[I put this on Facebook first, reversing the usual procedure.]

Listening to the emotion behind people’s rhetoric, rather than the specific words, I have been trying to figure out why so many Facebook posts are so negative, so angry, so certain.
Sure, politics and ideology are often matters of strong opinion. But these days, they are reaching the point of hysteria. I have been wondering why.
Here’s a tentative conclusion: Everybody on the left and right (and even a few people at the center) shares one characteristic. They hate America.
Oh, they don’t think so. They love THEIR IDEA of the America that OUGHT TO exist. But the America that actually exists, which is shot through with flaws, they hate. And it’s a short step from hating imperfection to hating those you see as being responsible for that imperfection. Add fear of losing your imagined love permanently, and you have a recipe for just what we’re seeing.
I was going to list particulars, but perhaps it’s better for everybody to make their own lists.
An old saying has it that “the best is the enemy of the good,” DeMarco’s corollary (made up just this minute) states that an idealized image held too closely leads to hatred of reality, which is always imperfect.
And that, in turn, leads to an uncomfortable question for us all: How much am I letting my love for an idealized America turn into hatred of the America that actually exists? And what can come from hatred but more hatred?
Carl Jung said that condemnation always isolates, and only acceptance heals. Perhaps it is time we stop blaming each other for the fact that America isn’t what it should be, and start holding and spreading our vision of what it yet could be.

[I added a follow-up]

Do you hate America?
I know you don’t *think* you do, but —
Can you love America while hating its people?
Can you love its people if you only love *some* of its people?
Can you love America if you hate those Americans who hold ideas you hate?
So, do you love the *real* America — the one that exists, warts and all — or only the edited version you wish did exist?

If these posts interest you, it may be worthwhile to revisit them every so often, clicking on the Comments line, as some very interesting discussion goes on there, and I don’t think even those who have subscribed to this blog are notified when each new comment comes in.

Spoke to the Guidelines class at The Monroe Institute, as I do four times a year, and as always came home energized by contact with intelligent, sincere, hard-working people exploring the boundaries and possibilities of communication with the forms of guidance from the non-physical that are available to us all.

As I tell my story, or the little bits of it that I can fit into the time available and the motifs of the moment, I am struck by just how long my story is getting to be. I have been at this a good long while now. I didn’t think, going into it, that it would be my life’s work, but that’s what has happened.

I look at each class — every person at a different stage of development — and I think, “they’ve got it all ahead of them.” Poignant thought.
I also think, “each new class makes that many more people who can help bring about the needed changes.” Hopeful thought.
And I remember Bob Monroe and Rita Warren and so many others known and unknown who did so much to make so much possible for so many, and I say, “thanks.”
Nuff said.

Monday, August 17, 2015

[Dr. Bernie Beitman’s question: “I differ from you Dr Jung in regard to practicality. I am not a theoretician although I embrace practical theories. I think archetypes and Unus Mundus are very difficult concepts and end up meaning different things to different people. But a coincidence that yields a job or psychological change, like the scarab are what healers like me want to help people find. What am I missing with the practicality?”]

F: 6:15 a.m. Bernie’s question – “What am I missing with the practicality?” I admit, I don’t understand what his question is, here, but I assume that you do. Can you explain us to each other, as well as answer his question in a way that will be meaningful to him and help to the rest of us? If all that isn’t possible, of course it is his question, so he should come first, I assume.

CG Jung: You ask, and you wish to tell me how to answer.

F: Yes, I heard that by the time I had finished writing out the question. All right, your show.

CGJ: Let me first address Dr, Beitman, then.

Friday, August 13, 2015

F: 4 a.m. Planted or not, John Dorsey Wolf asks some interesting questions here. Shall we explore them?

TGU: Why not? Produce them in sequence and let’s see what we come up with.

[“Is there intentionality on the part of greater consciousness in the ‘callings’ we have, and is the strand composition a significant factor in designing those potential callings into our being?”]

TGU: Hard to decide whether this question shows understanding of what has come to this point, or not. It may be either a naïve question designed to elicit more, or a question demonstrating misunderstanding of the concept. We suggest that it may function as both, clearing up elementary points while simultaneously providing clues to more subtle understandings.

F: Very efficient of somebody.

Thursday, August 13, 2015

[Dr. Bernie Beitman’s questions: “Why is Dr. Jung still hanging around us 3D people when there are, I understand, many realms of conscious to be explored or is he doing this exploration simultaneously (since time is different where he is) And what role if any does he see for me around synchronicity and coincidences especially since my book is a month away from typesetting and I’ve just posted my first post on my Psychology Today blog.”]

F: 5:30 a.m. Dr. Jung? And, if not these questions, do you have different questions you would prefer to address? And / or other things to say?

CGJ: You felt my hesitation, which was not reluctance to respond, but a hesitation as to which route to take, which direction to begin to travel. Your end of the hesitation was a reluctance to undertake the same explanation you have facilitated many times already. So let me begin there, with a mild tutorial.

[Editorial note. It’s true, I was thinking, “oh no, not again!” I always hate repeating what I have done before. When this came through, I realized that Jung was helping me understand the process a little more, showing that interruptions or hesitations are not always all on one side. I get that from now on, such notes are going to be ever more common, as he and others help us learn the process. But of course I could be all wet; it may mean nothing of the sort. Time will tell.]

Wednesday, August 12, 2015

[On Monday, talking about the famous incident of the scarab and the patient, I had Dr. Jung say the scarab appeared at the door. I was thinking French door, and had a pretty clear idea of the French door opening to the lake beyond. But Dr. Bernie Beitman corrected the story, showed that in life Jung had written that the scarab came to the window (not the door) and wondered how it was that Jung didn’t correct me when I wrote door. I said I would ask.]

F: 3 p.m. Dr. Jung, Bernie wants to know why you didn’t correct me when I said – or had you say – door instead of window. I think I know, but I’m willing to be enlightened, or corrected.

CGJ: Or reinforced? This simple question could be used to elucidate the nature of communication difficulties between those in body and those not in body, and I think we will do that. The short answer to your friend’s question is, ‘because it didn’t matter,” but as usual, the short answer is likely to be misleading without context.

Tuesday, August 10, 2015

F: 4:40 a.m. I didn’t dream it – I awoke from some other dream that I don’t recall – but when I went searching for the feeling I had when I woke up yesterday, it was there. We were just at the beginning – and so we are.

Very well, if I can do this. Don Sanderson left a long comment on my blog and I said I’d address it today if possible.

One of my longer conversations, this morning — 13 journal pages instead of 9 or 10 — and the realization it led me to was SO satisfying.

Sunday, August 9, 2015

F: I awoke with the warmest feeling. I had been one of the inner circle, and I knew how lucky I was to be working for Jack [Kennedy]. We were moving into office the first day, everything was a huge mess, stuff [some leftover, some incoming] all around, in our old clothes, especially me, joking. I had to supervise the workers putting my own office in shape, but I didn’t want to leave his presence. When I did, I found three shelves of dusty volumes that had obviously never been read – Congressional Records, I thought, but they weren’t. They were some woman’s self-published diary over decades. Gradually woke up and did not lose that happy feeling, as though I was and am one of them, one of the inner circle of idealists of whom Jack Kennedy was the center. And in an odd way it still feels true. It is as if I am in touch with unsuspected parts of myself that have been functioning all along. I am connecting it to the article I read yesterday about Castaneda’s work being reproduced in a laboratory, and my work of recovering lost journal entries of my own, and watching “The Adjustment Bureau” again last night. Odd confluence.

F: 6:45 a.m. Oh. Took till now to realize, I can ask. Guys, what’s up with the dream and that feeling?

On Applying Knowledge

Other Parts of Me (OPM): “Apply, apply, apply what you know.”

Me: Well, that’s always a challenge, because I’ve learned I can’t influence others.

OPM: ”Yes you can, if they want to be influenced. You can’t change their filter. But you can relate to those whose filter is similar.”

Further input from the Group Mind (GM): The mechanism is to apply the knowledge to yourself, to your thoughts from which you form your opinion, to the intentions which are the basis for your interaction with others, to your judgement about what’s going on around you.

Do not limit your thinking on application to “doing”, as if you have to go accomplish something, or for that matter even send that knowledge on in some manner. Let it change your pattern of thought, let it change your thought foundations and assumptions, let it change you. For as it changes you, it changes us as well, and ripples through everything. Application doesn’t mean you must become a source or conveyer of knowledge to others as much as your being will naturally affect others even in ways that you don’t sense. Let the knowledge work on you and the rest will happen naturally.