I was supposed to believe that: “Nothing you have ever learned can help you understand the present”. That was expecting a bit too much from me. My search for truth started to become more intentional at age nine after a lucid moment. Six years of Sunday school followed right after that, then came almost twenty years of Theosophy, studying Steiner, studying under J.G. Bennett, studying the Bhagavad Gita in a study-group for years and then came the Tao Te Ching in 1970. And in all these years I am supposed to have learned nothing that tells me that there is something wrong with that COURSE? …
I am a jnana yogi (B). Jnana yoyis who have followed the path of knowledge (B) long “Enough(Zu)” will find logical errors in courses that have logical errors in them. Bhakti yogis (A), who have followed the path of devotion (A) long “Enough” will get that gut-feeling that something is wrong with the wrong path. Karma yogis (D) will put a theory (B) to the Test (D) and if the outcome is not what has been predicted then that path is not a true one. As I said before, a COURSE requiring people to read 1200 pages without thinking about it is addressed to “WordErs(C2er)”. They love words, and they don’t mind reading lots of words. “WordErs Don’t Know (C2erPUkn)” how to think very well. But even if they have followed their path of integration (C) long enough they will know when somebody has has not followed their path long enough.
. If raja yogis (C) don’t follow their path long enough, it degenerates into a cult. And, when I Googled a course in miracles it was identified as a CIA sponsored cult. Another interesting piece of information is that, when she came close to her death, Helen Schucman was heard using foul language and having outbursts of anger. Could it be that the became aware of of having been duped into making a number of wrong decisions for which she is now responsible. Could it be that the felt like being left holing the bag? …
At least that would explain her angry outbursts. If there are any records of what she has said near the end of her life. It would be revealing. But evidence collected which proves the COURSE wrong will not change the minds (C) of those who are caught up in it. Social engineering is a science and the willingness to subject themselves to “De-Programming” has been programmed out of them. But knowing the truth about it will prevent people who are not been hocked yet from being hocked.
. The April 18 section turned out to be a long one. Essentially, up to the statement that has turned me off I have nibbled on the “bait” and when part of the hook got exposed it turned me off. You are not supposed to do that, you are supposed to swallow bait and hook together. Well, bad news for them, anyone who has followed his or her own path far “Enough(Zu)” will not be taken in by the COURSE.
. The book breaks down into three types of information: Good, bad and indifferent. What are they in practice (D)? …
The good information turned out to be the “bait”. The bad information is …
what you can identify as bad or contradictory. The indifferent information is …
the information you can’t understand. Whether it is good or bad is “UnIdentifiAble (PUptMg)”. If a book is intended to mislead people then those who have come along far enough on their own path can’t be taken in by it.
. I have only read about 100 pages of the book, and I will not read much more. My time is much better invested in the Ching and the Neiye. But I don’t want to waste the work I have done on this book already. The 100 pages are less than 10 % of the book as a whole, but the pattern which emerges from the part can give us some idea of the pattern that will emerge from the whole. What communicators (C) can do is apply what I have learned from studying 100 pages to the whole book. So what I will tell you next, can serve you as an example.
. Page 53: . . . . “RIGHT TEACHING AND RIGHT LEARNING

1. A good teacher clarifies his own ideas and strengthens [“Fixes(8b)” them] by teaching them [by “Repeating(@1)” them]. Teacher and pupil are alike in the learning process [they are equals and opposites like the poles of a polarity]….. A good teacher …. Must believe in the students to whom he offers the ideas.”
. Every time you have learned a lesson from Lao Tzu you can’t help but admire the confidence he has in your ability to figure it out. The lesson in Ching 41.1 had to wait 2500 years for McGuinty to come along to illustrate what our teacher has meant. And if you go over the same words again now then you can see that the truth was there all the time, just waiting there for us to figure it out.
. There is a lot more “Good stuff” that could be quoted But I am just giving you a few examples here.
“2. ….Your self and God’s Self ARE in opposition. They are opposed in source, in direction and in outcome.”
In the Gita, Atman can be translated either as “self” or “Self”. The “self” is the small or divided Tao while the “Self” is the “Big Tao (TAA1)”. The “source” is the initiating impulse of the triad, “direction” is the connective and “outcome” is the outcome of the three-fold process. It is important to know that the authors of the COURSE know what they are talking about. Why? …
Because, if you don’t know what they know then you can’t know what …
they don’t want us to know. What justifies me to associate “direction” with the connective? You can look up the word in the index of Volume three of the DRAMATIC UNIVERSE: “Direction, operational term of tetrad, 30”. Each one of the four terms of the tetrad is the connective in a triad. In E3-A-B, A is directional term. It diredts E3 to B.
“. … They [self and Self] are fundamentally irreconcilable, because spirit cannot perceive and the ego cannot know.” Without knowledge of Systematics this statement would have to be called incomprehensible. With knowledge of systematics you can see that this statement is false. And the authors know it because they know the E3-A-B triad, in which E3 is the “source”, A is “direction” and the “outcome” is the thought (B) which is produced on level B. How can E3 and B be “fundamentally irreconcilable” when A is the reconciling impulse between them. Connective, “direction” or the reconciling impulse in the middle, are simply different words for he same impulse.
“3. . Spirit need not be taught [like the truth, it is what it is], but the ego must be.” Good stuff. There is a lot of good stuff I have to skip, but, in order to follow up on the “TriAd(_3ad) I have to be selective.
“6. Egos can clash …. but spirit cannot clash at all.
Page 32: “Nothing and everything cannot coexist. To believe in one is to deny the other.” There are many either or statements in this book. Things are either black or white without any grey between. If we didn’t know that the authors know the triad then we would assume that they don’t know any better. But, since they do, they don’t want us to know what they know. When looking for examples of this black-white condition, I came across a lot of good stuff. But this task is getting too much for me. A communicator would be much more efficient at this work than I am. Let me finish this section with a good question: Where is the communicator (C) who is willing to work with me on this as a team? …

=========================================================

April 22, 2011
. In the last April 20 section I have corrected two errors which are in the April 18 section, but I missed two more in: “Knowing that you Don’t Know (Ping Ping) does Not feel Good (Pu Ping).” Can you see them? …
Finding and correcting them is good practice. Ping(@p is in only two chapters. ...
The quote is supposed to be from Ching 71.3. Can you see them now? …
71.3: “He Who (heho) Knows that he does Not-know (Ping Ping) ThereFore(SiYI) does Not feel Good (Pu Ping).” Skipping the first two characters is permissible. We don’t need the four dots, …., there, but skipping the “ThereFore(SiYI)” is not. Why? …
As I already pointed out with the mistake in Steiner’s PHILOSOPHY 6.1, wrong translations can cause problems that have no solutions. Therefore, “Better than average Students (_+Ün)” can waste a lot of time on such problems that is much better invested in problems that do have a solution. Can you see the other mistake? …
“Not-know(Ping)” is the equivalent of one character, not of two. These mistakes are syntactic ones and, if I had programmed myself properly then, in theory, they shouldn’t happen, but if our attention (A) is on WHAT we are saying instead of HOW we are saying it, then our shadow manages to slip these mistakes past our intellect (B). But, since these things are usually worth repeating, our shadow is actually helping us. There are other mistakes like that which I don’t bother to correct. Finding them and correcting them yourself is good “Practice(pr)”.
. At the end of the same April 20 section I have quoted the first four sentences which are on page 52 of A COURSE IN MIRACLES. And then I said: “Go over what I have said about the DIVISION OF LABOUR and try to predict what I will say about these four sentences. Good exercise. …” …
The customer (A) takes his “job-description” from A to B. That’s as far as s/he has to take it, if s/he is …
willing and able to pay a supplier (B-C-D) to do the remaining three steps. The thinkers (B) have to follow the customer from A to B. In order to supply the customer’s demand the thinkers have to know WHAT the demand is. But, in order to do get the job done, the thinkers must take the job forward another step. What is that second step? …
In the Ching and the Neiye, the first step is called “Alignment” and the second step is called the “Fixing(8b)” Both characters appear in Neiye 8:
8a: If you are “Able to Align yourself with the level above your's then you are
. . Able to be Tranquil (ab%8ab^a).” And
8b: “Only Then (Ja4R) will you be Able to do the Fixing (ab8b).”
. From this we can see that “Tranquillity(^a)” must be what you feel after you have understood something, but, if you are part of a larger system feeling good about something is not “Enough(Zu)”. What else is required of the thinkers (B)? …
They must be lucky “Enough” that somebody sets them up on a blog which enables them to put out ideas which are expressed so poorly that no publisher would published them. And now I must put these ideas out whether a communicator follows up on them and makes them more comprehensible or not.
. If a communicator (C) gets interested “Enough”, in WHAT I am saying here, to study these ideas and if as a result of his study s/he understands them, “Only Then is s/he Able to Fix (Ja4Rab8b)” these ideas on the level below his own so that the subcontractors or the computer (D) can execute these instructions. If a communicator doesn’t understand WHAT is to be communicated all of his communication skills are of no use. It is as Lao Tzu said: “WordErs Don’t Know (C2erPukn)” WHAT to say and unless they “Know that they Don’t Know (knPUkn)” they are not going to bother to find out.
. In the E3-A-B “TriAd(_3ad)” A must “direct the flow of ENERGY from E3 to E5, B (E5) must direct the flow from E4 to E6, C (E6) must direct it from E5 to E7 and D (E7) must produce the supply so that the customer (A) will pay for it.
. There is nothing to be believed (C) here there is only something to be observed (D) and understood (B). What can you do to understand that? …
You can go to the first sentence on page 52, or to Mat. 5:41 in the Bible, to see what it has to do with what I have just said. If you fully understand the first sentence then you can go to the end of the next section, below this one, to see that the other three make perfect sense.
. The DIVISION OF LABER creates Win-Win situations. Everybody, who fits into such a 4-fold system, benefits from it. The thinkers (B) benefit from the poetry (A) we get from the Gita, the Ching or the Neiye as the communicators (C) could benefit from the ideas (B) they can get from the thinkers. I wish that Lao Tzu is wrong just this once in saying that the “WordErs Don’t Know (C2erPUkn)” that they don’t know.
. It is interesting that Arjuna, the raja yogi (C), has had such a hard time to fit in. He was an excellent bhakti, jnana and karma (A-B-C) yogi but he had a hard time integrating the three. Raja yoga is also called the yoga of integration. Integral yoga is a “Fourth Way”, as Gurdjieff calls it, but it is not better than the other three as Gurdjieff’s students claim.
. It is interesting that Aristotle has called his teacher’s level C the “efficient cause” because by integrating the four yogas you achieve greater efficiency. After two building inspectors arbitrarily closed down my small rooming house, my former partner, Jim, got me a job as a programmer at Atlas Electronics here in Toronto. Since I didn’t know a working computer language he did the coding for me and I did the flowcharts for him. Without exaggeration, we were twice as fast any other two programmers in that company were. We just couldn’t hand in the finished job when it was finished because that would have made the other programmers look bad.
. You don’t have to understand the IBM computer programming system to appreciate the benefits of the DIVISION OF LABOUR. You can also observe our political master to see the benefits of the DIVISION OF LABOUR. Neither the unelected advisors (B) alone nor the politicians (C) alone could stay in power for long. They know that they need each other and that’s why they are working together as a team. Now if communicators pickup these ideas and our “Bad Political-masters (_-Ün) Hear the Truth (^dA1) then they will Greatly Ridicule It (TA*a_Z)”. Conspiracy theory: Ha ha ha. What else can they do? Admit that it is true and teach it in school? …
As long as the people can be dumbed down enough our political masters benefit greatly from our misery. Nnicodemo Catenacci, the G20 accused, said: “Something in my gut is telling me I’m treated unfairly.” Does something in your gut tell you that we’re treated unfairly? …

==================================================

April 20, 2011
. In the last section are a few errors and omissions that need our attention: “…. just believe (B)” is an obvious enough mistake which you can find and correct yourself. Sill these words need our attention. “Ching 57” should be Ching 56. “Unite Their Dust” had the identifiers missing. They are ($1_H@h). Now we come to the omissions: “They [our political masters] know that knowledge is power” and they don’t want to share it. “…. there is a lot of good stuff in that book”. Go back to the April 17 section to see how impressed I was. But then, read on in the longer April 18 section and see what I came up with there.
. The “good stuff” turns out to be “bait”. See the PROTOCOLS OF ZION about that. Even though Steiner doesn’t mention “social engineering” by name he is still talking about it in his political lectures.
. This is how the whole thing came about (Purely by chance, of course). On Wednesday April 13 I was waiting in the reception area at 426 Adelaide Street West. There is a bookshelf in that area and on it is the COURSE IN MIRACLES. I had only time to read the first three pages of the PREFACE and it caused me to decide to buy the book. I did that on Saturday August 16. What happened next you can see in the April 17, 18 and this section.
. The April 18 section begins with the quote from the April 17 section. It consists of five sentences. I decided to start with the second sentence. The question is now? …
What does the “Golden Rule” represent in the context of these five sentences? …
It so happens that the August 13 section is about the DIVISION OF LABOUR. What does, doing for others as they are doing for you, mean in this context? …
As the customer (A) tells the thinkers (B) what to do so the thinkers tell the “WordErs(C2er)” what to do. By analogy, as the thinkers tell the talkers (C) what to do so the talkers tell the doers (D) what to do.
. What I have given you here isn’t some abstract untested theory (B); it is something anyone can observe in the construction business. If the IBM computer programming system didn’t get so close to the truth then our political master wouldn’t have to make it “disappear”. If they could, they would make the construction business “disappear” as well. Because they can’t do that, it will have to do for now.
. Sociology boils down to what Plato has said about the DIVISION OF LABOUR. Of course that isn’t taught in school. not even in philosophy (B). All of this is summed up at Gita 3.42: “They say that the power of the senses [Indriyas] is great. But greater than the senses is the mind [Manas], Greater than the mind is Buddhi, reason; and greater than reason is He – the Spirit in man [the Atman] and in all. (Juan Mascaró’s translation)”.
. The Atman correspond to level A on Plato’s “Divided Line (509d)”, Buddhi correspond to level B, Manas to level C and the Indriyas correspond to level D. How do you explain the correspondences between Plato, Aristotle, the Hindus, the Buddha, the Ching, the Neiye Mr.B’s systematics and many other descriptions of the tetrad? …
By realizing that they are all talking about the same tetrad. Some in Greek, some in Sanskrit, others in Chinese, J. G. Bennett in English, Steiner in German, you name it. The parable of the Sower and the Seed is in three places in the New Testament. Why? …
. The four yogas were known in India before the caste system has emerged there. The bhaktis are on level A, the jnanis on level B, the raja yogis on level C and the karma yogis are on level D. The same goes for Plato’s four classes and types of government: Democracy (A), timocracy (B), tyranny (C) and oligarchy (D).
. There are four types of government because human society naturally divides into four levels, or classes: Religion (A), philosophy (B), politics (C) and economics (D). And the four human types correspond to them. This is not something to believe (C) but to observe (D). After you have done your observation (D) and your thinking (B), you can read (C) Plato’s Republic to see if it makes sense.
. At Ching 63 Lao Tzu teaches the inductive, or bottom up, approach to problem solving. That is HOW anyone, who is willing, can approach the Tao Te Ching. When you do, you will see that the Ching is a textbook, a study-book rather than a read-book. Only translations which the translators have reduced to the level they can understand are readable. If you are wiling to accept Lao Tzu as your teacher then he can teach you; if not then not.
. Why do I go to 426 Adelaide for treatment once a week? Google: NETWORK SPINAL ANALYSIS, or go to www.life-source.ca. There is an amazing masseuse, sharing office space at the same address. I asked her if she has seen A COURSE IN MIRACLES in the reception area? No, she didn’t see that particular book but somebody has given her that book. She started reading it and she got turned off by it. And while she was at it, she mentioned another book that has turned her off as well. It is …
THE SECRET. I told her about THE SECRET SOURCE. In it, much space is devoted to Phineas Quimbly, whose approach corresponds to NETWORK SPINAL ANALYSIS. Any healer would be interested in those correspondences. If more than one healer arrive at the same approach then that gives credibility to it. Her reaction to these two books is very encouraging. Why? …
Because it shows that anyone who has gone far “Enough(Zu)” on his or her own path can’t be tricked by raja yogis who have not followed their own path far “Enough” and which as a result has degenerated into a …
cult. Google; a course in miracles . and CIA, or “cult”. Or do what I did and follow the different leads. CIA is there. And that verifies a suspicion which arose as a result of doing the April 18 section. I have reason to believe that social engineering is used not only by the CIA, but by the authors of the COURSE. This section wuld get too long if I go into it here. So I wll keep it short starting here: As I have picked THE TEST FOR TRUTH out of the 180 subheadings of the TEXT alone, so I picked RIGT TEACHING AND RIGHT LEARNING on Pg.. 53. Why? …
. Chapter 4 has an INTRODUCTION on Pg. 52. The first sentences on that page are:
“1. . The Bible says that you should go with a brother twice as far as he asks.
It certainly does not suggest that you set him back on his journey.
Devotion to a brother cannot set you back either.
It can lead only to mutual progress.”
. Go over what I have said about the DIVISION OF LABOUR and try to predict what I will say about these four sentences. Good exercise. …

========================================================

April 18, 2011
. This section is about the quote, which is in the last section below this one. It consists of five sentences. I have decided to start with the second one. What does “the Golden Rule” represent in this context? …
It so happens that in the April 13 section I talk about The DIVISION OF LABOUR. The Hindu idea of dharma is related to that. Each of the four major yogas, summarized at Gita 13.24-25, has a specific social “duty (dharma, Gita 3.35)” attached to it. The four levels of society, and in humans, are described at Gita 3.42. These four levels correspond directly to Plato’s “Divided Line (at 509d of his Republic).” With these things understood, it is not surprising that the DIVISION OF LABOUR developed naturally in India. It is also not surprising that the Brahmins (B) would use their power to usurp political power and put themselves on top of the hierarchy. HOW could they get away with that? …
Knowledge is power. Social engineering is nothing new. We learn from the IBM computer programming system and also from the construction business that what the customer (A) does for the thinker (B) the thinker does for the “TalkEr(C2er)”. By analogy, what the thinker does for the talker (C), the talker does for the doer (D). You don’t have to read thick books to find out about that; observing HOW the system works (D) will be better than reading (C) and even thinking (B) about it. The “DIVISION OF LABOUR is best described in the Republic. After you have understood it, you can look at the other four sentences. …
“All shallow roots must be uprooted”. Why? …
Because they are “false underpinnings”. They are not the right ground for a given seed. “As these false underpinnings are given up, the equilibrium is temporarily experienced as unstable.” Why? …
“Knowing that you Don’t Know (Ping Ping) does Not feel Good (Pu Ping).” Ping has been defined at Ching 71.2 as either “Know(kn)” or “Not Know PUkn)”. From this comes the choice of HOW to translate the character. The choice is up to the translator.
“However, nothing is less stable than an upside down orientation.” The “upside down orientation” is held in place by the belief (C) that you “Know when you Don’t Know (knPUkn)”, and the belief is held in place by the fear that giving it up feels “Bad(@p)”. And it will feel bad for a while. But neither this orientation “Nor can anything that holds it upside down be conducive to increased stability.”
. The PARABLE OF THE SOWER AND THE SEED is followed by the injunction: “Who has ears to hear let him hear.” What does it mean when given after a parable? …
Read the words and just believe (B). Or? …
Consider the examples given here and think about them? …
Please notice that this short parable contains the same lesson the second shortest chapter in the Ching contains. This is why these two lessons shed light on each other. They also share another thing. Which is? …
Brevity. In the translation of the Paul Carus, D.T. Suzuki team takes 57 pages for the whole Tao Te Ching. Mind you, the text is preceded by an introduction and followed by “Commentaries” but the whole text consists of about 5000 Chinese characters.
. The same thing is true of the Neiye and the Bhagavad Gita. The translation of Juan Mascaró is 79 pages long. In contrast to that we have J.G. Bennett’s four Volumes of the DRAMATIC UNIVERSE totalling 1650 pages. Even though I have studied under him in England, there are whole sections of his volumes I have not read. “Too-many Words (TOC2)” for me. A COURSE IN MIRACLES consists of three books totalling 1239 pages. Again too much for me to read. The reader is actually advised here not to interpret, just read (C) and believe (C) it. Volumes like that are addressed to “WordErs(C2er)”, but KnowErs(kner)” are turned off by it. And not only by “Too-many Words” but the lessons given in the parables are not mentioned, other than what I have just quoted here. And they are not worked on because that requires thinking. And expecting “WordEs” to think might turn them off. “WordErs” love words (C) as “KnowErs” love ideas (B). Lao Tzu tells his students at Ching 57 that “KnowErs” and “WordErs” must “Unite Their Dust. This is Called (Siis) the Mystical Unit (Sü$1)”. Lao Tzu calls this unit mystical because it is a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. We can see HOW it works by observing the unelected advisors (B) and their elected politicians (C) who are in power here. Because they know it, they are able to use it. and that’s why they don’t want us to understand it. How could they get away with what they are doing if a critical mass knows WHAT they are doing and HOW they are doing it. They know that knowledge is power.
. In order not to leave you with the impression that the COURSE IN MIRACLES is no good, let me pick a section starting on page 296. It is a little over five pages long. Its title is: “The Test of Truth” The title means something to me. That’s why I have chosen it. As an exercise try to figure out why I have chosen this one before I even saw WHAT is on those five pages. …
. The first sentence is: “Yet the essential thing is learning that YOU DO NOT KNOW.” “Knowing that you do Not Know is Healthy (knPUkn_+)”.
.As I said before, it doesn’t matter who said it, if it is true, it is worth “Repeating(@1)”.
“…. Learning is therefore in the past, but its influence determines the present”. We “Fix(8d)” ideas (B) on level C as representations (C) and that is learning. “Learning” is paying attention to what your teacher says, and after you have learned a lesson “Repeat(@1)” it until the idea (B) has become a representation (C). Now our mind (C) can use them automatically with Automatic Energy. This learning in the past is now computation (C) in the present. The mind (C) now kicks in automatically. It will “Do it Without us Doing (WyWUWy)” it intentionally. This is efficient but dangerous if we don’t do the programming intentionally.
. Aristotle calls level C the “efficient cause”. This warning about the “mind” taking over automatically is often repeated in the COURSE but without mention of the Aristotelian tetrad or J.G. Bennett’s ENERGIES. When you know these things you will find them missing.
. The quote continues “…. the present by giving it whatever meaning it holds for you. YOUR learning gives the present no meaning at all. Nothing you have ever learned can help you understand the present”. My past learning causes me to disagree with the last two sentences. Whether my doubts are justified or not is for you to decide. And, again, your past learning will determine what your decision will be.
. I only got to page 47 and for the purpose of this section I jumped ahead to page 296, but I have not come across a passage in which the difference between your own intentional programming, and the mind-control others are doing on you, is pointed out.. Because this is an important distinction, I was and will continue to look for it.
“ …. Ask to be taught, and do not use your experience to confirm what you have learned.” I have said before that investing too much time and energy in questioning who said something is taking you away from WHAT is said. But statements like this literally force you to ask” Would Jesus really say that? …
“Ask ‘and it shall be given you; ‘seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you; (Mt. 7:7)”. The asking comes from the heart (A) or the mind (C), the seeking is done with our intellect (B) and the knocking is done with our fists (D).” I see nothing like “and do not use your experience to confirm what you have learned.” here. …
That is what the scientific process is about: The purpose of the test is to confirm a scientific hypothesis. We are consulting our “experience to confirm”, of falsify, a theory (B). This is not only the scientific approach to test a theory, it is common sense.
“…. AND I WILL NOT USE MY OWN PAST LEARNING AS A LIGHT TO GUIDE ME.” The text explains why we shouldn’t “seek” the truth, why we should rather “ask” for it. There is nothing wrong for same people to ask for tings they could do themselves but there is nothing wrong with “seeking” the truth with your intellect (B) when it is within your ability to do so. either. When all I get is this type of advise, I have no time for it, but, as you have already seen, there is a lot of good stuff in that book. Let’s read on.
“7. . You cannot be your guide to miracles, for it is you who made them necessary.” Right. If God knows what He is doing, then things are exactly what he intended them to be. If God wants us to be our own guides then that it will be right for some people; if he doesn't want others to be their own guides then it is not right for them. To tell others what is right for them is really claiming a lot because most of us don't even know what is right for ourselves. To find out what your dharma is, is a job and a half. Try it.
. There is such a thing as a natural DIVISION OF LABOUR because God has created us the way we are. He has also given us the freedom of choice. Without it, we wouldn’t be responsible for our wrong decisions. We can decide to “Actualize our Potential (A1pt)” or not. The decision is ours.
. Since we are given the freedom of choice, interfering in our lives “is impossible. But be sure that you are willing to acknowledge that it IS impossible. It is only because you think that you can run some little part, or deal with certain aspects of your life alone, that the guidance of the Holy Spirit is limited.” …
As people gain the power to interfere in other people’s lives there comes the responsibility of non-interference. Jagad Guru Shri Kripalu Mahaprabhu doesn’t speak English. Yet, getting my permission to help me was important enough for him to ask me in English: “Do you give me permission to help you?” Him speaking English to me without even opening his mouth was a miracle but he didn’t do it to show off, he did it because it was necessary. Had I shook my head, instead of nodding, he couldn’t have helped me. People who have the power to interfere in other people’s lives know that they have no right to do that without permission. In this sense it “is impossible” for them. But it is not impossible “because you think that you can run some little part …. of your life alone”. What “you think” about the freedom of choice can help you to make better decisions, as studying Steiner’s PHILOSOPHY of FREEDOM can show but what you think about it doesn’t change the fact that you have that freedom and the responsibility that comes with it. “IgNorance(PUkn)” of the facts doesn’t change them.
. Not even God can “compel His Son to turn to Him”. To turn to God, or away from Him, has to be our own decision.
. God “offers you a miracle with every one you let Him do through you.” Letting God work through you is called, contemplation.
. I had to skip a lot because this section is getting too long and because we got away from the theme of: “THE TEST FOR TRUTH”. Only at the end do we return to it.
“…. Yet see the mighty works that He will do through you, and you must be convinced you did them through Him. …. And this will be the test by which you recognize that you have understood.”
. If synchronicity happens to us in such a way that it can’t be taken as accidental then we have prove of the timeless effecting events in time. Do you have unexplainable things happening to you ? …

=====================================================

April 17, 2011
. It so happened (purely by accident, of course) that I stumbled upon the following passage on page 13 of A COURSE IN MIRACLES: “All shallow roots must be uprooted, because they are not deep enough to sustain you. The illusion that shallow roots can be deepened, and thus made to hold is one of the distortions on which the reverse of the Golden Rule rests. As these false underpinnings are given up, the equilibrium is temporarily experienced as unstable. However, nothing is less stable than an upside-down orientation. Nor can anything that holds it upside down be conducive to increased stability.”
. We can “Argue(äO)” about WHO came through the author of the COURSE or we can invest our time and energy on WHAT came through. That choice is ours. Speaking for myself, I have to say that I learned something from that quote which you will not find in the last few sections in which I have analyzed THE PARABLE OF THE SOWER AND THE SEED and Ching 71. And I did “Not-know that I did Not-know (Ping Ping)” this until I came across that passage.
. I feel eager to show off with what I can say about the quote but something tells me that it is better for all of us to give you the time to do some work on it yourself. The choice is yours now. …

December 31, 2010
. At he end of yesterday’s section I have made a mistake. In my translation of Ching 1.1,1 I said “opposite” when it should have been “Opposite(Fy)”. From such an obvious mistake you can see that I was tired out from the work I have done in that section. I even forgot to put a period or exclamation mark behind the last sentence. But it was very productive and necessary work.
. In the last volume of his DRAMATIC UNIVERSE series Mr.B has given us an update of the Dodecad on which systematics is based. As the E1 to E12 Dodecad is to systematics so the B-C-D triad is to semiotics. In terms of the Dodecad B = E5, C = E6 and D = E7. That is three down nine to go.
. In the last section I have followed Mr.B up from E12 to E3 and down from E1 to E8. At E5 we have reached “the fourth stage of the descending [deductive] series …. There are seven in all” of the deductive movement. The first four are: …
E1-E2, E2-E3, E3-E4 and E4-E5. The next three are:
E5-E6, E6-E7 and E7-E8, “seven in all”. There is a triad here, can you see it? …
Hint, the connective in a triad is a holon, It is part of E12 to E3 and of E1 to E8. …
Identify the monads the inductive and the deductive series have in common. …
E3 to E8. In that series we have four triads. I have listed them before. …
E3-A-B, A-B-C, B-C-D and C-D-E8. The first impulse in each of these triads is the initiating impulse, the next is the connective and the third represents the outcome of the process. In Astrology, the initiating impulses are the mutable signs, the connectives are the cardinal signs and outcome is passed on deductively to the next lower level by the fixed signs. At least this is HOW the DIVISION OF LABOUR is supposed to work.
. Our political masters know the system. Just Google: protocols of zion division of labour
And because they know it, they know HOW to sabotage it. But they are using it and we can learn from that. Back to the Dodecad. What are the three impulses in it? …
The E1-E2 dyad, the E3 to E8 tetrad and the E12-E11-E10-E9 tetrad.
. There is a lot more detail about this in the pages I have quoted from but I don’t want to push myself again as I did yesterday. Locking back on the work I did yesterday, I can see intellectually (B) that it was necessary but it didn’t feel (A) right. Why? …
“And do thy duty [dharma], even if it be humble, rather than another’s even if it be great. To die in one’s duty is life: to live in another’s is death. (Gita 3.35)”.
. The members of the four castes or classes “all attain perfection when they find joy in their work. Hear how a man attains perfection and finds joy in his work.”
. “A man attains perfection when his work is worship of God, from whom all things come and who is in all.”
. “Greater is thine own work, even if this be humble, than the work of another, even if this be great. When a man does the work God gives him, no sin can touch this man.”
. “And a man should not abandon his work, even if he cannot achieve it in full perfection; because in all work there may be imperfection, even as in all fire there is smoke.” Bhagavad Gita 18.45 to 48. Juan Mascaró’s translations.
. My dharma, the work I love doing, is not the kind of work I did yesterday. Mr.B did all of those details already. He gave us the inductive series and the deductive series. The intersection of these two series is the connective in the “TriAd(_3ad)” The connective is a holon. This can be seen easily in the simplified picture you can see in front of file #4 but it is not apparent by reading pages 131 and 132 of volume four. “Too-many Words (TOC2)” as Lao Tzu would say.
. All triads that have the reconciling impulse in the middle are analogous to each other. There is a summary of this in front of file #4. It can be used as a reference as the Dictionary-Concordance in front of file #5 is a reference. Without it the two-diggit identifiers, I give with my translations are meaningless. The summary in front of #4 is a triad. It can be seen that the connective in in the middle. Why? ...
Because it is a holon. It is a bit of both poles of the “DyAd(dyad)” in the “TriAd(_3ad)”. This means that it is analogous to a subject-connective-predicate sentence. But “WorErs(C2er)” love words. They clutter up sentences with subordinate phrases that you can’t see the straight forward thought the sentence is supposed to convey anymore. This doesn’t mean that the details are not important. But don’t bite off more than you can chew. Get the general idea first, then add the details to it one at a time when you are ready for it. What good is biting off more than you can chew? …
The general idea is there in front of file #4. Now the details from Mr.B’s and other books can be added to it. But not by the jnana yogis (B). The summary in front of file #4 can be taken like an algorithm. The same idea is expressed by different writers in different words. Raja yogis (C) must now use the algorithm and put it all together. They should be able to do the job, if they are …
willing to do it. Because the “WordErs Don’t Know (C2erPUkn)” it all they should “Unite($1)” with the “KnowErs who are Not good enough with Words (knerPUC2)”. As a team, B-C would form “What is Called a Mystical Unit (SiisSü$1).” Why “Mystical(Sü)”? …
Because it is a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. The unelected advisors (B) and their politicians (C) form such a whole. How else can they get away with what they are doing? …
. Let me give you a bit more systematics: In the A-B-C-D tetrad, each “source”, or part of it, is a triad in which the source is the connective. 3 X 4 = 12. That’s what we get in Astrology. This tetrad is our sphere of influence. There is a reason why we are given our freedom of choice. And, since we have that choice, we are responsible for it. If we are unable to do something then that is one thing, if we are unwilling to do it that is another thing, because now choice comes into this.
. A is the connective between E3 and B. The same is true of the A-B-C, B-C-D and the C-D-E8 triads. That’s why E3 and E8 are parts of our Feldraum, or sphere of influence. By seeing that each of the four sources, A, B, C and D, are the connective of a triad, you can see why our Feldraum is extended one level above A and one level below D. This may not make immediate sense. But with a bit more familiarity with systematics understanding will come. I have left you with something to chew on. …

=======================================================

Peter's Tao Te Ching

Introduction to a work in progress

Sections

About Me