Hello, Alphonse.

Comparably easy, useful exercise. The link is just to give you an idea. But, really, if you have connection to the internet, go to Google or Altavista or some other such place, switch onto search for images, type in "sphynx" for head and "great pyramid" for school and let the impressions fall on your centers without associations. Try to reconstruct three-dimensional view of the plane of Gizeh frome these photographs, or how it must have all looked when the casing was still there intact and the nose was not yet cut off. Some say there were more objects on the plane—or in the valley—some time ago...

Report when you are done. Is it possible to pour it in words? Have you noticed anything particular? What was it that you saw? Past, future, present? Truth, lies? What story does it tell? Of an idea, space, time, life or death? Were there any straight lines, curved lines? Problems, solutions? What was their number? Were they full of movement or static? Complicated or simple? Elegant or crude? Were they heavy, slow, or perhaps light and speedy? Were they threatening or winking? How did the angles change things? Did you notice any meaning 'encoded' therein? What was the intention of artists and builders who made it all? What is the quality of impressions? What is going on inside the observer? What does he think and feel? And what is he going to do about it? Is there such thing that you saw but are convinced that others, if they were made to do the same excercise, wouldn't?

It's quite tempting to give up my own similar notes but it will be much better not to try to.

_{"And God saw that it was good. However, it was not good that the man was alone. Thus from the rib of good quality was created, guess who. An then goodol' snake came and did her pretty good job. And then they had some goodol' work to do, some good way off the original place. Yyyes. And then they under the scorching sun, in the mountain region where the earth as if lifts her eternal, stony 'f...you' towards the skies, they made some goodol' killing... And in the night loving, sweaty, muscular embraces of their soft, caring wives awaited them..." You see, Alphonse. Better not try to, it's already too much, in fact. Would you, alfred, try to forget this example temporarily and, cleansed of everything, plunge into what was suggested by O. in his Great Travels the World Miracles Against To, or how was, it called. Good work, Alfred, that is, Alphonse. Well done. Great! I'm sure you can do better than me-- if you will only not be afraid to enfold your little potential in view of greater performances, which fear, some say, is the original meaning of sin.}

I asked (1) if something good existed and (2) if it could possibly be found. Then I realized that (3) these two questions are rather good start in themselves. I also said to myself that I have to write something on December 29th no matter what—regardless of the presence of so called inspiration.

Good. Why? Because it makes me think. Now much further than that it didn't go. Next good thing in order to set thinking free is to leave strict definitions and wondering whether thought can be represented in words and how—and so on and so forth—entirely out.

Next, this blog claims to be 'work' site. Good. Very good. This will keep thinking busy with the issue and not let it roam dissolutely in false freedom.

Not much choice does one have but to ask what does the Work say about it. Fragments say that it is very difficult question. It says that it is dependent on aim. Aim is further connected with personal motivation for coming here. Some examples are given, like being Christian, helping people, knowing the future, stopping wars, acquiring self-mastery. The latter, acquiring control over oneself, G. said, is the best formulation of an aim.

Now this is just so much quoting and no thought. Still, there's very remarkable spot in the New Model where it says that man finds what he looks for. If man looks for good he will find it because there is something good in everything. In fact, this spot is in the remarkable chapter which connects the Gospels and the 'school' idea—remarkable if one considers that the Gospels don't mention 'school', at least not as central idea, and neither does theology. Now school is state, and Holy Writ is church, school is science and the rest, and Holy Writ is religion. No, says O., Gospels are 'school' book. Now this immedietely takes Gospels out of the usual garbage and does not spare the school, doing the same with it. Remarkable, but not exactly advantage for the reader who will be probably made to begin from scratch. Necessary, though, because nobody doubts that the Gospels and the school are definitely worth to be redeemed from centuries of uselesness and abuse.

Christ is the headmaster. The year's plan is Lord's Prayer. Teachers are few and pupils are many. Holy Spirit is the good in everything. Strangely enough, the distinction is made between headmaster and his task. You can calumniate headmaster and somehow get away with it but you pay dearly if you go against the school and its mission. Let somebody say "headmaster is stinky inane retard" but don't let anybody say "what he teaches or stands for is rubbish". That would be denying the good that is there and so cut the person concerned from it. (The first slander is of course not something good but still much 'better' than the second.)

Quite apart from that high environment, this is something interesting. There is certain person but what that person says is something different from that person. It can e.g. damage that person. Now what makes Christ what he is is also what comes out of his mouth. What makes pupil pupil is his ears which can hear.

"What is this year's balance? My comrades in the school-work: this year was total failure. It is my responsibility and mainly your fault. Yes, you screwed it up, almost entirely, and next year you better find good reasons why my precious time should be wasted on you. One thing you keep in mind as workers in education, let nobody come to me whinning how that boy is lazy or how that girl lacks curiosity or how that class just wouldn't learn. Something is wrong with you yourself in such cases. The tales about how today's youth lacks natural inclination to explore and study you may go whisper to somebody else's ears, certainly not mine and those of your own learned colleagues. Precious authority that you are! Do you want to inspire them with police methods to respect you and beat the joy of learning into them with punishments or are you here to teach them fear of God and encourage them to question you and help one another? Out of my Father's school you have made bumblebee fashion commerce sewing store and money exhange office!

By the way, lest some of you should think it being top secret: the lowest preparatory pupil in this institution has by now figured out everything that was said plus thing or two in addition, subtracted on the other side those visions that only you can behold.

But now the damage's done. We have to face the fact. Tommorow you are personally invited to my office and no one will leave before clear signs will indicate that each one of you has very good understanding of the reasons behind your failure."

The head of the school is certainly not hindered in telling an unpleasant truth by fear of not appearing sufficiently generous or broad-minded before people.

The opening paragraph from Conscience:

In most casees in ordinary language, the word consciousness is used as an equivalent to the word intelligence (in the sense of the mind activity), or as an alternative for it. In reality, consciusness is a particular kind of 'awareness' in man, awareness of himself, awareness of who he is, what he feels or thinks, or where he is at the moment.

If the devils of the imagination can be converted into something good? Obviously. They are the devils that often go to and fight on the side of the barbarians after they have been thoroughly trained in military arts under imperial flag (and the reverse).

So let us start with a good question and let us employ them to answer.

--------

The question is the problem. "Ah so. I must become tough. I must cooperate, coordinate in evaluate. I must draw sword and use buckler and shoot poisonous and fiery arrows. The aim is worth it. And when I will have reached the highest possible level that is possible at this time I will have discovered that the very change that was produced has deprived me of the aim and robbed me of the last chance that was there as a promise & potential at the beginning."

Broad is the way that leads to destruction.

So the questions is: "Really, I don't seem to understand-know-be anything anymore." It's not an indifferent question, and if it is yours you know what kind of question it is.

Unsigned Devil (with a dreamiy look turned aside and upwards, recites):
Now, the answer is: everything is precisely the way it should be. A part of you that you are not conscious of, but is more conscious than 'you', and which 'absence' from your ordinary consciousness probably 'enables' your very personal existence, no, enables it for sure, for we are now in world where imagination is reality, must had made a deal in the past, no, did make a deal. A deal with the Higher Powers. This self was shown an aim, so majestic, so overwhelming, so true, so beautiful, that he wanted to pay the price for reaching it. "Okay," says the self (recites Unsigned Devil), leaning towards the horizon vaguely, "okay. Tie 'em up, those e'ents, and chain me to 'em. 't is worth it." And everything happened as the self wanted. Now this part complains but partself wanted it this way. Becuase 't is worth it (concludes Unsigned Devil).

Unsigned Devil (recites, less sleepy and even lively):
Now let us imagine people who somehow gained the higher ability to remember or partly remember what is the trouble, and the trouble is, invariably, what one cannot see, and the above background is largely unseen. Not imagine, I say, for such must surely live among us. Not that they must, but they do live.

These people, I fancy, just don't know what it means: to give up. They just NEVER give up. They are going to make it and they'll make it. Keyword: goodwill.

Whatever it is that radiates from such a human being is in fact superhuman. The mere presence of such a one ligthens your burden and inspires you with strength and hope. (I know it sounds like sentimentall Adventure of Dr. Fyornhoff Willasnovich von Strudelkiller. I don't like how 'strength and hope' sound myself but there is just no better way. The objection, though, is erased by the intention simply to put down facts rather than to sound well. And, of course, there's another category of objections not even worth responding to, for very obvious reasons visible to anybody except to those who make them.)

The problem is that there are schools which say "we'll teach you how to cook" and "we'll teach you to play trumpet" but I've never seen a school which says "we'll make you into a sun", a school of real ability.

I speak foolishly but it is your fault.

The Devil is now sufficiently joyful and animated. His eyes are sparkling with warm expression. I fancy he thinks he is St. Paul or somethin'.

Dear Mr. King,

first of all you are asked to forgive receiving another letter probably in the category which occupies the larger part of your already over-full mailbox.

On the other day, you were sitting on your Hill surveying the landscape as usual. I don't want to let pass by unnoted how your Grace on That Day involuntarily betrayed to have been gifted with a keen eye for observing singularities of Nature which by men of lesser stature are not paid any attention (sometimes almost self-willingly so, as if by reason of some secret inborn stubborness). Suddenly your skylark voice flitted through the air, and your prompt action, by its rapidity, almost stole perception of the same from all-seeing eyes of Nature. It was evident that you needed help, especially on such occasion--no sustaining hand present within nearby surrounding--great need or some threat arising--, and to be able to provide such happened to become a privilege of grateful somebody who now struggles with some difficulty, difficulty regularly met by writer great & small, namely of translating it into the substitute world of character & sign.

Afterwards, I entreated you to "lift your ass from the ground" (or the manner might have been insignificantly different than set forth here) which, I admit, was rough and was surely betraying lack of basic education and elementary culture on my part. Which now summons next move of the play to the scenes of my memory, a move that completes and elucidates the aforementioned distinction from the common mentality: lack of each and every sign of, let's say, being offended. On the contrary, my admonition seemed to only increase your joy, and you instantly obeyed, with utter absence of, perchance, sense of humility or humiliation, yes, in truth, conclusively denying even a trace of such thought every claim to exist. By this I intend to say that your Grace evidently sprang from the ground entirely of your own accord, even though with intense, radiating sense of presence. Your Grace had "heard and acted", not merely "heard and reacted", or, quite possibly, "not heard and whatever". I assure you that I seek a way but in vain, a way to describe how impossible it is for you to conceive what an absolutely astonishing impression such a show makes on a mind more or less stupefied by the routine ways and false lights of ordinary world. I don't know what happens if virtue becomes conscious of itself. I'm afraid to think of it.

I would keep you permanently ignorant of your own dignity if you ask me. I tremble when I think of the various means Miss World will use because "you are not being obedient" and of allurements & punishments which will be your share because "you are not having free initiative". I shake in despair at the thought of how these two basic methods will be used on your Grace in succesion, interchangeably, or in perverse & less perverse combination. I don't really care if the former is called by the State "socialization" and the latter by the Church "excommunication", no, it doesn't matter to me whether School calls it altogether "education" or "entertainment" or how does so-called Real Life calls it to-day.

We also shaked hands, which your Grace doesn't remember most likely. The barriers between our ranks are too great. Would our contact come to the ears of the Court it would mean, I imagine in my ignorance, first-rate scandal, perhaps even ruin to your Grace whose delicate situation is so dependent on public opinion, perhaps even prison to me on the other side. I wouldn't go into how amply this last incident confirmed what I already had assumed and in what manner if it didn't in fact surpass my assumption and my expectation. Suffice it to say that your Grace's radiant aspect seemed to behold more Heaven than the Earth, that even rusty springs (such as I imagine them uniformly incorporated inside my mattress for support) don't approximate what upright, bold countenance I can still envision when I close my eyes, don't convey bold step which, despite the gray haired crown of wisdom, was full of youthful vigor and dexterity, and was approaching the place where I was standing, forgetting myself. The hand was unlike what I ever got to know on such occasion, with fingers divergently protruding, not unlike five-pointed star. I only shake my head over it now, but then I had no time, for sincere openess must have evoked the same in my soul. Be it how it may, your Grace's hand fitted into mine as if it was made for it, defying all the laws of physics, biology, and socio-chemo-eco-microbiokinestesiologismologism.

"So long," one of us said, I don't remember who it was and probably I never will. I admit I'm too sloppy sometimes. "So long," another replied, like, it's most natural and unobtrusive thing that could happen.

There remained certain inquisitiveness, unsatisfied. What was another's business? Where will life's path take him? I'm sadly moved with it all now, but it'll pass. Because in the first place, it was strange, your Grace, indeed it was.

Oh shit. I remember now. It was you. You were first. I mean, Your Royal Grace was before me. So long.

approach

Too many things one cannot approach. Now to those which can be approached to some extent. If one wants to approach the Work, one has to do it without sophistry, without seeking intellectual definitions, without depending on words. In the sources it is spoken about how even getting quite good definitions is useless. One must get to the thing itself, to the meaning, to the idea. It is spoken of psychological thinking in this respect. One must develop a feel what in the sources is practicaly usable, what is theoretically interesting, and what only has historical value. However, our only chance is to keep the sources as they are, they are fragmented enough. No use tearing certain things out and building 'new' things on them. No, all the sources together are themselves only 'one half'. That's why they they must be seen as a whole, knowing well they are far from being complete, closed system. In other words, the only chance to get some right understanding is to preserve the context. The sources must had been connected with C influence in their time, but now, for us, they seem to be more B influence. (So far, at least one can be perfectly sure that they are not A influences.) They obviously represent very valuable influence. That goes without debate. I'm not going to argue about that. Not with myself, not with anybody. That would be real waste of energy. One just sees it or one does not, that's all. In which latter case one will think in terms of "trying to revive tradition" or display some other sign of utter misunderstanding.

THE thing that is not going to repeat itself in the same form in reccurence is the work. That's a practical definition. Further Records say, I am now trying to establish certain principles which will give us practical understanding of the idea. (of reccurence)

Now the principle is that when you get some C influence you must do something with it. If one succeeds to change something on one's personality, essence can be affected. If one wastes it one wastes it. Bye bye. (Will one get another chance? By all-merciful God, yes! But when? How? In what form? Will one recognize it? All these considerations reveal our ignorance about it. It is said that we do not know enough to form conclusions, we do not think in a practical way in sufficient measure to form conclusions even about things we theoretically could. If we can realize that this is so, we are probably not going to say "I know" but approach it and try to do something with it, to grasp it; we're not going to wait for all-merciful God, not in these matters.)

Consciousness, consciousness, consciousness. Words, words, words. Nothing of it all, to be sure. But then, FR says something interesting. There's a chance if one has established something conscious within oneself, some point in which one can trust oneself.

The good news about B influences is that they are practically limitless, one can get them. They are the way to C influence. They are the empty boats that were once left on the waters and we can get one and jump into it. In case we realize that we could drown easily, in case we realize we are in danger. In case we realize we cannot swim all the way, in case we realize we don't even know the direction in which we should swim. If we can tell boats from the water that is.

Let's approach the question of will very simply. Will is will. Everybody's got some will. Now what's the trouble? Yes, we heard so much about Real Will, resultant of desires, multiplicity of 'I's and so on. But what's the trouble here? What's the problem with will? (in the measure we may ascribe it to ourselves) The problem is that one has to know what to will. That's it.

In many cases we don't know. Yes, we can try. But it's the way to invite trouble. That's the way to invite many, many 'knowers', many many 'helpers' whose only conern is our highest good, only to find out that they don't know practically anything and that in the best of cases they don't help after all and in the worst the very intention was just a pretense. That's the way to invite much unconscious efforts and much involuntary suffering. That's not the way to go, but if you had the luck of going it you know that its fruit is sort of knowledge.

So I 'know' something. I must know, as far as possible, in which direction to move. What to will, if you want. This would be practical. This would be valuable. I know my aims, more or less, and now I have to know what to do to reach them. Or I have to know that I cannot reach them.

Moreover, conscious influence is not a folk-tale. Practically, there are people who know enough about this level of problems and who could prove to be very useful.

In addition, regarding ways to help myself in this matter there are references from the body of the works texts. There are sources themselves, POMPE, FR, for example, but right next obviously (maybe for some people not so obviously, or not right from the beginning) come the Gospels as a #1 reference of the sources. (Beyond that I begin to kick in the dark, er, wait, Tarot or what. So called classic works, Gilgamesh or what. The bodies of religions, Buddhist texts and so on. Will find out.)

And, there's more. Making these the central reference point will effectively prevent making one's own personality too important. There's a good reason why it is spoken of "the system" and so on. Note Work-attitude of virtually every exponent of this work: not my personality stands centrally but this system of ideas we are studying. As far as this blog is concerned, all the foregoing is a foundation for understanding of the subsequent posts. I claim - I'm perfectly sure of it - that without having come to the above conclusions on your own you have no chance of understanding what follows, although I have no idea yet as to what will follow. In that case you belong to "many people" of which it is spoken of in the New Model: many people get nothing from it all except entirely false ideas.

And, there's more. Making these the central reference point will effectively prevent making one's own personality too important. There's a good reason why it is spoken of "the system" and so on. Note Work-attitude of virtually every exponent of this work: not my personality stands centrally but this system of ideas we are studying. As far as this blog is concerned, all the foregoing is a foundation for understanding of the subsequent posts. I claim - I'm perfectly sure of it - that without having come to the above conclusions on your own you have no chance of understanding what follows, although I have no idea yet as to what will follow. In that case you belong to "many people" of which it is spoken of in the New Model: many people get nothing from it all except entirely false ideas.

I will be able to do something with it if I reread, digest it, keep the ideas in mind, think about them.